Binary code cannot be copyrighted. Instead, it should be considered a derivative work of (C)opyrighted source code, which must be filed with the Library of Congress. This is also the only way to make sure no one violates the GPL: if they don't file their code, anyone can use their binaries.
Copyrighted binaries don't make sense, as no one wrote the binaries. If anything, binaries are owned by the creator of the compiler. People make source code, and that can be copyrighted, just like a book.
Well, there are a few ways to avoid this filtering technology.
One involves the pads about which we learned yesterday. Those pads could be everyone's ticket around broken filtering.
Or, better yet, a local proxy server using those pads. Encryption, however, really is the only way around it -- or disguising other filetypes as images.
After all, if it doesn't realize that.asdf is the new extension for JPGs, what can it do?
Censorship is inherently broken. Have a look at www.peacefire.org.
"Jun 19, 2000 - ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- When a massive star runs out of nuclear fuel something extraordinary happens in the space of a few seconds: The star's core collapses from a radius of 1,000 miles into a tight, dense ball."
Wow, all that happens here in Rochester?
Jeez. I really have to get over to the University of Rochester more often then!
Enough said. Corel WP is really the best WP out there, and it bothers me that people say, "Oh, that feature is in Word so it must only be in Word."
I can't stand it any longer. Please, go help Corel out and buy a copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 -- it's better than Word (Reveal Codes!!!) and it's cheaper. Not to mention OEMs don't force it down your throat....
First of all, I do have cable. It is a shared family connection (through a Linux masq server) and my brother does use Napster. I, however, think that is right to sample music. Even to share it, as RMS would say.
However, I think that it is shared just as I lend my CD to a friend of mine --- nonpermanently. If he likes that CD, he can buy it. If he likes only one song and doesn't want to buy it, he can form a boycott of the RIAA's horrible distribution medium. But there is no ethical justification for him to rip it and keep it.
From the trademark site on the USPTO, "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."
Whereas, Copyright (from the Library of Congress):
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Even though people who know me might think I'm quite anti-piracy, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with Napster. Thus, it should be legal.
In fact, I don't feel there's anything wrong with downloading unlicensed music; I just don't want such music replacing buying. For some people I know, that has happened, especially those with cable modems.
Copyrighted music and its downloading is a touchy issue, but I feel that it simply is "fair use" to download music to sample. However, it is both wrong and illegal to keep it on your Hard Disk (or a CD-RW, or a Zip disk) and not buy it. Sampling is okay, but piracy isn't.
Remember, the dinosaurs were dependent on lysine, so they couldn't leave the park. However, they just found some chicken in the surrounding area, and had lysine feast!
It almost seems that crypto is the only way to ensure they don't go haywire; you could have nanotech-antibodies to go around checking the MD5SUM of a characteristic of the nano robots.
It's an interesting idea, and certainly one that must be addressed.
Just like we did with Tulip (probably >50% of all PCI NICs), SB Live!, sound cards in general!
Of course, it'd be in the best interest of GM to just support the hardware out-of-the-box, but we'd need to pressure them to make sure the drivers are under the GPL.
Unless the development stalls BECAUSE it must remain free... the special case that GPL boosters always skip.
Well, because it is free (as in speech; see the GNU site), any user can modify it. Thus, development need never stall, because, since every use has the right to see the source code, and the right to modify it and incorporate it in other GPL software packages, development should never stall.
In other words, it is really owned by the community. Worst-case scenario: the company does nothing with it. Then, hackers across the globe will say, "Hey, what a cool program!" and pick it up and submit patches.
Then, everyone benefits. This is the true power of the GNU General Public License.
What about Apache, BIND, Sendmail (and Postfix, recently), and other open-source programs that are almost monopolies? It's a good thing we can't break up the Apache Group! They do have ~70% of HTTP server space, and Sendmail has ~80% of SMTP server market share, and BIND. Well, BIND has even more!
And the GNU utilities!?! Where would you be without ls, cp, rm, mv, grep, and other such programs? Probably stuck using Windows(R)!
Go read this file if you're stuck in Windows without a clue!
To be honest, I would, but someone else got them;-). That's also the beauty of open-source / free software.
As I said, I'm using it right now to post this. At M14, Mozilla would just fill up my available RAM, though it didn't crash. Now it's slick and reasonably fast. Fast enough that I haven't tried running "strip./mozilla-bin" yet.
I really must say, Mozilla has come a long way. But, if it gets killed by AOL or something, maybe I will fork it. Or, maybe I'll move some of the good code into Konqueror (assuming the license allows that). Who knows?
All I can say is that, after a quick download of the encryption supplement, I don't think I'll be using the normal Netscape for a while.
And when I meant slower, I just meant that it takes a while to load the initial browswer. However, again, open code has fixed that too: it loads in almost as little time as the normal Netscape.
By the way, I run Linux-Mandrake on an AMD K6-2 300 with 64MB of RAM. Not a specifically fast system. So, Mozilla is progressing happily along. Long live Mozilla. Remember, Lizard Rocks!, a little ditty written by me.
Country TLDs are useful. So are.com,.net, and.org -- each has a meaning.
However, what really is the purpose of.god? I mean, really, it is just a waste. Sure, getting i-am.god or *.is.god would be nice, but churches can use.org. There is no need to add to the confusion many newbies suffer when going online.
"Hey, my favorite website doesn't work!" "Did you make sure to type in.net?" "Oh. It works."
The panel itself may be a good idea, if only to restrict frivolous TLDs.
Come on, people. I hear so much Mozilla bashing it's not even funny. Mozilla may be slower than IE on Windows, and it may make my machine use nothing but swap space for an hour, but if you don't like it, fix it. That's the beauty of open-souce (i.e., free) software.
Mozilla will replace IE soon. It has almost all the features; however, it's still a developers' preview. Thus, it still has debugging code.
Someone a while ago said something about using "strip" to decrease binary size and to increase speed. I'll see what happens.
Good luck, especially to the Mozilla coders. In the meantime, help fix it, or submit bug reports. Or, use the light browser that comes with it.
It's just another choice. You can choose not to use it.
The commercial developers will make what they want, and, if it helps the free software developers, good. If it doesn't, at least their code is under the GPL, in case we want anything from it.
If it doesn't help, though, we are (as always) free to work on our own. And we are free to make KOffice and to ask Corel for their filters, just as they are free to say no.
I've noticed that I'm the only one on those pinball machines lately.
It's a shame, too. Taco has a point about tangibility. In fact, my older brother refuses to play it with me, even though it's one of the cheapest games there.
...for a secure operating system. Each time I see a product like this, I sigh. It just bothers me that some people are so obsessed with "securing their computer" that they don't realize that Windows is inherently insecure: it uses the one-user paradigm, and all programs have r/w access to all of the system.
I noticed it's supposed to find Trojan horses. That's all well and good, but, generally, most trojans aren't found as trojans until they're used against Netizens at large.
...in the Hitchiker's Guide, where Earth is really just a big computer finding the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, and later to find the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Binary code cannot be copyrighted. Instead, it should be considered a derivative work of (C)opyrighted source code, which must be filed with the Library of Congress. This is also the only way to make sure no one violates the GPL: if they don't file their code, anyone can use their binaries.
Copyrighted binaries don't make sense, as no one wrote the binaries. If anything, binaries are owned by the creator of the compiler. People make source code, and that can be copyrighted, just like a book.
forced labor!!!
I mean, uh, graduate students.
Yeah, that's what I meant to say....
(-;
Well, there are a few ways to avoid this filtering technology.
.asdf is the new extension for JPGs, what can it do?
One involves the pads about which we learned yesterday. Those pads could be everyone's ticket around broken filtering.
Or, better yet, a local proxy server using those pads. Encryption, however, really is the only way around it -- or disguising other filetypes as images.
After all, if it doesn't realize that
Censorship is inherently broken. Have a look at www.peacefire.org.
I particularly enjoyed the dateline.
"Jun 19, 2000 - ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- When a massive star runs out of nuclear fuel something extraordinary happens in the space of a few seconds: The star's core collapses from a radius of 1,000 miles into a tight, dense ball."
Wow, all that happens here in Rochester?
Jeez. I really have to get over to the University of Rochester more often then!
Enough said. Corel WP is really the best WP out there, and it bothers me that people say, "Oh, that feature is in Word so it must only be in Word."
I can't stand it any longer. Please, go help Corel out and buy a copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 -- it's better than Word (Reveal Codes!!!) and it's cheaper. Not to mention OEMs don't force it down your throat....
First of all, I do have cable. It is a shared family connection (through a Linux masq server) and my brother does use Napster. I, however, think that is right to sample music. Even to share it, as RMS would say.
However, I think that it is shared just as I lend my CD to a friend of mine --- nonpermanently. If he likes that CD, he can buy it. If he likes only one song and doesn't want to buy it, he can form a boycott of the RIAA's horrible distribution medium. But there is no ethical justification for him to rip it and keep it.
No.
From the trademark site on the USPTO, "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."
Whereas, Copyright (from the Library of Congress):
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Sorry, but no.
Even though people who know me might think I'm quite anti-piracy, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with Napster. Thus, it should be legal.
In fact, I don't feel there's anything wrong with downloading unlicensed music; I just don't want such music replacing buying. For some people I know, that has happened, especially those with cable modems.
Copyrighted music and its downloading is a touchy issue, but I feel that it simply is "fair use" to download music to sample. However, it is both wrong and illegal to keep it on your Hard Disk (or a CD-RW, or a Zip disk) and not buy it. Sampling is okay, but piracy isn't.
Thoughts, anyone?
This reminds me of Jurassic Park.
Remember, the dinosaurs were dependent on lysine, so they couldn't leave the park. However, they just found some chicken in the surrounding area, and had lysine feast!
It almost seems that crypto is the only way to ensure they don't go haywire; you could have nanotech-antibodies to go around checking the MD5SUM of a characteristic of the nano robots.
It's an interesting idea, and certainly one that must be addressed.
...the community'd have to write them!
Just like we did with Tulip (probably >50% of all PCI NICs), SB Live!, sound cards in general!
Of course, it'd be in the best interest of GM to just support the hardware out-of-the-box, but we'd need to pressure them to make sure the drivers are under the GPL.
Yay! Finally, GM is more open about having adopted Linux! Even on race cars!
Oh, wait. They meant Rotations Per Minute, not RedHat Package Manager, didn't they?
Darn. Well, it'll still be cool. I hope someday we do have a linux-powered car....
Unless the development stalls BECAUSE it must remain free... the special case that GPL boosters always skip.
Well, because it is free (as in speech; see the GNU site), any user can modify it. Thus, development need never stall, because, since every use has the right to see the source code, and the right to modify it and incorporate it in other GPL software packages, development should never stall.
In other words, it is really owned by the community. Worst-case scenario: the company does nothing with it. Then, hackers across the globe will say, "Hey, what a cool program!" and pick it up and submit patches.
Then, everyone benefits. This is the true power of the GNU General Public License.
What about Apache, BIND, Sendmail (and Postfix, recently), and other open-source programs that are almost monopolies? It's a good thing we can't break up the Apache Group! They do have ~70% of HTTP server space, and Sendmail has ~80% of SMTP server market share, and BIND. Well, BIND has even more!
And the GNU utilities!?! Where would you be without ls, cp, rm, mv, grep, and other such programs? Probably stuck using Windows(R)!
Go read this file if you're stuck in Windows without a clue!
To be honest, I would, but someone else got them ;-). That's also the beauty of open-source / free software.
./mozilla-bin" yet.
As I said, I'm using it right now to post this. At M14, Mozilla would just fill up my available RAM, though it didn't crash. Now it's slick and reasonably fast. Fast enough that I haven't tried running "strip
I really must say, Mozilla has come a long way. But, if it gets killed by AOL or something, maybe I will fork it. Or, maybe I'll move some of the good code into Konqueror (assuming the license allows that). Who knows?
All I can say is that, after a quick download of the encryption supplement, I don't think I'll be using the normal Netscape for a while.
And when I meant slower, I just meant that it takes a while to load the initial browswer. However, again, open code has fixed that too: it loads in almost as little time as the normal Netscape.
By the way, I run Linux-Mandrake on an AMD K6-2 300 with 64MB of RAM. Not a specifically fast system. So, Mozilla is progressing happily along. Long live Mozilla. Remember, Lizard Rocks!, a little ditty written by me.
Country TLDs are useful. So are .com, .net, and .org -- each has a meaning.
.god? I mean, really, it is just a waste. Sure, getting i-am.god or *.is.god would be nice, but churches can use .org. There is no need to add to the confusion many newbies suffer when going online.
.net?"
However, what really is the purpose of
"Hey, my favorite website doesn't work!"
"Did you make sure to type in
"Oh. It works."
The panel itself may be a good idea, if only to restrict frivolous TLDs.
Come on, people. I hear so much Mozilla bashing it's not even funny. Mozilla may be slower than IE on Windows, and it may make my machine use nothing but swap space for an hour, but if you don't like it, fix it. That's the beauty of open-souce (i.e., free) software.
Mozilla will replace IE soon. It has almost all the features; however, it's still a developers' preview. Thus, it still has debugging code.
Someone a while ago said something about using "strip" to decrease binary size and to increase speed. I'll see what happens.
Good luck, especially to the Mozilla coders. In the meantime, help fix it, or submit bug reports. Or, use the light browser that comes with it.
It's just another choice. You can choose not to use it.
The commercial developers will make what they want, and, if it helps the free software developers, good. If it doesn't, at least their code is under the GPL, in case we want anything from it.
If it doesn't help, though, we are (as always) free to work on our own. And we are free to make KOffice and to ask Corel for their filters, just as they are free to say no.
Therefore, Microsoft products don't belong in ***FREE*** (!) BSD. Hmm...
(I mean Free as in Speech, that is)
(-;
I've noticed that I'm the only one on those pinball machines lately.
:-(
It's a shame, too. Taco has a point about tangibility. In fact, my older brother refuses to play it with me, even though it's one of the cheapest games there.
Even computerized pinball is dying.
...for a secure operating system. Each time I see a product like this, I sigh. It just bothers me that some people are so obsessed with "securing their computer" that they don't realize that Windows is inherently insecure: it uses the one-user paradigm, and all programs have r/w access to all of the system.
I noticed it's supposed to find Trojan horses. That's all well and good, but, generally, most trojans aren't found as trojans until they're used against Netizens at large.
Arrgh. Why can't everyone use Linux/BSD/Be/*nix?
...in the Hitchiker's Guide, where Earth is really just a big computer finding the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, and later to find the question.
Who needs silicon for chips when we can use mice?
Hmm...
This gives a whole new meaning to "bugs in the hardware" --- it'll be bugs making the hardware!
Hey, that's where I live!
Uh, do you have any details about stuff like location, perhaps?
This could be really interesting. Thanks so much!
Shouldn't this kind of article have evidence?
And where's the peer review? Anyone can upload a text file to a web server.
Oh, fine, an FTP server, but still. You get what I mean.
I just don't see what makes this credible.