As an analogy, imagine a shed in your yard that you keep locked. Law enforcement would, under almost all circumstances, require probable cause or a warrant based on probable cause in order to go onto your property and search that shed. However, if they already knew, with little doubt, that there was illegal material in that very shed, then they have the legal justification for a warrant, or a subpoena of whatever information is necessary to open the shed.
It's a funny law in this case, as you can be arrested and convicted for not letting the police into that shed in your back yard even if you have no shed in your back yard. Everyone with a back yard (hard drive) could be convicted to jail without any proof. Convenient.
I'm afraid to travel to the U.K. even with my laptop's harddrive overwritten with/dev/urandom because if they say it's an encrypted drive, how will I prove it's not?
You can always write a single text file containing something that looks like encryption keys and then when they discover that none of the keys work, you can say that they have corrupted the disk. Whatever, write a corrupt disk in the first place. I have a half-broken cd-writer that writes half broken cds all the time.
"Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc? "
It is open, documented, decentralised, future ready, extensible. Ask the companies and people shaping the future of internet (Internet2) why they have chosen it as the default IM protocol to rely on.
I believe the GP's point was that freedom does not provide that many pros for the users who might not feel compelled to swich based on that alone. Wave has it easy here, it doesn't have competition.
Wait a second. Didn't the whole story start with Microsoft releasing the driver with the violation story coming after? I mean they certainly did infringe on GPL but it seemed to me, that they decided themselves that they should release the thing before shit hits the fan. Could you cite anyone who threatened them before the release?
I am not in any way knowledgeable about the situation with the peer-reviewed journals and I'm genuinely interested, what makes it so important to have to publish there? If you just released your article/research/whatever on your website, why should it make any less of an exposure in the long term if the research is valid and the results reproducible?
First of all, anyone who has not yet seen the video of the presentation, I recommend you to do that.
I'm usually the first guy who worries about privacy when using Google's systems and I do not buy easily into new fads. However this time I think Google is on the right track.
I can easily think of tens and tens of use cases for the waves. You can aggregate news, RSS, e-mail, IM, twitter, blogs, forums and comments all into one place and not have to worry about having to open up five different clients and find tens of different sites every time you want to drop a comment. But this is not the main thing that will make Wave popular. Wave will become popular, because it is independent of Google. Every company, every ISP and even every small group of people who might not even want their waves to leave their LAN can set up their own wave server. The protocol is open. I do not know about you guys but this time I have pretty high expectations.
just like "clouds", "waves" do not reside on your computer, but rather *out there* somewhere, that you can *probably* get access to if: -the service is up and functioning properly -you have the required hardware and software -there are no connection issues between you and the server
You can set up your own wave server, just as you can with e-mail.
if your internet goes down, suddenly you've lost access to even internal communication at your office, as well as all archives and logs of past communication. Without local storage, you cannot do efficient search and retrieval of your own information.
Companies can set up their own wave servers and communications between members of the same server will never leave the network.
there are serious privacy issues as well, no doubt google will be surfin the "waves" looking for terms to market to you, but perhaps it is more shady than that even. google has agreed to censorship in foreign markets over the years, does it really make sense to let them hold onto your data in this way?
Yeah, they can - on their own server which will probably become the most popular one but you can use alternate servers to those of Google.
then again.. it's cool technology, and now that it's being open sourced, it means feasibly you can run your own "waveserver" and mitigate the issues above somewhat.
One problem with bittorrent is that it has a centralized tracker. You see what is happening to The Pirate Bay. If legal issues are of concern, I'd say that it's the bittorrent guys that should start moving onto a more decent network. And if that is to happen, we need to eliminate problems like content poisoning.
Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product.
Haha, yeah, into the Linux kernel. Seriously, if I didn't get everything wrong, the software was a driver for the Linux kernel that would make Linux run better in VMs on Windows.
As another poster mentioned, it's quite possible, that MS wanted to release it under the GPL the whole time and thus used components from another GPL project. If their driver wasn't GPL, it could not be merged into the Linux kernel and MS would get nothing out of it.
Ya rly? So if children weren't brainwashed from birth you think they would still choose religion? Or is it okay if other religious people make the choice for you?
You don't need proof to believe and that's what atheism is. Believing that god does not exist. Agnosticism has become a tainted term. A lot of people seem to understand that it is something standing half way in between believing in god and atheism. Like there's a fifty-fifty chance of god existing. Most people who consider themselves agnostics that I know are more like 99.9998% atheists and 0.0002% theists. Since too many people don't seem to understand the difference, perhaps it's just easier to round a bit and consider yourself an atheist.
Yeah, there's a possibility that god exists. It's about as probable as the existence of an orange green-spotted 225kg platypus who floats somewhere between Mars and Jupiter and eats small black holes for breakfast but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not too damn likely however.
The thing is, they'll have to move their asses before it turns "Free, convenient and worried-about-getting sued". I'm pretty sure they've missed the train a while ago.
Oh, but they'll try. They will cast their books down on our heads, scream a million epitaths of criminal, deviant, terrorists, and invent new terms to express their disgust. They'll arrest us, punish us, and wage massive campaigns of fear. But they'll never get the idea out of our heads that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to pay their tax to touch the life of another person.
You know what I'm afraid of? That in the end, they will.
I don't agree. The paintings are in the public domain. We have the technology to digitalize them. Why can't everybody enjoy good quality copies of something that is part of our culture. Why should a museum be granted monopoly? Because they want so?
Slashdot Mirror
As an analogy, imagine a shed in your yard that you keep locked. Law enforcement would, under almost all circumstances, require probable cause or a warrant based on probable cause in order to go onto your property and search that shed. However, if they already knew, with little doubt, that there was illegal material in that very shed, then they have the legal justification for a warrant, or a subpoena of whatever information is necessary to open the shed.
It's a funny law in this case, as you can be arrested and convicted for not letting the police into that shed in your back yard even if you have no shed in your back yard. Everyone with a back yard (hard drive) could be convicted to jail without any proof. Convenient.
I'm afraid to travel to the U.K. even with my laptop's harddrive overwritten with /dev/urandom because if they say it's an encrypted drive, how will I prove it's not?
You can always write a single text file containing something that looks like encryption keys and then when they discover that none of the keys work, you can say that they have corrupted the disk. Whatever, write a corrupt disk in the first place. I have a half-broken cd-writer that writes half broken cds all the time.
For now.
"Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc? "
It is open, documented, decentralised, future ready, extensible. Ask the companies and people shaping the future of internet (Internet2) why they have chosen it as the default IM protocol to rely on.
I believe the GP's point was that freedom does not provide that many pros for the users who might not feel compelled to swich based on that alone. Wave has it easy here, it doesn't have competition.
Wait a second. Didn't the whole story start with Microsoft releasing the driver with the violation story coming after? I mean they certainly did infringe on GPL but it seemed to me, that they decided themselves that they should release the thing before shit hits the fan. Could you cite anyone who threatened them before the release?
Having played the last few Ubisoft games, it seems that they have already started to implement this new anti-piracy tool.
Stealing is stealing. Piracy is piracy. Stealing is wrong.
There, fixed that for you.
I'm pretty sure they released the code under GPL before anyone threatened them with legal action, no?
I am not in any way knowledgeable about the situation with the peer-reviewed journals and I'm genuinely interested, what makes it so important to have to publish there? If you just released your article/research/whatever on your website, why should it make any less of an exposure in the long term if the research is valid and the results reproducible?
First of all, anyone who has not yet seen the video of the presentation, I recommend you to do that.
I'm usually the first guy who worries about privacy when using Google's systems and I do not buy easily into new fads. However this time I think Google is on the right track.
I can easily think of tens and tens of use cases for the waves. You can aggregate news, RSS, e-mail, IM, twitter, blogs, forums and comments all into one place and not have to worry about having to open up five different clients and find tens of different sites every time you want to drop a comment. But this is not the main thing that will make Wave popular. Wave will become popular, because it is independent of Google. Every company, every ISP and even every small group of people who might not even want their waves to leave their LAN can set up their own wave server. The protocol is open. I do not know about you guys but this time I have pretty high expectations.
just like "clouds", "waves" do not reside on your computer, but rather *out there* somewhere, that you can *probably* get access to if:
-the service is up and functioning properly
-you have the required hardware and software
-there are no connection issues between you and the server
You can set up your own wave server, just as you can with e-mail.
if your internet goes down, suddenly you've lost access to even internal communication at your office, as well as all archives and logs of past communication. Without local storage, you cannot do efficient search and retrieval of your own information.
Companies can set up their own wave servers and communications between members of the same server will never leave the network.
there are serious privacy issues as well, no doubt google will be surfin the "waves" looking for terms to market to you, but perhaps it is more shady than that even. google has agreed to censorship in foreign markets over the years, does it really make sense to let them hold onto your data in this way?
Yeah, they can - on their own server which will probably become the most popular one but you can use alternate servers to those of Google.
then again.. it's cool technology, and now that it's being open sourced, it means feasibly you can run your own "waveserver" and mitigate the issues above somewhat.
Not somewhat but pretty much equally to e-mail.
I assume you've tried signing up? You should be able to develop something however if you want to get a peek.
One problem with bittorrent is that it has a centralized tracker. You see what is happening to The Pirate Bay. If legal issues are of concern, I'd say that it's the bittorrent guys that should start moving onto a more decent network. And if that is to happen, we need to eliminate problems like content poisoning.
Judge: "What's an Internet?"
Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product.
Haha, yeah, into the Linux kernel. Seriously, if I didn't get everything wrong, the software was a driver for the Linux kernel that would make Linux run better in VMs on Windows.
As another poster mentioned, it's quite possible, that MS wanted to release it under the GPL the whole time and thus used components from another GPL project. If their driver wasn't GPL, it could not be merged into the Linux kernel and MS would get nothing out of it.
"All Pastafarians are idiots." This is legal in Canada, but illegal in Ireland.
Hahahahahaha. I can't believe you actually think that the law is meant to protect all the religions.
Religion is a choice that people make.
Ya rly? So if children weren't brainwashed from birth you think they would still choose religion? Or is it okay if other religious people make the choice for you?
No silly. You're not catholic.
You don't need proof to believe and that's what atheism is. Believing that god does not exist. Agnosticism has become a tainted term. A lot of people seem to understand that it is something standing half way in between believing in god and atheism. Like there's a fifty-fifty chance of god existing. Most people who consider themselves agnostics that I know are more like 99.9998% atheists and 0.0002% theists. Since too many people don't seem to understand the difference, perhaps it's just easier to round a bit and consider yourself an atheist.
Yeah, there's a possibility that god exists. It's about as probable as the existence of an orange green-spotted 225kg platypus who floats somewhere between Mars and Jupiter and eats small black holes for breakfast but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not too damn likely however.
The thing is, they'll have to move their asses before it turns "Free, convenient and worried-about-getting sued". I'm pretty sure they've missed the train a while ago.
Oh, but they'll try. They will cast their books down on our heads, scream a million epitaths of criminal, deviant, terrorists, and invent new terms to express their disgust. They'll arrest us, punish us, and wage massive campaigns of fear. But they'll never get the idea out of our heads that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to pay their tax to touch the life of another person.
You know what I'm afraid of? That in the end, they will.
I don't agree. The paintings are in the public domain. We have the technology to digitalize them. Why can't everybody enjoy good quality copies of something that is part of our culture. Why should a museum be granted monopoly? Because they want so?
BSD gives all the freedoms. GPL gives all the freedoms except for the freedom to take away freedom from others.
Run you radio station on I2P.
No, but I read the OP's post as a Powerthirst commercial.