I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this. In an otherwise good article, they blew it with the argument that monitors are _lower_ quality than TVs. Ah, silliness.
If there's any doubt about which is better, get a good 21" TV, a good 21" monitor, a DVD player (yes, you can use DeCCS under Linux if you want), and THEN tell me which looks better.
"And do you think they were truly doing this as an attack on the bloodthirsty businesses? Or just to show off that they have the power to take down such a large site?"
Normally, I'd say the latter. This time, I've got a gut feeling that this particular group is after something more. That's why I posted in the first place. Only time will tell, though.
"And do you think they were truly doing this as an attack on the bloodthirsty businesses? Or just to show off that they have the power to take down such a large site?"
<p>Normally, I'd say the latter. This time, I've got a gut feeling that <b>this particular group</b> is after something more. That's why I posted in the first place. Only time will tell, though.
"Sorry to be sarcastic, but honestly. History's next social revolution? All we have here is a bunch of computer users..."
and
"It's not a protest unless the participants state their opinions and goals and the public has a chance to understand why the shutdown of XYZ matters to the protesters."
Yeah, but as Red Green (OK, and a thousand others before him) said, 'first you have to get their attention.'
I said that this could be the beginning of a revolution. This isn't the revolution by itself, and in fact may be nothing.
As for the bloodthirsty marketeers, I won't deny capitalism, or even that it's a (fairly) good thing. However, we're starting to see the results of the gross abuses of capitalism, as it runs smack into the power of the Information Age(tm).
I'll be the first to admit it--I'm living well. I rent an apartment and drive a 20-year old beater, but I own my computer, have a good (and fun!) job as a sysadmin, and was drinking outrageously good wine last weekend (Yalumba Octavia, 1990 was the highlight for anyone who cares). Capitalism Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing(tm).
But that said, I'm starting to fear for my privacy more and more; and so are others. Look at the (serious) WTO protests. Listen to the cynicism growing in people. Look at the number of Americans who are starting to venerate Richard Fucking Nixon, because they don't believe that they've seen anyone less corrupt since then!!! The middle class is gradually dissappearing. I honestly and truly believe that revolution is in the air, and will start on the internet. (specifically, on the web, since that's most of the internet these days). Maybe not today, but in my life. However, I don't think it'll be a revolt against capitalism, as much as a revolt against abuse.
As for the moderators, don't worry. They've moderated me down almost exactly as much as they've moderated me up on this post.:-)
If you're refering to my use of script kiddie, it's entirely appropriate. It's a fucking DENIAL OF SERVICE! It's not brain surgery! It's not rocket science! It's a bloody, copyable, reusable, no-thought DoS that is the first refuge of the incompetent cyber-vandals. (look! Another Buzzword!)
"Do we have people maliciously jamming up freeways with their cars 'just because they can'? Because there aren't any 'safeguards' to stop their traffic?"
Nope, and I've said the same thing many a time. If we used the same defense in the real world, then we'd all have to have Fort-Knox level security for our houses. Personally, I would NOT be thanking the first person to come along and point out to my sleepy town how stupid it is that we trust each other with unlocked doors. (to borrow an analogy from Cliff Stoll once again)
But there's something about this that <i>feels</i> different. it feels like something is in the air, and if it doesn't come to a head this time, then maybe next time.
Bottom line--it doesn't feel like 'just because we can' is the underlying reason for this one.
"Or, is it the safest method that they can? Speaking for myself, I would choose the way that was less likely to get me caught."
Nah. There's not really any substantial difference in personal security between launching a DoS and, for instance, a defacement.
"Where's the statement of intent then? A protest without any aim is just similar to throwing rocks through any old window"
You're right, of course. HOWEVER, yesterday this was just a huge DoS against yahoo.com. Today it appears to be more organised. Maybe tomorrow or Friday or next week, we'll get a formal statement from (whoever). Who can say from where we sit right now that it won't happen?
Again, remember that I freely admitted I could be full of shit, this time, but someday it's going to happen for real.
I've spoken out against the brainless JDs currently known as "Script Kiddies" (known a generation ago as "vandals") on numerous occasions. I've also spoken out repeately against the bloodthirsty commercialisation of the web (and by extension, the whole 'net).
Now the vandals are attacking the bloodthirsty marketers, and using the most non-damaging method they can. More than that, they're doing it in an organised and persistent manner, from the looks of it. This is the equivalent of a blockade--a formal, organised protest. Not throwing rocks through windows so much as linking arms in front of a police line.
For the past year, I've been saying that a massive revolution was in the works (echoing my beliefs of 15 years ago, when as a high school student, I belived I'd see the next social revolution in my time).
I find myself prepared to grudgingly admire a group I've detested for a few years now. The brats and miscreants may have gotten their shit together and started to fight for something worthwhile, rather than simply for the hell of it.
I kid you not, folks. There is a slight (ever so slight) chance that last night, with the crippling of Yahoo, we witnessed the very beginning of history's next social revolution.
Of course, this could all blow over in three days, when the MPAA announces that they own Sony, as well Microsoft, Netscape/AOL, and Time-Warner. I could be entirely full of shit here.
But, the fact still stands. We _will_ see a real revolution in our day, and it will probably start right here, online.
Hold onto your hats kiddies. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
"Yes, and? That's The Linux Way, my friend! I honestly don't see what's painful or ugly about it."
Sorry, I wasn't clear. You had said that if you're not happy/comfortable with the kernel-building docs, then maybe kernel building isn't for you. My two (2!) points were:
(a) Not building a kernel wasn't an option, as I had upgraded my hardware. Doing a complete reinstall would have been the only way around it. (b) Despite some extensive Unix background, I found that kernel building (and for that matter, getting gcc installed and working--_correctly_) was fairly annoying the first time 'round. The kernel docs are pretty good, but they're definitely not kept current with the kernel releases.
Also, "If things got off the ground..." Again, I wasn't very clear. Must not have had enough coffee this morning.:-) I meant if my hypothetical full-blown, next-stage addition to the LDP involving a lot of extra work (editing, reviewing, etc.) were to go forward, I'd definitely be in there, volunteering.
Part of the difference in our viewpoints, I'm sure, is that I came to Linux from the world of commercial Unix products. The Sun documentation (to choose an example) is lovely. Check out their website to find out just how well a documentation project can be done.
Since you're addressing this to both of us, I'll answer bits of all of it.
<i>"Both these things are already done. There is a standard format for docs, and unmaintained docs are held in an "unmaintained" section."</i>
True, there is a standard format for docs, but it mostly pertains to the visual layout from what I've seen. Content, editing, and comprehensiveness appear to not be issues.
<i>"But then, in the BSD world, if someone's unhappy about something, they do something a bit more positive about it than pronouncing about what needs to be done on slashdot."</i>
Heh, this is true. It's easy to decide What Needs To Be Done, as long as we don't have to implement it.
That said, I'd quite happily be a part-time LDP editor if things got off the ground.
<i>"I found the move to 2.2 adequately documented. If you didn't, this is perhaps an indication that you're not the sort of person who should be upgrading their kernel by hand? That's one of the things distributions are for, you know."</i>
I have to agree with the other poster; building my first Linux kernel (2.2) was a moderate nightmare, and there was _no_way_around_it_! I added an ethernet card, I had to compile support into the kernel (or build a module--either way). Regardless, it was a painful and ugly process, despite the fact that I've built kernels on HPUX, AIX, Solaris, and SunOS 4.0.2 (ouch!).
One of the biggest and most valid criticisms you (regularly) receive on/. is directed to your writing style. Specifically, you write _long_ articles with _long_ (occasionally run-on) sentences containing questionable grammar. Given that you're a professional (paid!) journalist, do you feel that this affects how seriously your readers take your writing?
OK, as a long-term Unix user (and later professional admin), I've gotta say that the LDP attempts to solve one of Linux's biggest drawbacks--in a typically Linux way.
Documentation for Linux has been hard to find, spotty, uneven, frequently outdated, and inconsistent. Now, thanks to the LDP, we have easy (or easier) to find, spotty, uneven, frequently outdated, and inconsistent documentation! Joy!
Don't get me wrong here. Things are moving forward. The LDP is definitely a step in the right direction. The authors of the documentation that does exist should be highly commended for doing the work that (almost) no one else wants to do. My hat's off to them! However, online documentation for Linux is definitely weak, and fundamentally inconsistent. In fact, this is probably the biggest flaw with the Open Source philosophy--different bits (of code or of documentation) are written by different people with different abilities and different ideas about how to do things. (Not to mention a different command of the english language, given how global linux is.) The end result is that two items of documentation are different. Two conceptually similar bits of code end up being different. (Ever noticed that when building a kernel, 'make install' and 'make modules_install' behave in vastly different ways?)
The point of all of this rambling is this: The next step for the LDP (aside from making guides and how-tos take up more than 5% of the opening page) is to move from being a clearinghouse to being an editor. Just like Linus approving kernel mods in official distributions, all documentation should be initially checked for adherence to a standard format (including correctness and grammar, by the way), and then CONTINUALLY CHECKED for ongoing validity! If a doc becomes out of date, then it should be moved into an area (and category) clearly marked, "out of date HOWTOs." In fact, there could be an open call for anyone who wanted to update them. I'm picturing something like, "please contact us if you wish to update any of the following docs." If updated (and gone through the process again), then it would be put back into the 'current' list.
The bottom line is that the open source way of doing things doesn't _inherently_ have to be scattered and inconsistent, but _tends_ to that end without explicit and considerable effort to stop it from happening.
And sure it's a big project, but isn't that one of the biggest advantages of open source?
Ah, sigh. The silliness of micro/macroevolution rears its ugly head. Again.
Why do people (Behe, for instance) insist on inventing theories that have no basis in reality, and can be disproven? The answer is, as far as I can see, TO SELL MORE BOOKS! (and hence, make money)
What you say is entirely true;/. is loaded with anti-MS, Anti-Windows, Anti-Bill zealots. Anything nice written about MS is by definition a lie, etc. etc..
That said, have you looked at the poll questions and the organisation's website? What a scary bunch of anti-regulation "America First!" rah rah types. Eek!
What Jim Griffin proposes isn't a bad solution to the whole ugly mess that we're heading towards now. However, as some people point out, it'll only work if it contains EVERYTHING.
On the other hand, if a flat-fee, web-accessible, moderately comprehensive jukebox system were put into place, then maybe those of us that wanted to hear, for instance, National Health, would be willing to order (and pay for) the album. This might be supplied through the jukebox clearinghouse[1], or through more traditional channels.
[1] This unfortunately suggests the possiblilty of corruption, due to the absolute power over recorded music. Probably won't work that way.
Personally, I'm still down on Gibson. I read some of his early stuff as it was first serialised in the pulps ("Count Zero," "Mona Lisa Overdrive") and found it ponderous and trite. Maybe he's gotten better with age, but there's enough stuff out there that I KNOW I'll like that I'm hesitant to bother finding out.
Yeah, like I said, this is scary. By word of law, the judge _is_ correct on this. It's reprehensible, but legally correct. Sooner or later, the charming DMCA will be struck down, but until it is, it's law.
1) "Concerned about this risk [of lossless copying], motion picture companies, including plaintiffs, insisted upon the development of an access control and copy prevention system to inhibit the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of motion pictures before they released films in the DVD format."
Here he gets it wrong. CSS does NOT inhibit the unauthorised reproduction of motion pictures.
2) "The means now in use, Content Scramble System or CSS, is an encryption-based security and authentication system that requires the use of appropriately configured hardware such as a DVD player or a computer DVD drive to decrypt, unscramble and play back, but not copy, motion pictures on DVDs." (emphasis mine)
And here he gets this part correct. Weird.
3) "CSS has facilitated enormous growth in the use of DVDs for the distribution of copyrighted movies to consumers."
This is just silly.
4) "...an individual or group,... managed to "hack'' CSS and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies."
Once again, this is plain wrong. Calling CSS a copy protection system is incorrect.
5) A phrase that's used repeatedly in the DMCA, "...that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]"
and later on...
"even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This is scary, because it means that controlling playback (part of 'access to') is a legal right of copyright holders. Based on this, the judgement will be hard to overturn.
6) "First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions."
OK, the judge sounds like an asshole but he has a fair point. Did the defendants expect to win over the judge by explaining things to him? Did they not have real lawyers there to present real evidence? (eg. the complete list of licensed DVD players)
Finally, the biggie:
7) "They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception therefore is satisfied. This contention fails for three reasons.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies. In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply."
First of all, if we're going to court over this, let's do it right--PREPARE YOUR EVIDENCE!
The second point is hogwash. DeCSS is portable code! Of COURSE it compiles under Windows! This fact does not dilute or negate the intent (to watch movies under Linux), no matter what the Judge says.
Finally, what the hell does he think these, "technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works" are? THEY'RE COMPUTER PROGRAMS!!!
OK, back to the list...
8) "There is no evidence that any of them is engaged in encryption research, let alone good faith encryption research. It appears that DeCSS is being distributed in a manner specifically intended to facilitate copyright infringement."
Right on the first point, and wrong on the second. DeCSS does not substantially facilitate copyright infringement. Nor will it, even when DVD-RAM blanks (and burners) get to be dirt cheap. It's simply not the point of the code.
The rest seems to be longish summary sorts of stuff. Still, the judge seems to be far enough out to lunch that this will DEFINITELY go to appeals.
"If Slashdot's truly news for nerds, how come we're not celebrating Happy Even Day on the moment when the number of seconds since the epoch has all even digits, huh?"
Agreed, for the most part. On the other hand, I recommended John Varley and Asimov. I wouldn't bother recommending Harlan Ellison to a 13 year old, not because it's too complex or filled with ideas they're 'not ready for,' but because I don't think they'd _like_ it. Reading nasty or really heavy books isn't likely to be that much fun for most 13 year olds.
I had a dangerous SF habit. I was reading hundreds of pages a week. I went through Foundation (the original three) in five days. Then I got to Dune, and...
It was boring! It wasn't complex, it wasn't enthralling, it was bloody mind-numbing! I don't like Frank Herbert!
There! I said it, and I don't feel guilty about it at all.
Just don't get me started on what appear to be the/. icons, Heinlein and Piers Anthony. Bleah, bleah, bleah. Give me Vonnegut, Varley, Eddings, or some other real author instead of them anyday.
Please, PLEASE ignore any suggestions of "Dune." It may be a good SF book (although I'm not a fan), but it's long, heavy, and hard reading for a 13yo.
My first SF was a collection from Scholastic, called "STARSTREAK! Stories From Space!" Yep, complete with a cheesy picture of a rocket on the cover.
Inside were such gems as, "Does A Bee Care? (Asimov)," "Who Goes There? (the short story which got turned into the movie 'the thing')," and um...lots of others.
The first SF story I read with the knowledge that it was SF was in Asimov's SF magazine: "Press Enter:" by John Varley. Possibly the best living SF author period. (Another Varley story everyone has to read at some point in their life is "The Persistence of Vision")
Pick up copies of the pulps (Asimov, Analog, On-Spec if you're in Canada) and read 'em all. There's good, bad, and (in?)different, but there's a great variety no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this. In an otherwise good article, they blew it with the argument that monitors are _lower_ quality than TVs. Ah, silliness.
If there's any doubt about which is better, get a good 21" TV, a good 21" monitor, a DVD player (yes, you can use DeCCS under Linux if you want), and THEN tell me which looks better.
All I've got to say is...
"eBay is the AOL of e-commerce."
Their track record is an embarassment.
"And do you think they were truly doing this as an attack on the bloodthirsty businesses? Or just to show off that they have the power to take down such a large site?"
Normally, I'd say the latter. This time, I've got a gut feeling that this particular group is after something more. That's why I posted in the first place. Only time will tell, though.
"And do you think they were truly doing this as an attack on the bloodthirsty businesses? Or just to show off that they have the power to take down such a large site?"
<p>Normally, I'd say the latter. This time, I've got a gut feeling that <b>this particular group</b> is after something more. That's why I posted in the first place. Only time will tell, though.
Shit, I'm not even sure I hope for it. I'm just convinced that it's inevitable.
:-)
"Sorry to be sarcastic, but honestly. History's next social revolution? All we have here is a bunch of computer users..."
and
"It's not a protest unless the participants state their opinions and goals and the public has a chance to understand why the shutdown of XYZ matters to the protesters."
Yeah, but as Red Green (OK, and a thousand others before him) said, 'first you have to get their attention.'
I said that this could be the beginning of a revolution. This isn't the revolution by itself, and in fact may be nothing.
As for the bloodthirsty marketeers, I won't deny capitalism, or even that it's a (fairly) good thing. However, we're starting to see the results of the gross abuses of capitalism, as it runs smack into the power of the Information Age(tm).
I'll be the first to admit it--I'm living well. I rent an apartment and drive a 20-year old beater, but I own my computer, have a good (and fun!) job as a sysadmin, and was drinking outrageously good wine last weekend (Yalumba Octavia, 1990 was the highlight for anyone who cares). Capitalism Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing(tm).
But that said, I'm starting to fear for my privacy more and more; and so are others. Look at the (serious) WTO protests. Listen to the cynicism growing in people. Look at the number of Americans who are starting to venerate Richard Fucking Nixon, because they don't believe that they've seen anyone less corrupt since then!!! The middle class is gradually dissappearing. I honestly and truly believe that revolution is in the air, and will start on the internet. (specifically, on the web, since that's most of the internet these days). Maybe not today, but in my life. However, I don't think it'll be a revolt against capitalism, as much as a revolt against abuse.
As for the moderators, don't worry. They've moderated me down almost exactly as much as they've moderated me up on this post. :-)
If you're refering to my use of script kiddie, it's entirely appropriate. It's a fucking DENIAL OF SERVICE! It's not brain surgery! It's not rocket science! It's a bloody, copyable, reusable, no-thought DoS that is the first refuge of the incompetent cyber-vandals. (look! Another Buzzword!)
"Do we have people maliciously jamming up freeways with their cars 'just because they can'? Because there aren't any 'safeguards' to stop their traffic?"
Nope, and I've said the same thing many a time. If we used the same defense in the real world, then we'd all have to have Fort-Knox level security for our houses. Personally, I would NOT be thanking the first person to come along and point out to my sleepy town how stupid it is that we trust each other with unlocked doors. (to borrow an analogy from Cliff Stoll once again)
But there's something about this that <i>feels</i> different. it feels like something is in the air, and if it doesn't come to a head this time, then maybe next time.
Bottom line--it doesn't feel like 'just because we can' is the underlying reason for this one.
"Or, is it the safest method that they can? Speaking for myself, I would choose the way that was less likely to get me caught."
Nah. There's not really any substantial difference in personal security between launching a DoS and, for instance, a defacement.
"Where's the statement of intent then? A protest without any aim is just similar to throwing rocks through any old window"
You're right, of course. HOWEVER, yesterday this was just a huge DoS against yahoo.com. Today it appears to be more organised. Maybe tomorrow or Friday or next week, we'll get a formal statement from (whoever). Who can say from where we sit right now that it won't happen?
Again, remember that I freely admitted I could be full of shit, this time, but someday it's going to happen for real.
Damn!!!
I've spoken out against the brainless JDs currently known as "Script Kiddies" (known a generation ago as "vandals") on numerous occasions. I've also spoken out repeately against the bloodthirsty commercialisation of the web (and by extension, the whole 'net).
Now the vandals are attacking the bloodthirsty marketers, and using the most non-damaging method they can. More than that, they're doing it in an organised and persistent manner, from the looks of it. This is the equivalent of a blockade--a formal, organised protest. Not throwing rocks through windows so much as linking arms in front of a police line.
For the past year, I've been saying that a massive revolution was in the works (echoing my beliefs of 15 years ago, when as a high school student, I belived I'd see the next social revolution in my time).
I find myself prepared to grudgingly admire a group I've detested for a few years now. The brats and miscreants may have gotten their shit together and started to fight for something worthwhile, rather than simply for the hell of it.
I kid you not, folks. There is a slight (ever so slight) chance that last night, with the crippling of Yahoo, we witnessed the very beginning of history's next social revolution.
Of course, this could all blow over in three days, when the MPAA announces that they own Sony, as well Microsoft, Netscape/AOL, and Time-Warner. I could be entirely full of shit here.
But, the fact still stands. We _will_ see a real revolution in our day, and it will probably start right here, online.
Hold onto your hats kiddies. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
"Yes, and? That's The Linux Way, my friend! I honestly don't see what's painful or ugly about it."
:-)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. You had said that if you're not happy/comfortable with the kernel-building docs, then maybe kernel building isn't for you. My two (2!) points were:
(a) Not building a kernel wasn't an option, as I had upgraded my hardware. Doing a complete reinstall would have been the only way around it.
(b) Despite some extensive Unix background, I found that kernel building (and for that matter, getting gcc installed and working--_correctly_) was fairly annoying the first time 'round. The kernel docs are pretty good, but they're definitely not kept current with the kernel releases.
Also, "If things got off the ground..."
Again, I wasn't very clear. Must not have had enough coffee this morning.
I meant if my hypothetical full-blown, next-stage addition to the LDP involving a lot of extra work (editing, reviewing, etc.) were to go forward, I'd definitely be in there, volunteering.
Part of the difference in our viewpoints, I'm sure, is that I came to Linux from the world of commercial Unix products. The Sun documentation (to choose an example) is lovely. Check out their website to find out just how well a documentation project can be done.
Since you're addressing this to both of us, I'll answer bits of all of it.
<i>"Both these things are already done. There is a standard format for docs, and unmaintained docs are held in an "unmaintained" section."</i>
True, there is a standard format for docs, but it mostly pertains to the visual layout from what I've seen. Content, editing, and comprehensiveness appear to not be issues.
<i>"But then, in the BSD world, if someone's unhappy about something, they do something a bit more positive about it than pronouncing about what needs to be done on slashdot."</i>
Heh, this is true. It's easy to decide What Needs To Be Done, as long as we don't have to implement it.
That said, I'd quite happily be a part-time LDP editor if things got off the ground.
<i>"I found the move to 2.2 adequately documented. If you didn't, this is perhaps an indication that you're not the sort of person who should be upgrading their kernel by hand? That's one of the things distributions are for, you know."</i>
I have to agree with the other poster; building my first Linux kernel (2.2) was a moderate nightmare, and there was _no_way_around_it_! I added an ethernet card, I had to compile support into the kernel (or build a module--either way). Regardless, it was a painful and ugly process, despite the fact that I've built kernels on HPUX, AIX, Solaris, and SunOS 4.0.2 (ouch!).
One of the biggest and most valid criticisms you (regularly) receive on /. is directed to your writing style. Specifically, you write _long_ articles with _long_ (occasionally run-on) sentences containing questionable grammar. Given that you're a professional (paid!) journalist, do you feel that this affects how seriously your readers take your writing?
OK, as a long-term Unix user (and later professional admin), I've gotta say that the LDP attempts to solve one of Linux's biggest drawbacks--in a typically Linux way.
Documentation for Linux has been hard to find, spotty, uneven, frequently outdated, and inconsistent. Now, thanks to the LDP, we have easy (or easier) to find, spotty, uneven, frequently outdated, and inconsistent documentation! Joy!
Don't get me wrong here. Things are moving forward. The LDP is definitely a step in the right direction. The authors of the documentation that does exist should be highly commended for doing the work that (almost) no one else wants to do. My hat's off to them!
However, online documentation for Linux is definitely weak, and fundamentally inconsistent. In fact, this is probably the biggest flaw with the Open Source philosophy--different bits (of code or of documentation) are written by different people with different abilities and different ideas about how to do things. (Not to mention a different command of the english language, given how global linux is.) The end result is that two items of documentation are different. Two conceptually similar bits of code end up being different. (Ever noticed that when building a kernel, 'make install' and 'make modules_install' behave in vastly different ways?)
The point of all of this rambling is this: The next step for the LDP (aside from making guides and how-tos take up more than 5% of the opening page) is to move from being a clearinghouse to being an editor. Just like Linus approving kernel mods in official distributions, all documentation should be initially checked for adherence to a standard format (including correctness and grammar, by the way), and then CONTINUALLY CHECKED for ongoing validity! If a doc becomes out of date, then it should be moved into an area (and category) clearly marked, "out of date HOWTOs." In fact, there could be an open call for anyone who wanted to update them. I'm picturing something like, "please contact us if you wish to update any of the following docs." If updated (and gone through the process again), then it would be put back into the 'current' list.
The bottom line is that the open source way of doing things doesn't _inherently_ have to be scattered and inconsistent, but _tends_ to that end without explicit and considerable effort to stop it from happening.
And sure it's a big project, but isn't that one of the biggest advantages of open source?
Sorry for the length. I'll shut up now.
Ah, sigh. The silliness of micro/macroevolution rears its ugly head. Again.
Why do people (Behe, for instance) insist on inventing theories that have no basis in reality, and can be disproven? The answer is, as far as I can see, TO SELL MORE BOOKS! (and hence, make money)
What you say is entirely true; /. is loaded with anti-MS, Anti-Windows, Anti-Bill zealots. Anything nice written about MS is by definition a lie, etc. etc..
That said, have you looked at the poll questions and the organisation's website? What a scary bunch of anti-regulation "America First!" rah rah types. Eek!
What Jim Griffin proposes isn't a bad solution to the whole ugly mess that we're heading towards now. However, as some people point out, it'll only work if it contains EVERYTHING.
On the other hand, if a flat-fee, web-accessible, moderately comprehensive jukebox system were put into place, then maybe those of us that wanted to hear, for instance, National Health, would be willing to order (and pay for) the album. This might be supplied through the jukebox clearinghouse[1], or through more traditional channels.
[1] This unfortunately suggests the possiblilty of corruption, due to the absolute power over recorded music. Probably won't work that way.
Personally, I'm still down on Gibson. I read some of his early stuff as it was first serialised in the pulps ("Count Zero," "Mona Lisa Overdrive") and found it ponderous and trite. Maybe he's gotten better with age, but there's enough stuff out there that I KNOW I'll like that I'm hesitant to bother finding out.
Any recommendations for a Gibson dissenter?
Bleah. You're entirely right, except I'd replace "case" with "site."
Losers like this guy's web site make CSS seem valid. Argh.
Yeah, like I said, this is scary. By word of law, the judge _is_ correct on this. It's reprehensible, but legally correct. Sooner or later, the charming DMCA will be struck down, but until it is, it's law.
1) "Concerned about this risk [of lossless copying], motion picture companies, including plaintiffs, insisted upon the development of an access control and copy prevention system to inhibit the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of motion pictures before they released films in the DVD format."
Here he gets it wrong. CSS does NOT inhibit the unauthorised reproduction of motion pictures.
2) "The means now in use, Content Scramble System or CSS, is an encryption-based security and authentication system that requires the use of appropriately configured hardware such as a DVD player or a computer DVD drive to decrypt, unscramble and play back, but not copy, motion pictures on DVDs." (emphasis mine)
And here he gets this part correct. Weird.
3) "CSS has facilitated enormous growth in the use of DVDs for the distribution of copyrighted movies to consumers."
This is just silly.
4) "...an individual or group, ... managed to "hack'' CSS and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies."
Once again, this is plain wrong. Calling CSS a copy protection system is incorrect.
5) A phrase that's used repeatedly in the DMCA, "...that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]"
and later on...
"even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This is scary, because it means that controlling playback (part of 'access to') is a legal right of copyright holders. Based on this, the judgement will be hard to overturn.
6) "First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions."
OK, the judge sounds like an asshole but he has a fair point. Did the defendants expect to win over the judge by explaining things to him? Did they not have real lawyers there to present real evidence? (eg. the complete list of licensed DVD players)
Finally, the biggie:
7) "They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception therefore is satisfied. This contention fails for three reasons.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies. In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply."
First of all, if we're going to court over this, let's do it right--PREPARE YOUR EVIDENCE!
The second point is hogwash. DeCSS is portable code! Of COURSE it compiles under Windows! This fact does not dilute or negate the intent (to watch movies under Linux), no matter what the Judge says.
Finally, what the hell does he think these, "technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works" are? THEY'RE COMPUTER PROGRAMS!!!
OK, back to the list...
8) "There is no evidence that any of them is engaged in encryption research, let alone good faith encryption research. It appears that DeCSS is being distributed in a manner specifically intended to facilitate copyright infringement."
Right on the first point, and wrong on the second. DeCSS does not substantially facilitate copyright infringement. Nor will it, even when DVD-RAM blanks (and burners) get to be dirt cheap. It's simply not the point of the code.
The rest seems to be longish summary sorts of stuff. Still, the judge seems to be far enough out to lunch that this will DEFINITELY go to appeals.
"If Slashdot's truly news for nerds, how come we're not celebrating Happy Even Day on the moment when the number of seconds since the epoch has all even digits, huh?"
You mean to tell me that you're not?
Weird...
Agreed, for the most part. On the other hand, I recommended John Varley and Asimov. I wouldn't bother recommending Harlan Ellison to a 13 year old, not because it's too complex or filled with ideas they're 'not ready for,' but because I don't think they'd _like_ it. Reading nasty or really heavy books isn't likely to be that much fun for most 13 year olds.
OK, I can't beat around the bush anymore.
/. icons, Heinlein and Piers Anthony. Bleah, bleah, bleah. Give me Vonnegut, Varley, Eddings, or some other real author instead of them anyday.
I had a dangerous SF habit. I was reading hundreds of pages a week. I went through Foundation (the original three) in five days. Then I got to Dune, and...
It was boring! It wasn't complex, it wasn't enthralling, it was bloody mind-numbing! I don't like Frank Herbert!
There! I said it, and I don't feel guilty about it at all.
Just don't get me started on what appear to be the
Please, PLEASE ignore any suggestions of "Dune." It may be a good SF book (although I'm not a fan), but it's long, heavy, and hard reading for a 13yo.
My first SF was a collection from Scholastic, called "STARSTREAK! Stories From Space!" Yep, complete with a cheesy picture of a rocket on the cover.
Inside were such gems as, "Does A Bee Care? (Asimov)," "Who Goes There? (the short story which got turned into the movie 'the thing')," and um...lots of others.
The first SF story I read with the knowledge that it was SF was in Asimov's SF magazine: "Press Enter:" by John Varley. Possibly the best living SF author period. (Another Varley story everyone has to read at some point in their life is "The Persistence of Vision")
Pick up copies of the pulps (Asimov, Analog, On-Spec if you're in Canada) and read 'em all. There's good, bad, and (in?)different, but there's a great variety no matter what.
Oh, and of course, I, Robot.