Well on the grounds that Debian could choose to wipe out the message it is their choice, though I don't expect Debian to start too many forks with actions like that (that's not their place, they package not develop, save their packaging tools:-)
Do you know why they added the message to nslookup? The message they added explains that you can disable the message (and hell this is Debian, so unless you put the non-free stuff into your sources.list you can be sure that you can get the source ot any apps to do what you want). I presume there is a real reason why Debian made this choice. To compare this however to MS is insane, MS would simply have stripped nslookup so you could not use it (unless you installed it from elsewhere) and told everyone how great the replacement is. Debian tell you that they think you should change, but it's up to you. To your more serious comments, I like nslookup too, but I can see ways to improve it (type "next" or something to get it to select one of the eligable next nameserves along the chain to the result you require). If 90% of the planet decides they want to hack on dig, that means dig is probably the way to go, but as they are both GPL you can pick up nslookup and maintain/fork it one it is not "so hard to maintain".
Curiously if you install Debian testing/woody (the base has frozen) and try to run nslookup you will be told it is obsolete and that you should use dig. I like nslookup and understand it far better than dig so I do like they say and use the -sil option to get rid of the extra crud it spews to tell me this, but I guess there must be a reason for this so I'll have to learn how to dig properly, anyone know it?
Hmmm, are there any charges for distributing WMA? If so it won't be the hardware that will make MS the money, but the tiny split of every CD/DVD released that takes advantage of this! If there is no such charge, is there any reason to suspect (guarantee) that one will not be introduced as soon as MS decides that it has taken a hold in the market.
Well I've been to the cinema 3 times in the last 3 years. Scary Movie 2 when I was still drunk and kept drinkg on my Birthday:-) Harry Potter with my girlfriend who asked me to go months before it was released and before she knew I wouldn't/didn't go to the cinema (it was relesed about 3 days before her birthday) AND LOTR. As for DVDs, I haven't bought 1 yet (except data DVDs with PCPlus for the linux software/distros). I keep looking for a Region 0 DVD WITHOUT the DVD-Video logo (I found 1, a German Metal band but I just couldn't do it) so I can test out playing DVDs, but I will also need a Regionally Encoded one at some stage to test that too:-( So I keep looking and getting tempted (BBCs new Ocean series comes as about 4 1/2 hours on 3 DVDs Region 0 but the carry the DVD-Video logo and I'm not into Oceans:-( LOTR would get me! Star Wars IV-VI would get me (TPM you can keep). It galls me but actually existing without spending a penny of money on the MPAA/RIAA fools is hard and sometimes you give in. For LOTR I don't mind cause the Studios might make more stuff like that (i.e. not Films by Numbers) which would be a good thing! Anyway while your moderated as funny, I would give you points for insightful if I had any.
Tom adds an immense ammount to the tale, as the tale is one of balance. You have Saruman, Mithrandir, Tom, TreeBeard in the book who all stand as something apart from the affairs of the 1,3,7 and 9 rings (apart from anything else they are not from those races). Saruman of course also stands apart but his is the 1! What do they each do, when and why? Who is Tom and how/why does he have nothing to do with the outside world and what is happening? The Lord of the rings is unfortunately only a part of the story of middle-earth, that is perhaps why he was cut, but it's a shame because portrayed well he could have added a depth that will probably never be seen in the trilogy.
To further my own point in a slightly clearer way (isn't the sub-conscious mind a wonderful thing):
A University is first and foremost (IMHO) a place of learning for the benefit of it's society NOT the benefit of the indivdual students or even the student body or faculty or... The University exists to further learning for everyone from Einstein to Technicians. It is about gathering a body of knowledge (in human and archived form) and then teaching and exploring it. By teaching you distribute knowledge, and the taught can go on to create knowledge as the teachers (or other employees) hope to. It's primary purpose is to teach and create the new teachings NOT to make secrets. Any secrets deny a University access to it's fundamental desire, to teach anything and everything it can/could/should.
If a university chooses nearly any other license than the GPL (perhaps I am slightly blind to any genuine alternatives which offer similar protections?) for it's software, it offers the oportunity for a secret to come into existance which it cannot teach, and even more gallingly the teaching could be how their creation is actually used (think Kerberos)! Now if a University is to allow this to happen, it should demand compensation appropriate to the threat against it's nature. A PD or BSD license may be completly harmless to many kinds of software, but it should be up to the authors to decide how a work gets set Free if at all!
A University has a debt to society, without society there is no University. When a University creates something, it should have a duty to share the creation with society which means its students, their peers and anyone who wants to know, worldwide (and if anyone believes they would know what they know now without cross-planetary distributions of knowledge they are mad).
That's good to hear because, like you, we are working hard to innovate and offer consumers a choice of novel and resourceful products.
I hope these guys are just taking MS for a ride and have a nice strategy worked out to waste (m|b)illions of MS$ in court. The above comment certainly got me a pair of wet trousers:-)
I think it is far more benficial to allow commercial use IF the user is going to distribute any changes they make then to discourage commercial use by insisting on payment.
[quote]
The universities should have the power to control how money is made of their work[unquote].
Most certainly not. Why should they have that?
Well they should have it because they decided what to do, how to do it and paid for anything that had to be paid for from their budgets! If the Uni does not have the right to control how money is made from their work who should? You suggest that no-one should, universities should simply give away their work for anyone to use as they wish, this is insane! A simple example, MS watch all Unis, and when one of them stumbles on anything worthwhile, a modified version will appear within a MS release within (insert suitably short time period) which contains an incompatable modification (think Kerberos) which then has handed MS the entire market for the Universites research (that's what the anti-trust case should have been about in my books). Even if we didn't have an MS, any work done by the communal effort of students, lecturers, individual tax payers and corporate tax payers should be protected for the benefit of all the people who inputted into the project. Simply making a work public domain provides no protection, it simply provides a means for anyone to do whatever they want (as does BSD really). Why is protection neccessary? Because as this entire article points out the Universities want to extract money from their work and I believe they are entitled to make the money (or is/. actually turning communist? as a eurpoean who has been called a communist/socialist on this forum so much it would crack me up to suddenly see/. change it's mind and forget the capitalist ideas so engrained in the majority of its readership!)
Why? What benefit does Shareware have for anyone? What benefit is university research if the only way to use it is with their own shareware system? How does shareware benefit the people who (to varying degrees in various countries) pay for the university system? How does shareware let the actual authors (say PhD or Masters or Degree candidates) continue to use the software they developed and reap benefits from it? My idea is to ensure that everyone can see the universities research and even use it completely Freely BUT if they wish to distribute a modified version and NOT release the source to the modifications (i.e. build on the universities work for monetary gain) then they have to negotiate a deal with the university (which can say yes, no, bsd only, gpl only or $xxxxxxxxx).
Well if I was making this decision, I would state that ALL code MUST be released GPL AND then the university itself can decide if it would like to release it under any other license. Some code would be released under no other licenses (not much I would suspect) while most code would probably also be released under some other licenses such as BSD (if the uni doesn't want money) or a licensing deal to indivdual applicants where the university would charge them to give them the software under another license. If this happened ALL software developed in any university would be available for all to use provided that they redistribute any modifications they make to the original code, and each university could decide either globally or per project if they wished to try and make money from it by allowing other uses of the code. If it is release PD or BSD only than the university cannot make any money from it. Say that MS wants some code written in a Uni, but they aren't willing to take it under the GPL, then they will have to crawl up to the university and say "we would like a XXX licensed copy of the software, what can we do for you to get it?". The universities should have the power to control how money is made of their work (and to take a share if they wish) but they should also have to give as open access to the information/code as possible while not losing the right to control proprietary money making off their software. How much could TCP-IP have made by now?
Analysis: IP Packets are being lost past network "XX-XXX-nnnnnn" at hop 18. There is insufficient cached information to determine the next network hop at hop 19.
Note that the IP is in Ireland (and the VisualRoute traceroute does have a few give-aways in it for someone who knows Irish ISPs). I continued to check a few more static IPs we have (mainly from one ISP) with the results that of the 4 on the one ISP, Net World Map reported 2 correctly (Dublin, Ireland), reported 2 as unknown and the final one as in Puerto Plata Dominican Republic! VisualRoute looks slashdotted to me but so far it has failed one, looped on the next (without recognising where it was stuck in a major Irish ISP) and one found to us in terms of the network but no location.
Doesn't look too useful to me! Are people really betting (sic) their businesses on this? I think that every self respecting advocate of all the net stands for should be doing everything in their power to destroy these systems (get them down to 50% accuracy and they are useless for making decisions) before the internet collapses under the weight of litigation it could bring.
Last Christmas Eve (thanks/./search.pl) an Ask Slashdot of mine was posted which asked what we wanted to ask IBM for, seeing as though they were "offering" AIX as a plate. Not too many people came up with actual solid items we should have been looking to leverage, perhaps you have just come up with one and perhaps you are even the person to get the job rolling.
considering it takes about two hours to recompile a kernel on one of these things when I screw one up
Well then you should just compile the kernel on another machine and copy it across:-) Even if you have screwed the network access you can get a kernel across on a floppy (if you want to bring the source etc. over aswell I guess it better be a CDR(W).
Not too long ago sky came out with a new PVR system called Sky+ which they are now starting to hype (though this questions if it is released). What's interesting is that sky have left Tivo to persue this option from Pace. One of the touted advantages was that the Sky+ will record the actual broadcast stream direct to disk, but I can't help but think the real reason for the change in tack from sky is that they wish to have more control over the capabilities of their customers (i.e. no Network card streaming hacks please).
If you did become part of the panel, what would be the most important power you would seek to ensure that you could actually have any effect? Would it be control over product releases/content, marketing material, business dealings?
Sorry to roll in a second question, but what would be your aim for Microsoft? Would it be to kill it, Free it's ill-gotten gains/IP, make as much money as possible without incuring the wrath of another court, divest it of all extensions (MSNBC, Hotmail, XBox)?
Until an Asian (or European or African or South American or...) Linux Distro adds support. I have an election coming up in my country soon and I can't wait to ask the politicians about Digital Rights Management (they'll see XXX Software Limited in the doorway I'll be talking to them at so I'm sure they'll be all for it). God help the poor sods (I think I may need to print some copies of the Patent and maybe even some other references, anyone got some good links regarding monopolies and IP).
What industry? Recording, Motion Picture, Retail, Hardware or Software? And what about the artists, what industry are they part of?
You say "One would expect, that DRM.... the ability to share content with friends in a limited and fair way" in the context of improvements which DRM can offer. Well not only is the idea you propose (legal sharing) the opposite of DRM, but I cannot see how you could ever forsee DRM being able to bring an improvement to consumers as they presently have no content management which could conflict with their fair use of copyrighted material.
Is DVD a downgrade or upgrade for consumers? They get digital reproducability (i.e a DVD doesn't wear out like a VHS) but they also get to watch compression artifacts (i'd personally prefer a fuzzy picture to jagged blocks of crap). They get the option of multiple soundtracks but they lose the right to fast-forward through the trailers. Just because something is a downgrade in some ways does not mean that it will fail, if the only way to get a hard disk greater than 100Gb is to accept DRM (whereupon you can have a Tb HDD) then consumers will weigh up the pros and cons and make their choice.
We seem to be living in "Interesting Times". The events of 911 have given law-makers the impetus to have acts passed which would have been at the very least debated for a lot longer pre 911. Up until now the Internet has been an incredibly open network with minimalist intervention and legislation from individual countries governments (a few notable exceptions). It seems as if we are going to enter a new legal phase for the internet where legislators in many countries will try to enact and apply laws to take control of this wild beast. Each countries individual efforts will hamper their own citizens without overly effecting the rest of the net.
My question is how much of the above do you disagree with and why? And what body (UN, w3.org, wipo, coporation of ISPs, Microsoft) do you forsee holding the international legal legislatory responsibility for the net at large in 1/5/10/25/50 years time?
Perhaps with an Archos, if you get past the first day, you're in the clear.
Unfortunatly not if your me anyway:-( My Jukebox 6000 worked fine for nearly two months and then the Hard Disk died:-( Now I'm deciding where the money from my refund will go:-) I think I'll wait a few months for a firewire+usb(+network) 25Gb+ Hard Disk that's no bigger or heavier than the Jukebox 6000 was (that was my weight limit for sure) and preferably has a good battery life (like 24 hours of play so you can take it away for the weekend and at least one hour as a portable hdd).
Slashdot Mirror
Well on the grounds that Debian could choose to wipe out the message it is their choice, though I don't expect Debian to start too many forks with actions like that (that's not their place, they package not develop, save their packaging tools :-)
Do you know why they added the message to nslookup? The message they added explains that you can disable the message (and hell this is Debian, so unless you put the non-free stuff into your sources.list you can be sure that you can get the source ot any apps to do what you want). I presume there is a real reason why Debian made this choice. To compare this however to MS is insane, MS would simply have stripped nslookup so you could not use it (unless you installed it from elsewhere) and told everyone how great the replacement is. Debian tell you that they think you should change, but it's up to you. To your more serious comments, I like nslookup too, but I can see ways to improve it (type "next" or something to get it to select one of the eligable next nameserves along the chain to the result you require). If 90% of the planet decides they want to hack on dig, that means dig is probably the way to go, but as they are both GPL you can pick up nslookup and maintain/fork it one it is not "so hard to maintain".
Curiously if you install Debian testing/woody (the base has frozen) and try to run nslookup you will be told it is obsolete and that you should use dig. I like nslookup and understand it far better than dig so I do like they say and use the -sil option to get rid of the extra crud it spews to tell me this, but I guess there must be a reason for this so I'll have to learn how to dig properly, anyone know it?
Hmmm, are there any charges for distributing WMA? If so it won't be the hardware that will make MS the money, but the tiny split of every CD/DVD released that takes advantage of this! If there is no such charge, is there any reason to suspect (guarantee) that one will not be introduced as soon as MS decides that it has taken a hold in the market.
Well I've been to the cinema 3 times in the last 3 years. Scary Movie 2 when I was still drunk and kept drinkg on my Birthday :-) Harry Potter with my girlfriend who asked me to go months before it was released and before she knew I wouldn't/didn't go to the cinema (it was relesed about 3 days before her birthday) AND LOTR. As for DVDs, I haven't bought 1 yet (except data DVDs with PCPlus for the linux software/distros). I keep looking for a Region 0 DVD WITHOUT the DVD-Video logo (I found 1, a German Metal band but I just couldn't do it) so I can test out playing DVDs, but I will also need a Regionally Encoded one at some stage to test that too :-( So I keep looking and getting tempted (BBCs new Ocean series comes as about 4 1/2 hours on 3 DVDs Region 0 but the carry the DVD-Video logo and I'm not into Oceans :-( LOTR would get me! Star Wars IV-VI would get me (TPM you can keep). It galls me but actually existing without spending a penny of money on the MPAA/RIAA fools is hard and sometimes you give in. For LOTR I don't mind cause the Studios might make more stuff like that (i.e. not Films by Numbers) which would be a good thing! Anyway while your moderated as funny, I would give you points for insightful if I had any.
Tom adds an immense ammount to the tale, as the tale is one of balance. You have Saruman, Mithrandir, Tom, TreeBeard in the book who all stand as something apart from the affairs of the 1,3,7 and 9 rings (apart from anything else they are not from those races). Saruman of course also stands apart but his is the 1! What do they each do, when and why? Who is Tom and how/why does he have nothing to do with the outside world and what is happening? The Lord of the rings is unfortunately only a part of the story of middle-earth, that is perhaps why he was cut, but it's a shame because portrayed well he could have added a depth that will probably never be seen in the trilogy.
A University is first and foremost (IMHO) a place of learning for the benefit of it's society NOT the benefit of the indivdual students or even the student body or faculty or
If a university chooses nearly any other license than the GPL (perhaps I am slightly blind to any genuine alternatives which offer similar protections?) for it's software, it offers the oportunity for a secret to come into existance which it cannot teach, and even more gallingly the teaching could be how their creation is actually used (think Kerberos)! Now if a University is to allow this to happen, it should demand compensation appropriate to the threat against it's nature. A PD or BSD license may be completly harmless to many kinds of software, but it should be up to the authors to decide how a work gets set Free if at all!
A University has a debt to society, without society there is no University. When a University creates something, it should have a duty to share the creation with society which means its students, their peers and anyone who wants to know, worldwide (and if anyone believes they would know what they know now without cross-planetary distributions of knowledge they are mad).
I hope these guys are just taking MS for a ride and have a nice strategy worked out to waste (m|b)illions of MS$ in court. The above comment certainly got me a pair of wet trousers
I think it is far more benficial to allow commercial use IF the user is going to distribute any changes they make then to discourage commercial use by insisting on payment.
Well they should have it because they decided what to do, how to do it and paid for anything that had to be paid for from their budgets! If the Uni does not have the right to control how money is made from their work who should? You suggest that no-one should, universities should simply give away their work for anyone to use as they wish, this is insane! A simple example, MS watch all Unis, and when one of them stumbles on anything worthwhile, a modified version will appear within a MS release within (insert suitably short time period) which contains an incompatable modification (think Kerberos) which then has handed MS the entire market for the Universites research (that's what the anti-trust case should have been about in my books). Even if we didn't have an MS, any work done by the communal effort of students, lecturers, individual tax payers and corporate tax payers should be protected for the benefit of all the people who inputted into the project. Simply making a work public domain provides no protection, it simply provides a means for anyone to do whatever they want (as does BSD really). Why is protection neccessary? Because as this entire article points out the Universities want to extract money from their work and I believe they are entitled to make the money (or is
Why? What benefit does Shareware have for anyone? What benefit is university research if the only way to use it is with their own shareware system? How does shareware benefit the people who (to varying degrees in various countries) pay for the university system? How does shareware let the actual authors (say PhD or Masters or Degree candidates) continue to use the software they developed and reap benefits from it? My idea is to ensure that everyone can see the universities research and even use it completely Freely BUT if they wish to distribute a modified version and NOT release the source to the modifications (i.e. build on the universities work for monetary gain) then they have to negotiate a deal with the university (which can say yes, no, bsd only, gpl only or $xxxxxxxxx).
Well if I was making this decision, I would state that ALL code MUST be released GPL AND then the university itself can decide if it would like to release it under any other license. Some code would be released under no other licenses (not much I would suspect) while most code would probably also be released under some other licenses such as BSD (if the uni doesn't want money) or a licensing deal to indivdual applicants where the university would charge them to give them the software under another license. If this happened ALL software developed in any university would be available for all to use provided that they redistribute any modifications they make to the original code, and each university could decide either globally or per project if they wished to try and make money from it by allowing other uses of the code. If it is release PD or BSD only than the university cannot make any money from it. Say that MS wants some code written in a Uni, but they aren't willing to take it under the GPL, then they will have to crawl up to the university and say "we would like a XXX licensed copy of the software, what can we do for you to get it?". The universities should have the power to control how money is made of their work (and to take a share if they wish) but they should also have to give as open access to the information/code as possible while not losing the right to control proprietary money making off their software. How much could TCP-IP have made by now?
From: VisualRoute
Note that the IP is in Ireland (and the VisualRoute traceroute does have a few give-aways in it for someone who knows Irish ISPs). I continued to check a few more static IPs we have (mainly from one ISP) with the results that of the 4 on the one ISP, Net World Map reported 2 correctly (Dublin, Ireland), reported 2 as unknown and the final one as in Puerto Plata Dominican Republic! VisualRoute looks slashdotted to me but so far it has failed one, looped on the next (without recognising where it was stuck in a major Irish ISP) and one found to us in terms of the network but no location.
Doesn't look too useful to me! Are people really betting (sic) their businesses on this? I think that every self respecting advocate of all the net stands for should be doing everything in their power to destroy these systems (get them down to 50% accuracy and they are useless for making decisions) before the internet collapses under the weight of litigation it could bring.
Have you just violated the DMCA, are you American or do you (plan to) visit the US? Are you scared yet?
Last Christmas Eve (thanks /./search.pl) an Ask Slashdot of mine was posted which asked what we wanted to ask IBM for, seeing as though they were "offering" AIX as a plate. Not too many people came up with actual solid items we should have been looking to leverage, perhaps you have just come up with one and perhaps you are even the person to get the job rolling.
Well then you should just compile the kernel on another machine and copy it across
Not too long ago sky came out with a new PVR system called Sky+ which they are now starting to hype (though this questions if it is released). What's interesting is that sky have left Tivo to persue this option from Pace. One of the touted advantages was that the Sky+ will record the actual broadcast stream direct to disk, but I can't help but think the real reason for the change in tack from sky is that they wish to have more control over the capabilities of their customers (i.e. no Network card streaming hacks please).
If you did become part of the panel, what would be the most important power you would seek to ensure that you could actually have any effect? Would it be control over product releases/content, marketing material, business dealings?
Sorry to roll in a second question, but what would be your aim for Microsoft? Would it be to kill it, Free it's ill-gotten gains/IP, make as much money as possible without incuring the wrath of another court, divest it of all extensions (MSNBC, Hotmail, XBox)?
Until an Asian (or European or African or South American or ...) Linux Distro adds support. I have an election coming up in my country soon and I can't wait to ask the politicians about Digital Rights Management (they'll see XXX Software Limited in the doorway I'll be talking to them at so I'm sure they'll be all for it). God help the poor sods (I think I may need to print some copies of the Patent and maybe even some other references, anyone got some good links regarding monopolies and IP).
What industry? Recording, Motion Picture, Retail, Hardware or Software? And what about the artists, what industry are they part of? .... the ability to share content with friends in a limited and fair way" in the context of improvements which DRM can offer. Well not only is the idea you propose (legal sharing) the opposite of DRM, but I cannot see how you could ever forsee DRM being able to bring an improvement to consumers as they presently have no content management which could conflict with their fair use of copyrighted material.
You say "One would expect, that DRM
Is DVD a downgrade or upgrade for consumers? They get digital reproducability (i.e a DVD doesn't wear out like a VHS) but they also get to watch compression artifacts (i'd personally prefer a fuzzy picture to jagged blocks of crap). They get the option of multiple soundtracks but they lose the right to fast-forward through the trailers. Just because something is a downgrade in some ways does not mean that it will fail, if the only way to get a hard disk greater than 100Gb is to accept DRM (whereupon you can have a Tb HDD) then consumers will weigh up the pros and cons and make their choice.
We seem to be living in "Interesting Times". The events of 911 have given law-makers the impetus to have acts passed which would have been at the very least debated for a lot longer pre 911. Up until now the Internet has been an incredibly open network with minimalist intervention and legislation from individual countries governments (a few notable exceptions). It seems as if we are going to enter a new legal phase for the internet where legislators in many countries will try to enact and apply laws to take control of this wild beast. Each countries individual efforts will hamper their own citizens without overly effecting the rest of the net.
My question is how much of the above do you disagree with and why? And what body (UN, w3.org, wipo, coporation of ISPs, Microsoft) do you forsee holding the international legal legislatory responsibility for the net at large in 1/5/10/25/50 years time?
If I am reading this right and it is true, Napster is dead thanks to greed. If they had been a not for profit library they would be untouched?
Unfortunatly not if your me anyway
I reckon he built this just to study the slashdot effect :-) Come on people let him study!
George W. Bush
Tony Blair