On any given installation of Windows, there are going to be multiple processes reporting back to various organizations about your usage habits - it's simply a result of the insecure nature of the operating system that no installation can escape unscathed. That said, a program that is installed with my permission to return non-user-specific information in exchange for a four hundred dollar piece of software is quite the anomaly. However, do you think the alternative to this is for them not to collect the information? No, it would be to simply put it in unannounced during a Windows update and put it in the Terms of Use that you don't read and that they can change without notifying you. If maybe this isn't quite doing the Right Thing(TM), it's certainly much much better than the alternatives.
The problem is that the government workers don't have the proper technical expertise. Security is only as strong as the weakest link, and even with Windows on the laptops the operating system is usually not the issue, the stupidity of people are. All OpenBSD would do is add another layer of security that the user would disable in order to save five seconds and the trouble of remembering a password. Secondly, OpenBSD's security is mostly directed at remote attacks, as the developers realize that there's no way to secure a computer in the hands of somebody else.
Vorbis is lisenced in the public domain http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#flic. Nokia could just staple on whatever DRM they want and wouldn't have to share it with anyone. Granted, it would mean they'd have a format that no phone but theirs would be able to play, but on the other hand, when has that ever stopped anyone?
What reason would any manufacturer have to make it have a specified mount (if I correctly understand the problem)? I think it's fair to say that you can assume the operating system is capable of handling disks at this point. It's extra code to write and it breaks compatibility... gr...
instead of http://facebook/ use https://facebook./ They don't advertise it, but there it is. It doesn't protect anything but your password, however. After sign in you're off of SSL.
ISPs try to do the same thing with spam, and spam still arrives in my inbox. It seems logical then that the best way to get around ANY filter is to change the name to one with genitalia spelled in leetspeak. On an unrelated note, my download of TransP3N1Sformers[2006]DvDrip[Eng] - aXXo is almost done.
"Instead of adding features to the Gold experience, however, they're "enhancing" Gold subscriptions by continuing a practice started last summer of stripping Silver members of features and making them Gold-only.""
Making the standard package worse and then charging more for the same content in premium, where does this sound familiar... oh right. Viva la Xbox live network neutrality!
http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/
The good tin-foil hat stuff doesn't happen until the end. Whether it's true or not, the point is the same: anything you do on the internet will be known. The money and political pressure acting against your privacy will win every time.
Yes. But it seems obvious that Dell, HP and all the other major players would have different arrangements directly with Microsoft for volume licensing rather than having a stock contract, much like other large companies do for large-scale commercial use. They might be willing to agree to more restrictive terms in exchange for a price cut.
I'll try to say this as pleasantly as possible to avoid the ravenous mods, but unfortunately it's still going to be along trollish lines: I don't think anyone really knows what exactly the license OEMs obtain Windows is under (trade secret), and it wouldn't be suprising if it were one of the conditions not to install Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc. A full version of Office costs more than Windows XP, and I'm sure that Microsoft would prefer their users use IE.
Actually, nevermind, there's no use in trying to protect the usage rights of the providers, since they'll simply modify the code under AGPLv3 so that it's useless without the underlying code that they're not required to release. AGPLv3 for all, then.
Ah!!! This hurts my head worse than constitutional law...
My problem is that the clause is too broad. I'll quote it here to point out what I mean:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph."
It covers anything that the user has any contact with on the server. I don't have a problem with the producers using a tweaked kernel version to support the server that it's running on or them adding a module to mySQL to support whatever they're doing without necessarily being forced to give that away for their competitors. As for the objects that the user directly interfaces with, yes, I think you are correct on that account.
I suppose therefore that the license has it's place as long as it's chosen carefully - I know the kernel won't be leaving GPLv2 , but there's lots of system level software that would take away from the freedom of the producer to use it as they wished if they were forced to give it away. I suppose that the compatibility clause in GPLv3 is the best middle ground for code that doesn't need the protection of AGPLv3, as I would think most user-oriented applications would. COngratulations, you've converted me.
I think he has a bit of a skewed view of public defenders, and places a lot of the blame at their feet that should more properly go at the feet of the state. I've known several personally, and the basic pattern of their job is as follows:
1. Assigned to case. Overwhelming evidence against them.
2. Try to convince their client to take a plea bargain so they don't wind up in jail for 40 years. Fail.
3. Rack their brains for some preposterous theory that can get their client off the hook. Loose.
The problem isn't the public defenders, the problem is the state isn't moderating to find the truth, they're prosecuting. All evidence is gathered with conviction in mind. One of the public defender's I've dealt with had a case where a great deal of evidence (namely, witnesses directly contradicting the prosecution's account of events) wasn't even mentioned to him until after the trial. The prosecution and evidence gatherers are the same department, and they have and use the ability to just discount evidence they don't feel is credible, which tends to be the evidence that pokes the most holes in their stories.
I've been against this clause ever since I heard GPLv3 was adding compatibility. One of the important parts of the GPL is that it allows private development if the changes weren't distributed - this is an important thing, as there's no user to protect if it's made for self consumption. The four freedoms that RMS always speak of aren't threatened by this, as the user is the same as the writer - there's no oppression that needs to be stopped here. The addition is a corruption of the GPL, changing it's purpose from one of freedom for all users to the coercive obtainment of the source code at any cost.
Is this really practical for most people? I mean, don't all of these VMs require a license? I can't see how most shops are going to be able to support the cost of three different versions of Windows for every computer to maintain basic functionality. This may be one job that Wine can actually pull off, if I understood you correctly the problem is that some of the software relies on obsolete versions of Windows. I'm under the impression that its support of old versions of Windows is almost totally functional, one might be able to save the expense of at least one of the older licenses by running that OS's incompatible software in Wine.
Ha. The hospital thing is too true. They were checking out my abdomen for appendicitis with ultrasound and the computer the device was hooked up to kept playing the happy little windows shutdown noise over and over and over, and no one knew how to make it stop. Not exactly comforting...
I don't think you can parallelize compilation of a single program. While being able to use the GPU for a stage one Gentoo install would save a lot of time, it won't really help with compiling OpenOffice.org or any other similar enormous piece of software, which are the enormous timesinks that come with that distribution. If you planned it right and did all your compiling at once you might be able to save a little bit of time by compiling one of those big programs on one of the GPU processors while you comile a series of other large programs on your processor, but the gains will be slight.
"In my area it's Comcast and Qwest. Qwests prices are significantly higher than Comcast."
That's because Qwest is considerably better. I'm a Qwest subscriber (well, it's a tiny little regional ISP that's located entirely within Qwest infrastructure, so I think it counts) I can tell on all my torrents the difference - I certainly don't have the fastest internet connection in the world, but the pattern is certainly interesting: within the first minute the download speeds rocket up to saturation and then divebomb as all my connections are cut (I verified this in Firestarter), while upload speeds stay steadily high. I am going to make a conjecture here, but since upload bandwidth is by far the more precious commodity due to to way the internet infrastructure is constructed, it's justified: qwest doesn't throttle as much as other internet providers, and at the very least it doesn't break connections. Now, you may pay more for this, but it's not suprising, considering that you're actually using the bandwidth.
Also, Qwest is the only ISP that gave the finger to the NSA during the illegal wiretapping [that we know about]. Which, by the way, is the best reason to oppose retroactive immunity - there are good companies that suffered to follow the law.
Yeah, at a certain point you run up against the uncertaintly principle, but I don't think that is supposed to be anything near an issue until the later half of this century. The first limit that processors are going to hit is frequency - an electron can only move three feet during a cycle on a three gigahertz processor. While that's plenty, there are going to be problems to be resolved whenever data can't be transferred from memory in the space of a single cycle. This is unrelated to the relative speed of the memory, as I'm talking about the speed of the wires rather than the latency of various components.
How long is it before movies start being watermarked in a way to send up blatant and non-ambiguous flags? I feel like that would be the best situation for both parties, putting aside the issue of whether or not AT&T has any right to filter content based on whether some program thinks it's copyrighted.. The watermarking would be to ensure a constant and distinctive signature for the film in any format rather than the current privacy invading nonsense of being able to trace copies back to individuals. The hit rate in various formats would improve and the false positive rate would go down, because the film would be encoded to produce a similar signature in all formats and because that signature could be chosen to be something truly statistically insignificant (messing with various brightnesses of pure black for instance - all would appear the same but have different digital signatures, creating something truly distinctive). Of course, such systems would be circumvented eventually by those with know-how, and it's useless against encryption...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but was that pirated disk full of beer or speech? That tends to make all the difference.
This whole "QT" thing bewilders me. I don't know whether to mindlessly flame Apple or KDE...
On any given installation of Windows, there are going to be multiple processes reporting back to various organizations about your usage habits - it's simply a result of the insecure nature of the operating system that no installation can escape unscathed. That said, a program that is installed with my permission to return non-user-specific information in exchange for a four hundred dollar piece of software is quite the anomaly. However, do you think the alternative to this is for them not to collect the information? No, it would be to simply put it in unannounced during a Windows update and put it in the Terms of Use that you don't read and that they can change without notifying you. If maybe this isn't quite doing the Right Thing(TM), it's certainly much much better than the alternatives.
The problem is that the government workers don't have the proper technical expertise. Security is only as strong as the weakest link, and even with Windows on the laptops the operating system is usually not the issue, the stupidity of people are. All OpenBSD would do is add another layer of security that the user would disable in order to save five seconds and the trouble of remembering a password. Secondly, OpenBSD's security is mostly directed at remote attacks, as the developers realize that there's no way to secure a computer in the hands of somebody else.
The irony is that some actually do kill kittens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy
Vorbis is lisenced in the public domain http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#flic. Nokia could just staple on whatever DRM they want and wouldn't have to share it with anyone. Granted, it would mean they'd have a format that no phone but theirs would be able to play, but on the other hand, when has that ever stopped anyone?
What reason would any manufacturer have to make it have a specified mount (if I correctly understand the problem)? I think it's fair to say that you can assume the operating system is capable of handling disks at this point. It's extra code to write and it breaks compatibility... gr...
instead of http://facebook/ use https://facebook./ They don't advertise it, but there it is. It doesn't protect anything but your password, however. After sign in you're off of SSL.
I noticed that they didn't list the ogg container or any of the flac, theodora, or vorbis codecs. Users take note - open source pays.
ISPs try to do the same thing with spam, and spam still arrives in my inbox. It seems logical then that the best way to get around ANY filter is to change the name to one with genitalia spelled in leetspeak. On an unrelated note, my download of TransP3N1Sformers[2006]DvDrip[Eng] - aXXo is almost done.
"Instead of adding features to the Gold experience, however, they're "enhancing" Gold subscriptions by continuing a practice started last summer of stripping Silver members of features and making them Gold-only."" Making the standard package worse and then charging more for the same content in premium, where does this sound familiar... oh right. Viva la Xbox live network neutrality!
http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/ The good tin-foil hat stuff doesn't happen until the end. Whether it's true or not, the point is the same: anything you do on the internet will be known. The money and political pressure acting against your privacy will win every time.
Yes. But it seems obvious that Dell, HP and all the other major players would have different arrangements directly with Microsoft for volume licensing rather than having a stock contract, much like other large companies do for large-scale commercial use. They might be willing to agree to more restrictive terms in exchange for a price cut.
I'll try to say this as pleasantly as possible to avoid the ravenous mods, but unfortunately it's still going to be along trollish lines: I don't think anyone really knows what exactly the license OEMs obtain Windows is under (trade secret), and it wouldn't be suprising if it were one of the conditions not to install Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc. A full version of Office costs more than Windows XP, and I'm sure that Microsoft would prefer their users use IE.
Actually, nevermind, there's no use in trying to protect the usage rights of the providers, since they'll simply modify the code under AGPLv3 so that it's useless without the underlying code that they're not required to release. AGPLv3 for all, then.
Ah!!! This hurts my head worse than constitutional law...
My problem is that the clause is too broad. I'll quote it here to point out what I mean:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph."
It covers anything that the user has any contact with on the server. I don't have a problem with the producers using a tweaked kernel version to support the server that it's running on or them adding a module to mySQL to support whatever they're doing without necessarily being forced to give that away for their competitors. As for the objects that the user directly interfaces with, yes, I think you are correct on that account.
I suppose therefore that the license has it's place as long as it's chosen carefully - I know the kernel won't be leaving GPLv2 , but there's lots of system level software that would take away from the freedom of the producer to use it as they wished if they were forced to give it away. I suppose that the compatibility clause in GPLv3 is the best middle ground for code that doesn't need the protection of AGPLv3, as I would think most user-oriented applications would. COngratulations, you've converted me.
I think he has a bit of a skewed view of public defenders, and places a lot of the blame at their feet that should more properly go at the feet of the state. I've known several personally, and the basic pattern of their job is as follows:
1. Assigned to case. Overwhelming evidence against them.
2. Try to convince their client to take a plea bargain so they don't wind up in jail for 40 years. Fail.
3. Rack their brains for some preposterous theory that can get their client off the hook. Loose.
The problem isn't the public defenders, the problem is the state isn't moderating to find the truth, they're prosecuting. All evidence is gathered with conviction in mind. One of the public defender's I've dealt with had a case where a great deal of evidence (namely, witnesses directly contradicting the prosecution's account of events) wasn't even mentioned to him until after the trial. The prosecution and evidence gatherers are the same department, and they have and use the ability to just discount evidence they don't feel is credible, which tends to be the evidence that pokes the most holes in their stories.
I've been against this clause ever since I heard GPLv3 was adding compatibility. One of the important parts of the GPL is that it allows private development if the changes weren't distributed - this is an important thing, as there's no user to protect if it's made for self consumption. The four freedoms that RMS always speak of aren't threatened by this, as the user is the same as the writer - there's no oppression that needs to be stopped here. The addition is a corruption of the GPL, changing it's purpose from one of freedom for all users to the coercive obtainment of the source code at any cost.
Is this really practical for most people? I mean, don't all of these VMs require a license? I can't see how most shops are going to be able to support the cost of three different versions of Windows for every computer to maintain basic functionality. This may be one job that Wine can actually pull off, if I understood you correctly the problem is that some of the software relies on obsolete versions of Windows. I'm under the impression that its support of old versions of Windows is almost totally functional, one might be able to save the expense of at least one of the older licenses by running that OS's incompatible software in Wine.
Ha. The hospital thing is too true. They were checking out my abdomen for appendicitis with ultrasound and the computer the device was hooked up to kept playing the happy little windows shutdown noise over and over and over, and no one knew how to make it stop. Not exactly comforting...
I don't think you can parallelize compilation of a single program. While being able to use the GPU for a stage one Gentoo install would save a lot of time, it won't really help with compiling OpenOffice.org or any other similar enormous piece of software, which are the enormous timesinks that come with that distribution. If you planned it right and did all your compiling at once you might be able to save a little bit of time by compiling one of those big programs on one of the GPU processors while you comile a series of other large programs on your processor, but the gains will be slight.
"In my area it's Comcast and Qwest. Qwests prices are significantly higher than Comcast." That's because Qwest is considerably better. I'm a Qwest subscriber (well, it's a tiny little regional ISP that's located entirely within Qwest infrastructure, so I think it counts) I can tell on all my torrents the difference - I certainly don't have the fastest internet connection in the world, but the pattern is certainly interesting: within the first minute the download speeds rocket up to saturation and then divebomb as all my connections are cut (I verified this in Firestarter), while upload speeds stay steadily high. I am going to make a conjecture here, but since upload bandwidth is by far the more precious commodity due to to way the internet infrastructure is constructed, it's justified: qwest doesn't throttle as much as other internet providers, and at the very least it doesn't break connections. Now, you may pay more for this, but it's not suprising, considering that you're actually using the bandwidth. Also, Qwest is the only ISP that gave the finger to the NSA during the illegal wiretapping [that we know about]. Which, by the way, is the best reason to oppose retroactive immunity - there are good companies that suffered to follow the law.
don't worry, you're not
Yeah, at a certain point you run up against the uncertaintly principle, but I don't think that is supposed to be anything near an issue until the later half of this century. The first limit that processors are going to hit is frequency - an electron can only move three feet during a cycle on a three gigahertz processor. While that's plenty, there are going to be problems to be resolved whenever data can't be transferred from memory in the space of a single cycle. This is unrelated to the relative speed of the memory, as I'm talking about the speed of the wires rather than the latency of various components.
How long is it before movies start being watermarked in a way to send up blatant and non-ambiguous flags? I feel like that would be the best situation for both parties, putting aside the issue of whether or not AT&T has any right to filter content based on whether some program thinks it's copyrighted.. The watermarking would be to ensure a constant and distinctive signature for the film in any format rather than the current privacy invading nonsense of being able to trace copies back to individuals. The hit rate in various formats would improve and the false positive rate would go down, because the film would be encoded to produce a similar signature in all formats and because that signature could be chosen to be something truly statistically insignificant (messing with various brightnesses of pure black for instance - all would appear the same but have different digital signatures, creating something truly distinctive). Of course, such systems would be circumvented eventually by those with know-how, and it's useless against encryption...