And, yuck, they checked in a whole bunch of binaries. If you so a checkout of the Subversion repository (weighing in at 1.5G for the single revision checkout, 8G or so to build!) it is a huge mess. I don't think Chrome is going anywhere for a long time due to these maintainability problems you mentioned, and you won't find hackers poking around Chromium with the mess that the codebase is in. Plus, it's all tied very closely to Windows, and who wants to hack in the hacker-unfriendly Windows?
Once I saw this, I sort-of forgot all about Chrome/Chromium. It's all hype for now.
I know you are just trolling, but in case anyone worth talking to was reading, I invite you to watch Hacking Democracy. It was on HBO a couple years ago. It exposed serious flaws in the Diebold voting machines, and they even had a computer expert trivially fix a demo election (I believe he never saw a voting machine before and within a couple hours was able to do this) without even having direct access to the voting machines. Diebold was so unhappy about it they tried to get HBO not to show it. Here it is on Google video.
I had to look this up, so I imagine other people didn't know it either (I thought was was a stock exchange term). First Google search result reveals the answer,
The first is that people try to claim some sort of moral high ground for downloading DVD rips.
Remember that the law has no bearing in morals or ethics. Laws artificially provide consequences for certain actions, which helps to either encourage or discourage those actions (not that this is a bad thing). Copyright law (supposedly and ideally) encourages authors and artists to write and create by offering incentives (a monopoly on their works), and discourages people temporarily from copying these works (well, it's supposed to be temporary!) with penalties, like fines, etc. The law isn't about right and wrong in any sense.
Considering that, in the US anyway, copyright law - whose original purpose was ultimately to serve the public by encouraging authors to write and add to the culture's public domain - has been twisted around largely in favor of publishers. There is no end in sight for copyright terms, which now extend more than a lifetime. But copyright is defined by the constitution as being temporary. In its current form it is unjust and should be generally be ignored.
The ethical decision involved is in participation: by not paying for movies we are not assisting in their production. "Freeloading". If no one participates, nothing will be produced. However, file sharers tend to be the biggest spenders (and also consider that the 12-year-old file-sharers don't have money anyway and are unable to participate), it seems that file-sharers are in fact participating, more than other readers/viewers/listeners. The music and movie industry are in no danger of bankruptcy either. In the end, it seems that file-sharing helps publishers more than hurts them.
Also consider that these are different times than they were over 10 to 15 years ago. We live in the information age, where anyone can trivially duplicate, create, and transmit large amounts information all over the planet in milliseconds. The old models of monolithic distributors are becoming the buggy whip. New business models need to (and are) emerge to take this into account. Laws need to change to adjust to our new technology. To not take advantage of our technology would be foolish. It would be like outlawing cars because it hurts the horse salesmen's pockets.
Copyright wasn't something a normal person had to think about. In the copyright compromise, the public gave up a right they were unable to practice. Today, we all have our own personal printing presses, and normal people now live against the law. (Paraphrasing Lessig) This is corrosive and corruptive.
"How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice [...]
When they advertise it as unlimited and sell it to you as being unlimited, it sure as hell should be unlimited. Otherwise, ISPs are being deceptive. If I tell you I am selling you a horse, but deliver the mule, am I not being dishonest? (sorry, Fiddler fans) However, this has finally started to change in the last few weeks.
Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
Yes. There is more file sharing today than ever. If it weren't for Napster, iTMS would most surely not exist (at least not yet).
What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"? Why should you get a say in what happens to those bits?
This argument is a red herring. If I decided to publish my medical records, then I would be okay with this. I, however, did not publish them. This is a privacy issue, not a copyright one. Trying to argue this point hurts your credibility with your other on-topic points.
I haven't seen anything where this religion or cult or whatever you want to call it has done anything to hurt anyone.
Then you haven't learned much about the cult. Scientology has ruined lives and gotten people killed. For the latter, they dispense dangerous medical information (especially in psychiatry) that is entirely based on their beliefs. See the Wikipedia article.
Yes, they have very silly beliefs, which is why it is so popular to make fun of them. But if that's all they were, then you wouldn't see these protests or all the news about it. Their beliefs alone (involving aliens, volcanoes, space ships, nuclear bombs and etc.) are harmless. It is what they do about their critics, whom they harass with both legal pressure and some not-so-legal tactics. See Fair Play.
There is a reason you see all those people in the protests wear masks, and that is because of policies like Fair Game. If they didn't wear masks, their lives and their families lives would be in danger, or at least risking serious harassment.
In fact, Slashdot has suffered the wrath of the cult of Scientology: Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot. Someone posted some of the cult's "scripture" in a comment, and Slashdot was forced to remove it on claims of copyright. There's one way that Scientology has negatively affected you. They already attacked an online community you participate in. They have also put legal pressure on search engines, including Google and Yahoo, to have results critical of Scientology removed.
If I use it, I have to obey the licensing conditions.
The GPL doesn't apply to use. You don't have to "agree" to the GPL to simply use GPL-licensed software. This is because the GPL grants developers/users rights beyond copyright law that they do not normally have (instead of adding restrictions on top of copyright like EULAs try to do). Simply using software does not invoke copyright law (except the "use" stuff, like the copying the program into RAM exception), so the GPL is not involved.
Therefore I am no more free to benefit from it than I am free to benefit from commercial software.
Free software has no non-commercial/commercial distinction, as people can and do sell and buy free software.
This is, unfortunately, the truth... Far too many programmer wannabees around...
It is also unfortunate that perfect e-mail parsing is extremely complex. The Perl regexp for e-mail address validation according to RFC 822 is about 6.3 kilobytes. If you try to do it yourself you are pretty much guaranteed to get it wrong.
Those crappy programmers could still make things much better with liberal validation, allowing some invalid addresses to make validation simpler. Something simple like/[^@]+@[^@]+\.[^@]+/, will match all valid e-mail addresses (I think, and the/. filter won't let me write anything more complex than that anyway) plus a bunch of invalid ones.
I think the GPs point was that letting designer's pick a specific font is better than them deciding to use an image instead of text
Which is why most images (at least at some point) on the web contain only text. This is obvious if you ever used or were victim to the infamousWebcollage screensaver (the "porn screensaver"), which displayed randomly selected images from the web. You get a screen full of random text and porn. Not a good impression to leave for your new college roommate when you leave for class right after your fresh RH9 install.
Here is my solution. They register a website, like noflylist.gov, and put the plaintext list right there all by itself. Then they wait for Google to index it. Searching it is a simple Google search: "<name> site:noflylist.gov". So easy a TSA goon can do it.
Just no one tell them that it let's everyone finally see their moronic list.
In many cases, people are perfectly happy with SSL just keeping the traffic from the prying eyes
That's the whole point: self-signed certs don't prevent prying eyes in the slightest. For example, it would be trivial for a tor exit node to intercept and swap self-signed certs and read all your traffic without you knowing. It is just security theater. No security (http) is better than false scurity (blindly trusting self-signed certs).
downloadPatches.sh - shell script that extracts the torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory extorrents - Perl script that extracts the torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory biz-extorrents.py - Python script to extract torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory web app extractor - Web app to extract torrent files out of any Blizzard Downloader EXE linked online
Slashdot Mirror
And, yuck, they checked in a whole bunch of binaries. If you so a checkout of the Subversion repository (weighing in at 1.5G for the single revision checkout, 8G or so to build!) it is a huge mess. I don't think Chrome is going anywhere for a long time due to these maintainability problems you mentioned, and you won't find hackers poking around Chromium with the mess that the codebase is in. Plus, it's all tied very closely to Windows, and who wants to hack in the hacker-unfriendly Windows?
Once I saw this, I sort-of forgot all about Chrome/Chromium. It's all hype for now.
(To paraphrase Cory Doctorow) The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less speech.
Who gets to decide #1? I don't want anyone deciding that for me.
*whoosh!*
Don't forget, The Pirate Bay does operate 100% legally.
9 months are too long
I am sure many women, especially mothers, agree.
Ubisoft wouldn't exist if not for Cliff Blezinski and Tim Sweeney.
And Tom Clancy! Don't forget about him. :-P
You went to the Bread Instead of Bullets Club to impress a skirt?
the voting machines work fine.
I know you are just trolling, but in case anyone worth talking to was reading, I invite you to watch Hacking Democracy. It was on HBO a couple years ago. It exposed serious flaws in the Diebold voting machines, and they even had a computer expert trivially fix a demo election (I believe he never saw a voting machine before and within a couple hours was able to do this) without even having direct access to the voting machines. Diebold was so unhappy about it they tried to get HBO not to show it. Here it is on Google video.
"5-nines SLA"
I had to look this up, so I imagine other people didn't know it either (I thought was was a stock exchange term). First Google search result reveals the answer,
The Battle With "3 Nines" and The Goal of "5 Nines"
The first is that people try to claim some sort of moral high ground for downloading DVD rips.
Remember that the law has no bearing in morals or ethics. Laws artificially provide consequences for certain actions, which helps to either encourage or discourage those actions (not that this is a bad thing). Copyright law (supposedly and ideally) encourages authors and artists to write and create by offering incentives (a monopoly on their works), and discourages people temporarily from copying these works (well, it's supposed to be temporary!) with penalties, like fines, etc. The law isn't about right and wrong in any sense.
Considering that, in the US anyway, copyright law - whose original purpose was ultimately to serve the public by encouraging authors to write and add to the culture's public domain - has been twisted around largely in favor of publishers. There is no end in sight for copyright terms, which now extend more than a lifetime. But copyright is defined by the constitution as being temporary. In its current form it is unjust and should be generally be ignored.
The ethical decision involved is in participation: by not paying for movies we are not assisting in their production. "Freeloading". If no one participates, nothing will be produced. However, file sharers tend to be the biggest spenders (and also consider that the 12-year-old file-sharers don't have money anyway and are unable to participate), it seems that file-sharers are in fact participating, more than other readers/viewers/listeners. The music and movie industry are in no danger of bankruptcy either. In the end, it seems that file-sharing helps publishers more than hurts them.
Also consider that these are different times than they were over 10 to 15 years ago. We live in the information age, where anyone can trivially duplicate, create, and transmit large amounts information all over the planet in milliseconds. The old models of monolithic distributors are becoming the buggy whip. New business models need to (and are) emerge to take this into account. Laws need to change to adjust to our new technology. To not take advantage of our technology would be foolish. It would be like outlawing cars because it hurts the horse salesmen's pockets.
Copyright wasn't something a normal person had to think about. In the copyright compromise, the public gave up a right they were unable to practice. Today, we all have our own personal printing presses, and normal people now live against the law. (Paraphrasing Lessig) This is corrosive and corruptive.
"How dare they cap my bandwidth, they advertised unlimited usage!". Except that no resource is unlimited in practice [...]
When they advertise it as unlimited and sell it to you as being unlimited, it sure as hell should be unlimited. Otherwise, ISPs are being deceptive. If I tell you I am selling you a horse, but deliver the mule, am I not being dishonest? (sorry, Fiddler fans) However, this has finally started to change in the last few weeks.
Do you really think iTMS would ever have gotten off the ground if Napster had spent the last decade alive and at full strength?
Yes. There is more file sharing today than ever. If it weren't for Napster, iTMS would most surely not exist (at least not yet).
What if a company wants to spread your medical records around? Aren't those just "imaginary property"? Why should you get a say in what happens to those bits?
This argument is a red herring. If I decided to publish my medical records, then I would be okay with this. I, however, did not publish them. This is a privacy issue, not a copyright one. Trying to argue this point hurts your credibility with your other on-topic points.
There's no consistency, no compromise,
I haven't seen anything where this religion or cult or whatever you want to call it has done anything to hurt anyone.
Then you haven't learned much about the cult. Scientology has ruined lives and gotten people killed. For the latter, they dispense dangerous medical information (especially in psychiatry) that is entirely based on their beliefs. See the Wikipedia article.
Yes, they have very silly beliefs, which is why it is so popular to make fun of them. But if that's all they were, then you wouldn't see these protests or all the news about it. Their beliefs alone (involving aliens, volcanoes, space ships, nuclear bombs and etc.) are harmless. It is what they do about their critics, whom they harass with both legal pressure and some not-so-legal tactics. See Fair Play.
There is a reason you see all those people in the protests wear masks, and that is because of policies like Fair Game. If they didn't wear masks, their lives and their families lives would be in danger, or at least risking serious harassment.
In fact, Slashdot has suffered the wrath of the cult of Scientology: Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot. Someone posted some of the cult's "scripture" in a comment, and Slashdot was forced to remove it on claims of copyright. There's one way that Scientology has negatively affected you. They already attacked an online community you participate in. They have also put legal pressure on search engines, including Google and Yahoo, to have results critical of Scientology removed.
See also, The Unfunny Truth About Scientology
Or the YouTube version.
Did you hold up your part of the agreement? That is, did you pump your fist in the air and yell "death to tyrants" when you posted that?
Some pedantic corrections.
If I use it, I have to obey the licensing conditions.
The GPL doesn't apply to use. You don't have to "agree" to the GPL to simply use GPL-licensed software. This is because the GPL grants developers/users rights beyond copyright law that they do not normally have (instead of adding restrictions on top of copyright like EULAs try to do). Simply using software does not invoke copyright law (except the "use" stuff, like the copying the program into RAM exception), so the GPL is not involved.
Therefore I am no more free to benefit from it than I am free to benefit from commercial software.
Free software has no non-commercial/commercial distinction, as people can and do sell and buy free software.
Also with this system, a Dalek robot could follow the Doctor during his rounds.
But Daleks do not take orders!
RFID is pants?
This is, unfortunately, the truth... Far too many programmer wannabees around...
It is also unfortunate that perfect e-mail parsing is extremely complex. The Perl regexp for e-mail address validation according to RFC 822 is about 6.3 kilobytes. If you try to do it yourself you are pretty much guaranteed to get it wrong.
Those crappy programmers could still make things much better with liberal validation, allowing some invalid addresses to make validation simpler. Something simple like /[^@]+@[^@]+\.[^@]+/, will match all valid e-mail addresses (I think, and the /. filter won't let me write anything more complex than that anyway) plus a bunch of invalid ones.
I think the GPs point was that letting designer's pick a specific font is better than them deciding to use an image instead of text
Which is why most images (at least at some point) on the web contain only text. This is obvious if you ever used or were victim to the infamous Webcollage screensaver (the "porn screensaver"), which displayed randomly selected images from the web. You get a screen full of random text and porn. Not a good impression to leave for your new college roommate when you leave for class right after your fresh RH9 install.
Here is my solution. They register a website, like noflylist.gov, and put the plaintext list right there all by itself. Then they wait for Google to index it. Searching it is a simple Google search: "<name> site:noflylist.gov". So easy a TSA goon can do it.
Just no one tell them that it let's everyone finally see their moronic list.
The way my software on my own computer renders document markup, for myself, that was freely given to me by its author is outside the scope of ethics.
"But who trusts the trustmen?"
Err... nevermind.
Someone is doing that work already with a nice clean Python script: youtube-dl.
Is your name Hari Seldon?
In many cases, people are perfectly happy with SSL just keeping the traffic from the prying eyes
That's the whole point: self-signed certs don't prevent prying eyes in the slightest. For example, it would be trivial for a tor exit node to intercept and swap self-signed certs and read all your traffic without you knowing. It is just security theater. No security (http) is better than false scurity (blindly trusting self-signed certs).
downloadPatches.sh - shell script that extracts the torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory
extorrents - Perl script that extracts the torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory
biz-extorrents.py - Python script to extract torrent files from all Blizzard Downloader clients in the current directory
web app extractor - Web app to extract torrent files out of any Blizzard Downloader EXE linked online
Source