Perhaps something that could be done is to only use historical programming techniques and algorithms in the code. I'm not talking about COBOL, but if a workalike can be constructed using only "phrases" of code from the past (it'd be constructed entirely of prior art), then it won't be liable for resemblance to MS code. I mean, does this project really introduce new computing uses, or is it maybe closer to an integration of existing functions?
Who is saying that OS/2 could have saved us? I certainly didn't offer OS/2 as anything but an example of Microsoft's doing whatever they can to shut down competition. Perhaps you could substitute DR-DOS in there, but you didn't, so I'll suggest it. Every other point of yours is "ends justify the means" rhetoric. Yawn.
Are you saying that two companies shouldn't be able to enter into agreements (whether it's licensing or an acquisition) that they find mutually beneficial?
No, I'm suggesting(and I said) that Microsoft has been predatory towards their competition. I'm not going to softpedal the issue and say that this is just the way capitalism works, or that since everyone else does it that it's okay. I'm trying to bring up well-known issues from the past (but perhaps before the trial, so you may have to be of a certain age or historical interest to relate) that *may* be construed to be attacks on a capitalist system to benefit the goals of a minority. You have to be able to address this abstraction in order to get my point. Regardless, you've obliquely touched on a point of terrorism that it is waged by the weak against the strong (framed within a certain relation), and Microsoft has not always been the largest company in computers.
As far as campaign contributions go, try to avoid perspective problems. You construe my point of Microsoft's political spending to mean that I don't like political contributions. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what the contributions are used for; what the *point* of them are. Which conceivably are to cause the kind of leniency we are seeing in this story. But, as you said yourself, "I could be wrong." The difference being that I'm using my ignorance to ask more questions, and you're using yours to shut questions down.
Well, this is why I asked the question "what would economic terrorism look like?". Surely your spate of links to sites that don't agree on a definition of terrorism isn't supposed to solidify your point...is it?
You're thinking only in extremes (TERRORISM EQUALZ PLANE INTO BILDING!!). Take a deep breath and make a good-faith effort to conceptualize the difference between political terrorism and economic terrorism. Certainly you aren't serious that people die in all forms of terror, so let's break your rationale down, shall we?
1. Plow an airliner into a skyscraper: You think we need to be reminded that Microsoft hasn't done this? No, they haven't, but they've used small parts of the computer industry to take out large parts...like, say, OS/2.
2. Torch a research facility: No fire in billg's hand (not in any photographs, anyway), but hasn't Microsoft bought competing companies just to starve and/or kill them off? How is this different than traditional research facilities? Well, one operates on grants while a corporate R&D department operates on VC and profit (with increasing blur between the two).
3. Form a mob to take to the streets during a meeting: Well, this one just screams "lobbying budget and campaign contributions". If you don't think that Microsoft is working below the table to get their agenda supported by whatever current political machine is in charge, then you haven't been paying attention. Does this affect the way other companies are treated? Does it affect the way the currently-elected political body devotes resources to the trial? Is it still okay, even if it's legal?
A kneejerk paean to Godwin's Law is a misuse of geek cred. The time is coming when peoples' concepts of terrorism will become sophisticated enough to operate by other means. Try to keep up, k?
It may be a loaded term in this day and age, but just by saying it "sucks" doesn't justify your point at all...and it sure begs the question: "What would economic terrorism look like?" Might it look like anything that Microsoft has done? Is terrorism a tool only used by minorities?
Gompers v. Bucks Stove: "It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."
This is the problem, since the point of many demonstrations is to give force to ideas and words. So there doesn't seem to be much First Amendment protection for demonstrations regardless of the actual text of the Amendment.
I'm very surprised anyone would want to use spam for political purposes. It's just stupid. Your average spammer doesn't care about his reputation, so it doesn't matter that 95% of the people who see their message will angrily throw it away. Politians, however, live off of their reputation. They can't afford to piss off that many people at once.
Of course, you're using Pure Speculation for that "95%" number there, so let's throw that away and just say you're assuming that people will care. In an alternate universe, whether they spam or not will be one of those minor things that only obsessives care about, like the influence of money on politicians. Advertising (including spam) is designed to work *at least* on dumb people, which there are a lot of.
How else does everyone propose to convince these private companies to act in the public interest? Certainly nobody wants Verisign and AOL and Cisco to be the defacto policymakers...do they?
This is the issue here, that there is a technology that affects their level of demand, and they're going to sue to get it back. Corporations have couched the argument in terms of IP and Copyright, but under Fair Use (maybe this part has been eradicated, but is certainly under the time-shifting law) it is not illegal to hold on to recordings that you've made. The plaintiff's argument seems to center around the decrease in demand that holding onto recordings causes. This is a pervasive vector: suing to maintain market share. It's a new form of monopoly when what they want to control is your access to their content.
Ha ha ha. Did you miss the part where the government hired marketing consultants? It happened about 30 years ago. Please try to keep up.
And actually I tend to agree with your position. The military is using words in different ways than we're used to, in order to suit their aims. It's "war" when they want support, a "conflict" or "skirmish" when our guys get killed. Heck, look at the term "peacekeepers" for as much irony as you can handle.
They seem to be preserving their most pertinent fallback (jurisdiction) in order to attack the DMCA on its own terms. Now, of course I don't know that it's intended as an "attack", but to treat the DMCA in the abstract is a lot more beneficial to the community than their just trying to get themselves out of hot water. Kudos!
Someone should try to take their domain name via WIPO. If they don't respond to the paperwork, they lose the domain! I would think the sleazes behind this would come out of the woodwork in that case.
Of course, the only appropriate response to Microsoft's initiative:
*What* security problems?
Think about it, if the industry plays dumb the way that Microsoft has for the past 10 years, then they will have to enumerate their history and how they might address the problems. Speculation on my part, sure, but they sure don't deserve all of these free ideas.
I'm an MCSE, and while Microsoft's lameness has provided me with a nice career for the past several years, but I still have nerdy idealism governing my attitude.:) It's been many years that my standards of quality have been much higher than Microsoft's, and now we see that they want to "lead" into the future. Well, start by catching up.
I know you're saying that I've merely changed my ideals, but they guy who would label me as a sell-out would never understand that perspective. If I'm going to make any sense to him I have to use his terms, and in those terms ideals cannot be changed, only given up.
Well, then let's be consistent. Please, as with many of the other second-guessing between-the-lines-readers, point out where Alan cites his family, his income, or his future job prospects as a reason for his comments. All day I've been reading peoples vilifications of him because he isn't sharing the same values as Joe Linux. He just said "I don't want to work for them" and everybody else reads into it their own insecurities. "Oh, won't anybody think of the children?!" "Doesn't Alan like money?!"
So, if you're going to apply your perspective to someone else's terms, first realize when they haven't given the terms that you prefer to use. Alan's (scant) terms are all that are at issue here, if you want to talk about your kids or how much trouble you'll have getting a job at the CIA, then go to it. But don't act like it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Well, it seems that your worldview allows for all of *two* coding scenarios: making shell scripts and writing missile guidance software. Whew, that's pretty sophisticated! Not only that, but these activities only occur under the aegis of "Department Huge-Number"...do I need to spell out the isolated nature of your argument?
Why should you make a political statement that may fall on deaf (or preconverted) ears? Because no one person can change the world. No group of coders can change the world. Irrespective of Margaret Mead's platitude, most of all of our efforts to improve the world are in vain. You can only do what little you do and hope it makes a difference. This is what Alan is doing, since AOLTW will certainly not live or die by his decision. The fact that such a sentiment as his would generate so much controversy is perhaps evidence that he speaks to a larger audience and thus may actually make a (larger than insignificant) difference by his actions. Of course, the difference his ethical decisions make may be erased by the sands of history over the next month or decade, but he can sleep well at night.
A lot of people are being the kinds of parents we hated and seem to be saying "I don't care if you can't sleep, go to bed!" Well, that advice didn't help when we were six, and it doesn't help now.
Maybe you missed the news program where AOL *bought* Time-Warner? This is a huge company, and one person isn't going to be able to turn RH into what "it SHOULD be" under that kind of umbrella. Perhaps once you get out of high-school you will start to see people who are trying to do good under impossible circumstances but only to get lost in the mire (try Kafka). Oh, but Alan will be fighting the good fight as a AOLTWRH bureaucrat! We can still respect him because his heart is in the right place! While Alan's heart is in the right place Time-Warner will go on screwing the Constitution and being a world dominator. Whether they have Alan as an employee or not, their business plans won't change.
Standing up for your ideals is one thing, but by leaving, you're tossing those exact same ideals out the door.
Heh, like you could possibly back that statement up.
Hey, just because money is the only reason *you* do anything doesn't mean that's Alan's motivation. Here's an exercise for those of you with an imagination, try to think of another reason why someone would refuse to work for AOLTW besides "doesn't think anybody should make money".
Not only that, but where in his email did he mention "other coders", much less "money"?
The ongoing hypocricy astounds me. Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed. Having used Linux since long before it was 'fashionable' to do so, I for one hope that if this purchase comes to pass, it helps get Linux out to the unwashed masses of computer users out there.
Ah, well being such an old-schooler, certainly you can relate to the fact that Linux has gotten where it is precisely by not having the harsh light of marketing demands placed on it (leave that up to RH or LinuxOne, but it isn't responsible for Linux' success).
However, this is probably a good time to bring up the question of feasability. Who's got an example of a company that was bought out in order to give it the exposure it "deserves", and this company didn't turn into a steaming pile of shit? Okay, so you found one. What do you think the odds are in general of this resulting in a better company? Oh, so a "better company" only requires higher profit margins? How 20th Century.
our which means, their, which means Daemon News. So its Daemon News' first time offering 4.5 on CD. So yeah, it's not news, but the submission isn't wrong. What bothers me about the way things are going, submissions are turning more and more into (community-level, granted) ads.
It's the difference between "First Official CD Release of FreeBSD" and "DaemonNews' First Official CD Release of FreeBSD". The former is news, the second is a press release. It's not "wrong", it's just kind of....yellow (cf. Hearst).
>You can say whatever you please, but the fact is that trademarks must be protected by their owners explicitly and at length in order to remain trademarked.
Let's hear some insight into what protection a trademark needs from a website that is not engaged in trade? Sure, this is just a couple of questions, but it would really help if some effort were put into figuring out where the line between infringing and noninfringing lays. The fact that the site is nonprofit should be legally significant.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps something that could be done is to only use historical programming techniques and algorithms in the code. I'm not talking about COBOL, but if a workalike can be constructed using only "phrases" of code from the past (it'd be constructed entirely of prior art), then it won't be liable for resemblance to MS code. I mean, does this project really introduce new computing uses, or is it maybe closer to an integration of existing functions?
Well gee, I'm certainly not going to pay $150 per day to drive on YOUR roads which are built upon OUR land. Thanks for the offer, though.
Who is saying that OS/2 could have saved us? I certainly didn't offer OS/2 as anything but an example of Microsoft's doing whatever they can to shut down competition. Perhaps you could substitute DR-DOS in there, but you didn't, so I'll suggest it. Every other point of yours is "ends justify the means" rhetoric. Yawn.
Are you saying that two companies shouldn't be able to enter into agreements (whether it's licensing or an acquisition) that they find mutually beneficial?
No, I'm suggesting(and I said) that Microsoft has been predatory towards their competition. I'm not going to softpedal the issue and say that this is just the way capitalism works, or that since everyone else does it that it's okay. I'm trying to bring up well-known issues from the past (but perhaps before the trial, so you may have to be of a certain age or historical interest to relate) that *may* be construed to be attacks on a capitalist system to benefit the goals of a minority. You have to be able to address this abstraction in order to get my point. Regardless, you've obliquely touched on a point of terrorism that it is waged by the weak against the strong (framed within a certain relation), and Microsoft has not always been the largest company in computers.
As far as campaign contributions go, try to avoid perspective problems. You construe my point of Microsoft's political spending to mean that I don't like political contributions. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what the contributions are used for; what the *point* of them are. Which conceivably are to cause the kind of leniency we are seeing in this story. But, as you said yourself, "I could be wrong." The difference being that I'm using my ignorance to ask more questions, and you're using yours to shut questions down.
Well, this is why I asked the question "what would economic terrorism look like?". Surely your spate of links to sites that don't agree on a definition of terrorism isn't supposed to solidify your point...is it?
You're thinking only in extremes (TERRORISM EQUALZ PLANE INTO BILDING!!). Take a deep breath and make a good-faith effort to conceptualize the difference between political terrorism and economic terrorism. Certainly you aren't serious that people die in all forms of terror, so let's break your rationale down, shall we?
1. Plow an airliner into a skyscraper: You think we need to be reminded that Microsoft hasn't done this? No, they haven't, but they've used small parts of the computer industry to take out large parts...like, say, OS/2.
2. Torch a research facility: No fire in billg's hand (not in any photographs, anyway), but hasn't Microsoft bought competing companies just to starve and/or kill them off? How is this different than traditional research facilities? Well, one operates on grants while a corporate R&D department operates on VC and profit (with increasing blur between the two).
3. Form a mob to take to the streets during a meeting: Well, this one just screams "lobbying budget and campaign contributions". If you don't think that Microsoft is working below the table to get their agenda supported by whatever current political machine is in charge, then you haven't been paying attention. Does this affect the way other companies are treated? Does it affect the way the currently-elected political body devotes resources to the trial? Is it still okay, even if it's legal?
A kneejerk paean to Godwin's Law is a misuse of geek cred. The time is coming when peoples' concepts of terrorism will become sophisticated enough to operate by other means. Try to keep up, k?
It may be a loaded term in this day and age, but just by saying it "sucks" doesn't justify your point at all...and it sure begs the question: "What would economic terrorism look like?" Might it look like anything that Microsoft has done? Is terrorism a tool only used by minorities?
Gompers v. Bucks Stove:
"It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."
This is the problem, since the point of many demonstrations is to give force to ideas and words. So there doesn't seem to be much First Amendment protection for demonstrations regardless of the actual text of the Amendment.
I'm very surprised anyone would want to use spam for political purposes. It's just stupid. Your average spammer doesn't care about his reputation, so it doesn't matter that 95% of the people who see their message will angrily throw it away. Politians, however, live off of their reputation. They can't afford to piss off that many people at once.
Of course, you're using Pure Speculation for that "95%" number there, so let's throw that away and just say you're assuming that people will care. In an alternate universe, whether they spam or not will be one of those minor things that only obsessives care about, like the influence of money on politicians. Advertising (including spam) is designed to work *at least* on dumb people, which there are a lot of.
Nope.
How else does everyone propose to convince these private companies to act in the public interest? Certainly nobody wants Verisign and AOL and Cisco to be the defacto policymakers...do they?
This is the issue here, that there is a technology that affects their level of demand, and they're going to sue to get it back. Corporations have couched the argument in terms of IP and Copyright, but under Fair Use (maybe this part has been eradicated, but is certainly under the time-shifting law) it is not illegal to hold on to recordings that you've made. The plaintiff's argument seems to center around the decrease in demand that holding onto recordings causes. This is a pervasive vector: suing to maintain market share. It's a new form of monopoly when what they want to control is your access to their content.
Oookay, and what insulates them against a trespassing charge when they show up and won't leave?
Ha ha ha. Did you miss the part where the government hired marketing consultants? It happened about 30 years ago. Please try to keep up.
And actually I tend to agree with your position. The military is using words in different ways than we're used to, in order to suit their aims. It's "war" when they want support, a "conflict" or "skirmish" when our guys get killed. Heck, look at the term "peacekeepers" for as much irony as you can handle.
They seem to be preserving their most pertinent fallback (jurisdiction) in order to attack the DMCA on its own terms. Now, of course I don't know that it's intended as an "attack", but to treat the DMCA in the abstract is a lot more beneficial to the community than their just trying to get themselves out of hot water. Kudos!
Someone should try to take their domain name via WIPO. If they don't respond to the paperwork, they lose the domain! I would think the sleazes behind this would come out of the woodwork in that case.
*What* security problems?
Think about it, if the industry plays dumb the way that Microsoft has for the past 10 years, then they will have to enumerate their history and how they might address the problems. Speculation on my part, sure, but they sure don't deserve all of these free ideas.
I'm an MCSE, and while Microsoft's lameness has provided me with a nice career for the past several years, but I still have nerdy idealism governing my attitude. :) It's been many years that my standards of quality have been much higher than Microsoft's, and now we see that they want to "lead" into the future. Well, start by catching up.
Well, then let's be consistent. Please, as with many of the other second-guessing between-the-lines-readers, point out where Alan cites his family, his income, or his future job prospects as a reason for his comments. All day I've been reading peoples vilifications of him because he isn't sharing the same values as Joe Linux. He just said "I don't want to work for them" and everybody else reads into it their own insecurities. "Oh, won't anybody think of the children?!" "Doesn't Alan like money?!"
So, if you're going to apply your perspective to someone else's terms, first realize when they haven't given the terms that you prefer to use. Alan's (scant) terms are all that are at issue here, if you want to talk about your kids or how much trouble you'll have getting a job at the CIA, then go to it. But don't act like it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Why should you make a political statement that may fall on deaf (or preconverted) ears? Because no one person can change the world. No group of coders can change the world. Irrespective of Margaret Mead's platitude, most of all of our efforts to improve the world are in vain. You can only do what little you do and hope it makes a difference. This is what Alan is doing, since AOLTW will certainly not live or die by his decision. The fact that such a sentiment as his would generate so much controversy is perhaps evidence that he speaks to a larger audience and thus may actually make a (larger than insignificant) difference by his actions. Of course, the difference his ethical decisions make may be erased by the sands of history over the next month or decade, but he can sleep well at night.
A lot of people are being the kinds of parents we hated and seem to be saying "I don't care if you can't sleep, go to bed!" Well, that advice didn't help when we were six, and it doesn't help now.
TRANSLATION: "Who cares? I don't! It's all about money, anyway..."
Standing up for your ideals is one thing, but by leaving, you're tossing those exact same ideals out the door.
Heh, like you could possibly back that statement up.
Not only that, but where in his email did he mention "other coders", much less "money"?
Ah, well being such an old-schooler, certainly you can relate to the fact that Linux has gotten where it is precisely by not having the harsh light of marketing demands placed on it (leave that up to RH or LinuxOne, but it isn't responsible for Linux' success).
However, this is probably a good time to bring up the question of feasability. Who's got an example of a company that was bought out in order to give it the exposure it "deserves", and this company didn't turn into a steaming pile of shit? Okay, so you found one. What do you think the odds are in general of this resulting in a better company? Oh, so a "better company" only requires higher profit margins? How 20th Century.
our which means, their, which means Daemon News. So its Daemon News' first time offering 4.5 on CD. So yeah, it's not news, but the submission isn't wrong. What bothers me about the way things are going, submissions are turning more and more into (community-level, granted) ads.
It's the difference between "First Official CD Release of FreeBSD" and "DaemonNews' First Official CD Release of FreeBSD". The former is news, the second is a press release. It's not "wrong", it's just kind of....yellow (cf. Hearst).
Let's hear some insight into what protection a trademark needs from a website that is not engaged in trade? Sure, this is just a couple of questions, but it would really help if some effort were put into figuring out where the line between infringing and noninfringing lays. The fact that the site is nonprofit should be legally significant.