If apple allowed just anyone to write anything for their systems they would take a big hit in that sphere of their product offering.
So, what you're saying, then, is that the people who bought this are idiots? Apple has a software approval process that apps have to go through before they get posted on the site, no?
Sorry, that was not meant to be taken personally. Sometimes I lament English's lack of specificity in pronouns. The instances of "you" in that sentence were intended as second-person plural, non-specific.
Yeah, just what *is* this? You still have yet to refute my argument... or even admit that you decided to be a prick just to have an argument. It's ok to make mistakes, you know, but when you try to rub other people's noses in them, it just makes you out to be an ass.
Just trying to help you in your interpersonal dealings; no offense, eh?
Awesome, you're now one of my freaks! Thanks for caring enough to mark me as a "foe".
Incidentally, this doesn't do diddly for you having made an absurdly stupid comment, nor for your chances of winning this "argument" (think "couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag").
The fact remains that of the 4 people who responded to your extremely poor analogy, you chose me because you thought someone who used the term "ftw" (which means "for the win", by the way) would be a pushover, and generate more karma for you. So sorry, but just because I use slang terms doesn't mean I'm unintelligent.
Of course, this post is way off topic, and likely to be markled both troll and flamebait... but I just couldn't resist tweaking your nose yet again, seeing as your response to my refutation of your argument was to mark me "foe" instead of responding.
-- "Good way to win an argument, that!" - X0563511 (793323), my newest freak.
Should it be legal for adults to psychologically bully children?
I think we should make it illegal, just so we can use the new law to bludgeon organized religion to death.
Agreed, 100%. Warping a child's mind to the point that they unquestioningly accept an obvious (to a non-believer) falsehood should be considered child abuse. "Culture" only goes so far in protecting other grievous offenses such as this. We get up in arms about genital mutilation in Africa, why shouldn't we be up in arms about mental abuse inflicted on children?
Honestly, do you really think that worshipping a zombie (Jeebus!) who tells you to partake of ritualised cannibalism (and what do you think the sacrament is?) in order to not be tortured forever (go to Hell) is any sort of sane belief...? How do you justify teaching that to your kids? Why isn't this illegal?
If she is convicted of this, that will essentially mean that if you give a site false information when registering, and then access their site, you are immediately guilty of criminal computer trespass under Federal laws, and face up to a year in prison.
Huh. So much for bugmenot.com, then. I'm going to miss their spam-reducing service.
You could look beyond the raw text of what I wrote, use a wee bit of brain power, and understand exactly what I meant. And if you don't, you could try responding without that patronizing tone. Because after that, ANYTHING you say/write in response will be discounted. Good way to win an argument, that!
Ok, there are several things wrong here. I'll start with the simplest: I was discussing and/or debating, not arguing. If you want to argue, head down the hall to room 12A.
As for looking beyond the raw text of what you wrote: Was I supposed to somehow read between the lines and see something that wasn't there? You (mistakenly) attacked my (valid) point, then went on to restate and (over)simplify the same information.
As for understanding "exactly" what you meant: See the above paragraph. Oh, and from what I can tell, since you simply restated my post in an argumentative tone, I'm still not clear on what you're arguing about.
As for my patronizing tone: You're right. I should have considered that you would be an imbecilic pedant who was not actually interested in imparting information. I won't bother to ask you to reread this thread with an effort towards achieving some sort of comprehension, as it is apparently beyond your capabilities.
No, this uses energy with fuel to function. What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?"
I said:
Actually, an electric motor can generate electricity... If you apply electricity to an electric motor, it generates motive force.If you instead apply motive force, it generates electricity.
Physics comprehension ftw!
(for more information, google "generator", "motor", "electricity" and "electromagnetics")
To which you responded:
Um, you just said the same thing. By generating electricity you... generate electricity??
An electric motor and generator are the same thing, only the input is swapped.
To which I will respond with: Read it again, but this time try to actually comprehend what you are reading. I have added emphasis to my original statements, in an attempt to show you where you apparently failed to notice the difference between what I wrote and what you seem to have read.
I would also like to point out that I was responding to someone who was deriding someone else for asking if this motor could produce electricity, and used an electric motor as their (flawed) analogy.
What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?"
Actually, an electric motor can generate electricity... If you apply electricity to an electric motor, it generates motive force. If you instead apply motive force, it generates electricity.
Physics comprehension ftw!
(for more information, google "generator", "motor", "electricity" and "electromagnetics")
Did you read the part where he "broke in" with Remote Desktop, using "Administrator" as a username, and (someone better have gotten fired for this) "password" as a password? These systems were not in any way, shape or form, secure. At all. Not even remotely (pardon the pun).
Any competent network administrator will set a strong password for the admin account, and anyone who truly understands security will change the administration account's username, as well. Some places will even create an unprivileged account and name it "Administrator", with a logon script that sets off all kinds of alarms.
This guy didn't hack anything, there was no "secret back door", nor was there any attempt at using exploits. He walked in an open front door to look around, using a tool that comes with the OS, and is now wanted by the embarassed officials so they can make an example of him. The "hacking" he did could just as easily have been accomplished by a 7 year old kid with a 10 year old computer. If these systems were secured, this guy wouldn't have ever gotten close to "comprimising" them.
If this guy actually goes to prison (or even trial) for "hacking" or "terrorism", I'm going to be scared to use "ping" and "tracert", nevermind "mstsc". on the other hand, maybe that's their goal.
Hmm... how about an ad campaign about how using installed-by-default Microsoft software can get you sent to PMITA Federal Prison (or even Guantanamo) for the rest of your life as an "international terrorist"? Maybe we can get Microsoft to go to bat for him. Not likely, but the concept has potential, what with corporations being legal entities for everything except accountability, these days.
They may have consent, they can get someone to call back and ask.
Yeah, I can see how that one goes down.
"Hi, this is 911 Emergency Services, we'd like to post the conversation you had with EOC operator #117 on the internet. We wouldn't do this without your permission, of course, so if you'll just give me your consent, I'll call the 3 officers currently getting out of the cruiser in your driveway and explain that it's all a misunderstanding."
I have to disagree with your thesis. As a refutation, I ask you to answer a few questions...
What causes male humans to gawk at swimsuit models? Why do female humans find Fabio so attractive? How are either of these related to the survival of the species?
Yeah, I know, you said "In the true modern society, all bets are off and we've pretty much rewritten selection." But that just sounds like a cop-out answer, to me.
Sometimes things just don't make sense, and sexual selection is one of them. Choosing a mate for non-utilitarian reasons (ie, she's pretty, or he's got all his hair) has very little (if anything) to do with the species' survivability, but it happens every day.
Uhm. Reading comprehension ftw? I know the GP isn't the easiest on the grammer-and-punctuation crowd, but where in that did you get that the content was free of charge? Try it again with a couple hyphens, see if it clears up the concept:
A sane response would be to provide DRM- and commercial-free media to your customers that are filled with quality content...
Is that a little clearer?
Don't get me wrong, I disagree too. Hulu seems to be doing quite well with commercials and no DRM.
Complaining about iTunes installing Quicktime is like complaining about the VLC Player installing the VLC Libraries.
Yeah, I can see that. So where do I sign up to complain about QuickTime installing iTunes? All I wanted to do was view a movie trailer, and I ended up having to fight my pc for half an hour to get that useless piece of software back out of my pc. Then, a week later, QuickTime updated itself and put iTunes back on when I wasn't looking. I never planned on buying anything from iTunes, but now I plan on never buying anything from Apple. It is now my firm belief that Apple is just as evil as any other BigCorp(tm). I don't want to own an iAnything, and their software can go fly a kite, too.
We need some sort of standardized, cross-platform system for DRM.
No. Not just no, but Hell no. What we actually need is no DRM. When you play the arms race game, someone has to lose. When the two players are the content providers and the people who purchase the content, having either side lose means that both do. Lose-lose was never a good outcome, in my book.
Besides, there's always the analog hole.
You want non-intrusive DRM? Do what I do; Rip every piece of media you own, and don't buy into the over-hyped digital bullshit. These store-bought disks are my music, they're my movies, and I'll watch and listen to them when I want, where I want, and how I want. Don't settle for anything less than full satisfaction.
I refuse to purchase anything that doesn't give me physical media and/or a complete lack of encumbrance. Besides, copying stuff is the American Way, we've been Xeroxing wrappers for our VHS tapes and audio cassettes for decades. What are the big corporations going to do when the RepRap (a 3D printer that uses polymer resin, google it for more info) becomes wildly popular? Make it illegal to do your own 3D modelling? It's time they wake up and smell the new paradigm they're living in. I'm tired of them stinking up the place.
-- MAFIA: Music And Film Industries of America - harassing customers for fun and profit!
Otherwise, you might as well ban ski masks because so many robbers and terrorists use them.
Actually, it's my understanding that you are not allowed to wear ski masks inside public places, nor at public demonstrations... for precisely these reasons. About 10 years ago, I was accosted by a convenience store clerk as I entered the store, and told that I had to remove my ski mask or they would call the police. It was approximately 20 degrees Farenheit outside, and this was before the 9/11 fiasco.
-Then more senior techs who understand that IP law is the only reason they ARE being paid at all.
How do you figure? Yeah, yeah, I understand the programmers thinking IP laws are great, but the techs tend to have massive collections of mp3s and movies (in my experience). I like to get paid for the code I sling, too, so I understand the programmers' viewpoint.
As for IP laws having anything to do with techs being paid, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Techs and programmers are paid for the same reason electricians, carpenters, welders, or plumbers are paid. Knowledge, and a willingness to perform a specific task. IP laws may have something to do with programmers being paid, but I believe it's more that someone wants a custom application than that they can't steal their competitor's app.
Are you one of those people who confuse programmers and techs? If so, which of your categories of pirate does that put you in?
Yes, pirates come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. So do people. I seem to have missed the point of your post, unless you were simply reinforcing my point that anyone with the ability to easily reproduce something probably will.
I may not have gotten my point across as well as I would have liked. What I was trying to describe is that the more accustomed to modern technology someone is, the more rapidly they will begin to ignore IP laws. The technology is embedded so far into our culture that it's part of the language. I know people who "Xerox" stuff, regardless of the brand of their photocopying machine. I know people who "tape" shows on their TiVos, just as they used to "tape" stuff on their VCRs. People used to "tape" music and video now they "rip" it, or "burn" CDs and DVDs. I'm looking forward to being able to "rep" (replicate) things with the RepRap in the near future, myself. All of these are examples of the ubiquity of duplication technology. The public has become accustomed to being able to simply duplicate any piece of media at the touch of a button. The technology for producing duplicates is ubiquitous, and shutting the barn door when the horse has already fled is more than a bit silly.
I pointed out Windows Media Player's ability to rip audio to show that even the largest corporations are enabling the duplication of copyrighted content. Some more examples: Dell, HP, et al are selling PCs with CD and DVD burners in them, with the requisite duplication software pre-installed. It seems to me that the only people not "getting with the program" are the lawmakers, and the people getting rich by ripping off the artists. (I'm talking about the recording industry, here, not the pirates. D'oh!)
As for your argument that the GPL comes from IP: Uhm, yeah. And if there were no IP laws, there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL is a way to enjoy freedom *within* the current IP laws. This has been discussed numerous times before, so I won't bother rehashing it yet again.
An interesting thought: The more technologically inclined a person is, the more likely they are to pirate something. Of the techs and coders that I know, none of them can honestly say they haven't copied *something*. To be completely honest, I don't know a single person who hasn't copied at least one song, or printed at least one copyrighted work, but the techies are more likely to have huge collections of "media of dubious origins". What are they going to do, arrest the entire internet?
Speaking of "the entire internet", if we aren't "rampantly pirating", we aren't keeping up with the global economy. Hate to drag this back out into the light, but China was Public Enemy #1 as recently as a few weeks ago, because of their "rampant piracy". This same story seems so familiar to many of us, because a few years back, the USA's government was freaking out about European countries not paying attention to our IP laws. Evidently, we here in the USA are slow learners. The countries with lax IP laws are proceeding in leaps and bounds, while those crippled by "respect" for IP laws are pedalling in circles. It should be our patriotic duty to commit piracy! Increase the store and flow of information for the greater good, and all that.
With the advance of technology, copyrights are no longer an impediment to creativity; those who want to simply ignore them. This is much bigger than the VHS/Betamax wars of two decades ago. The devices exist, the methods are ubiquitous, end of discussion. Not only can we copy music, movies, television, books, or any other (digital) object with our evil piratical computer devices (don't forget, you can rip mp3s with Windows Media Player!), there is now technology that allows us to copy physical objects, as well. The world is changing, and it's a simple fact of life that during major societal changes, older and less effectual methods become obsolete. The Music And Film Industries of America need to get with the program, and stop paying our government to keep them on life support.
It's an age-old maxim, and it applies just as well here: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Slashdot Mirror
If apple allowed just anyone to write anything for their systems they would take a big hit in that sphere of their product offering.
So, what you're saying, then, is that the people who bought this are idiots? Apple has a software approval process that apps have to go through before they get posted on the site, no?
Sorry, that was not meant to be taken personally. Sometimes I lament English's lack of specificity in pronouns. The instances of "you" in that sentence were intended as second-person plural, non-specific.
Yeah, just what *is* this? You still have yet to refute my argument... or even admit that you decided to be a prick just to have an argument. It's ok to make mistakes, you know, but when you try to rub other people's noses in them, it just makes you out to be an ass.
Just trying to help you in your interpersonal dealings; no offense, eh?
--
Silly twit.
It's pretty typical behavior of someone in the closet.
Someone secure in their sexuality would have just laughed and sent him a link to goatse.
...or just rick rolled them.
Awesome, you're now one of my freaks! Thanks for caring enough to mark me as a "foe".
Incidentally, this doesn't do diddly for you having made an absurdly stupid comment, nor for your chances of winning this "argument" (think "couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag").
The fact remains that of the 4 people who responded to your extremely poor analogy, you chose me because you thought someone who used the term "ftw" (which means "for the win", by the way) would be a pushover, and generate more karma for you. So sorry, but just because I use slang terms doesn't mean I'm unintelligent.
Of course, this post is way off topic, and likely to be markled both troll and flamebait... but I just couldn't resist tweaking your nose yet again, seeing as your response to my refutation of your argument was to mark me "foe" instead of responding.
--
"Good way to win an argument, that!" - X0563511 (793323), my newest freak.
Should it be legal for adults to psychologically bully children?
I think we should make it illegal, just so we can use the new law to bludgeon organized religion to death.
Agreed, 100%. Warping a child's mind to the point that they unquestioningly accept an obvious (to a non-believer) falsehood should be considered child abuse. "Culture" only goes so far in protecting other grievous offenses such as this. We get up in arms about genital mutilation in Africa, why shouldn't we be up in arms about mental abuse inflicted on children?
Honestly, do you really think that worshipping a zombie (Jeebus!) who tells you to partake of ritualised cannibalism (and what do you think the sacrament is?) in order to not be tortured forever (go to Hell) is any sort of sane belief...? How do you justify teaching that to your kids? Why isn't this illegal?
If she is convicted of this, that will essentially mean that if you give a site false information when registering, and then access their site, you are immediately guilty of criminal computer trespass under Federal laws, and face up to a year in prison.
Huh. So much for bugmenot.com, then. I'm going to miss their spam-reducing service.
Patronizing ftw!
You could look beyond the raw text of what I wrote, use a wee bit of brain power, and understand exactly what I meant. And if you don't, you could try responding without that patronizing tone. Because after that, ANYTHING you say/write in response will be discounted. Good way to win an argument, that!
Ok, there are several things wrong here. I'll start with the simplest: I was discussing and/or debating, not arguing. If you want to argue, head down the hall to room 12A.
As for looking beyond the raw text of what you wrote: Was I supposed to somehow read between the lines and see something that wasn't there? You (mistakenly) attacked my (valid) point, then went on to restate and (over)simplify the same information.
As for understanding "exactly" what you meant: See the above paragraph. Oh, and from what I can tell, since you simply restated my post in an argumentative tone, I'm still not clear on what you're arguing about.
As for my patronizing tone: You're right. I should have considered that you would be an imbecilic pedant who was not actually interested in imparting information. I won't bother to ask you to reread this thread with an effort towards achieving some sort of comprehension, as it is apparently beyond your capabilities.
In response to:
No, this uses energy with fuel to function. What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?"
I said:
Actually, an electric motor can generate electricity... If you apply electricity to an electric motor, it generates motive force. If you instead apply motive force, it generates electricity.
Physics comprehension ftw!
(for more information, google "generator", "motor", "electricity" and "electromagnetics")
To which you responded:
Um, you just said the same thing. By generating electricity you... generate electricity??
An electric motor and generator are the same thing, only the input is swapped.
To which I will respond with:
Read it again, but this time try to actually comprehend what you are reading. I have added emphasis to my original statements, in an attempt to show you where you apparently failed to notice the difference between what I wrote and what you seem to have read.
I would also like to point out that I was responding to someone who was deriding someone else for asking if this motor could produce electricity, and used an electric motor as their (flawed) analogy.
For more information, see the entire thread based on the original query.
Oh, I almost forgot... Reading comprehension ftw!
What your asking isn't be very far from asking "will an electric motor generate electricity in a cost efficient way?"
Actually, an electric motor can generate electricity... If you apply electricity to an electric motor, it generates motive force. If you instead apply motive force, it generates electricity.
Physics comprehension ftw!
(for more information, google "generator", "motor", "electricity" and "electromagnetics")
quoted for truth:
Our evidence comes from double-blind scientific studies not anecdotes
[citation needed]
Did you read the part where he "broke in" with Remote Desktop, using "Administrator" as a username, and (someone better have gotten fired for this) "password" as a password? These systems were not in any way, shape or form, secure. At all. Not even remotely (pardon the pun).
Any competent network administrator will set a strong password for the admin account, and anyone who truly understands security will change the administration account's username, as well. Some places will even create an unprivileged account and name it "Administrator", with a logon script that sets off all kinds of alarms.
This guy didn't hack anything, there was no "secret back door", nor was there any attempt at using exploits. He walked in an open front door to look around, using a tool that comes with the OS, and is now wanted by the embarassed officials so they can make an example of him. The "hacking" he did could just as easily have been accomplished by a 7 year old kid with a 10 year old computer. If these systems were secured, this guy wouldn't have ever gotten close to "comprimising" them.
If this guy actually goes to prison (or even trial) for "hacking" or "terrorism", I'm going to be scared to use "ping" and "tracert", nevermind "mstsc". on the other hand, maybe that's their goal.
Hmm... how about an ad campaign about how using installed-by-default Microsoft software can get you sent to PMITA Federal Prison (or even Guantanamo) for the rest of your life as an "international terrorist"? Maybe we can get Microsoft to go to bat for him. Not likely, but the concept has potential, what with corporations being legal entities for everything except accountability, these days.
Ook ook!
They may have consent, they can get someone to call back and ask.
Yeah, I can see how that one goes down.
"Hi, this is 911 Emergency Services, we'd like to post the conversation you had with EOC operator #117 on the internet. We wouldn't do this without your permission, of course, so if you'll just give me your consent, I'll call the 3 officers currently getting out of the cruiser in your driveway and explain that it's all a misunderstanding."
Awesome, now explain the fascination with large breasts. And don't bother giving me a line about how it's helpful to the babies, we all know better.
This post was intelligent, well thought out, thought-provoking, and informative.
What the hell were you thinking, posting crap like that here on slashdot?
--
Brought to you by Carl's Jr., Brought to you by Carl's Jr., Brought to you by Carl's Jr...
I have to disagree with your thesis. As a refutation, I ask you to answer a few questions...
What causes male humans to gawk at swimsuit models?
Why do female humans find Fabio so attractive?
How are either of these related to the survival of the species?
Yeah, I know, you said "In the true modern society, all bets are off and we've pretty much rewritten selection." But that just sounds like a cop-out answer, to me.
Sometimes things just don't make sense, and sexual selection is one of them. Choosing a mate for non-utilitarian reasons (ie, she's pretty, or he's got all his hair) has very little (if anything) to do with the species' survivability, but it happens every day.
Uhm. Reading comprehension ftw? I know the GP isn't the easiest on the grammer-and-punctuation crowd, but where in that did you get that the content was free of charge? Try it again with a couple hyphens, see if it clears up the concept:
A sane response would be to provide DRM- and commercial-free media to your customers that are filled with quality content...
Is that a little clearer?
Don't get me wrong, I disagree too. Hulu seems to be doing quite well with commercials and no DRM.
Complaining about iTunes installing Quicktime is like complaining about the VLC Player installing the VLC Libraries.
Yeah, I can see that. So where do I sign up to complain about QuickTime installing iTunes? All I wanted to do was view a movie trailer, and I ended up having to fight my pc for half an hour to get that useless piece of software back out of my pc. Then, a week later, QuickTime updated itself and put iTunes back on when I wasn't looking. I never planned on buying anything from iTunes, but now I plan on never buying anything from Apple. It is now my firm belief that Apple is just as evil as any other BigCorp(tm). I don't want to own an iAnything, and their software can go fly a kite, too.
We need some sort of standardized, cross-platform system for DRM.
No.
Not just no, but Hell no.
What we actually need is no DRM. When you play the arms race game, someone has to lose. When the two players are the content providers and the people who purchase the content, having either side lose means that both do. Lose-lose was never a good outcome, in my book.
Besides, there's always the analog hole.
You want non-intrusive DRM? Do what I do; Rip every piece of media you own, and don't buy into the over-hyped digital bullshit. These store-bought disks are my music, they're my movies, and I'll watch and listen to them when I want, where I want, and how I want. Don't settle for anything less than full satisfaction.
I refuse to purchase anything that doesn't give me physical media and/or a complete lack of encumbrance. Besides, copying stuff is the American Way, we've been Xeroxing wrappers for our VHS tapes and audio cassettes for decades. What are the big corporations going to do when the RepRap (a 3D printer that uses polymer resin, google it for more info) becomes wildly popular? Make it illegal to do your own 3D modelling? It's time they wake up and smell the new paradigm they're living in. I'm tired of them stinking up the place.
--
MAFIA: Music And Film Industries of America - harassing customers for fun and profit!
Otherwise, you might as well ban ski masks because so many robbers and terrorists use them.
Actually, it's my understanding that you are not allowed to wear ski masks inside public places, nor at public demonstrations... for precisely these reasons. About 10 years ago, I was accosted by a convenience store clerk as I entered the store, and told that I had to remove my ski mask or they would call the police. It was approximately 20 degrees Farenheit outside, and this was before the 9/11 fiasco.
-Then more senior techs who understand that IP law is the only reason they ARE being paid at all.
How do you figure? Yeah, yeah, I understand the programmers thinking IP laws are great, but the techs tend to have massive collections of mp3s and movies (in my experience). I like to get paid for the code I sling, too, so I understand the programmers' viewpoint.
As for IP laws having anything to do with techs being paid, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Techs and programmers are paid for the same reason electricians, carpenters, welders, or plumbers are paid. Knowledge, and a willingness to perform a specific task. IP laws may have something to do with programmers being paid, but I believe it's more that someone wants a custom application than that they can't steal their competitor's app.
Are you one of those people who confuse programmers and techs? If so, which of your categories of pirate does that put you in?
Yes, pirates come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. So do people. I seem to have missed the point of your post, unless you were simply reinforcing my point that anyone with the ability to easily reproduce something probably will.
I may not have gotten my point across as well as I would have liked. What I was trying to describe is that the more accustomed to modern technology someone is, the more rapidly they will begin to ignore IP laws. The technology is embedded so far into our culture that it's part of the language. I know people who "Xerox" stuff, regardless of the brand of their photocopying machine. I know people who "tape" shows on their TiVos, just as they used to "tape" stuff on their VCRs. People used to "tape" music and video now they "rip" it, or "burn" CDs and DVDs. I'm looking forward to being able to "rep" (replicate) things with the RepRap in the near future, myself. All of these are examples of the ubiquity of duplication technology. The public has become accustomed to being able to simply duplicate any piece of media at the touch of a button. The technology for producing duplicates is ubiquitous, and shutting the barn door when the horse has already fled is more than a bit silly.
I pointed out Windows Media Player's ability to rip audio to show that even the largest corporations are enabling the duplication of copyrighted content. Some more examples: Dell, HP, et al are selling PCs with CD and DVD burners in them, with the requisite duplication software pre-installed. It seems to me that the only people not "getting with the program" are the lawmakers, and the people getting rich by ripping off the artists. (I'm talking about the recording industry, here, not the pirates. D'oh!)
As for your argument that the GPL comes from IP: Uhm, yeah. And if there were no IP laws, there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL is a way to enjoy freedom *within* the current IP laws. This has been discussed numerous times before, so I won't bother rehashing it yet again.
An interesting thought: The more technologically inclined a person is, the more likely they are to pirate something. Of the techs and coders that I know, none of them can honestly say they haven't copied *something*. To be completely honest, I don't know a single person who hasn't copied at least one song, or printed at least one copyrighted work, but the techies are more likely to have huge collections of "media of dubious origins". What are they going to do, arrest the entire internet?
Speaking of "the entire internet", if we aren't "rampantly pirating", we aren't keeping up with the global economy. Hate to drag this back out into the light, but China was Public Enemy #1 as recently as a few weeks ago, because of their "rampant piracy". This same story seems so familiar to many of us, because a few years back, the USA's government was freaking out about European countries not paying attention to our IP laws. Evidently, we here in the USA are slow learners. The countries with lax IP laws are proceeding in leaps and bounds, while those crippled by "respect" for IP laws are pedalling in circles. It should be our patriotic duty to commit piracy! Increase the store and flow of information for the greater good, and all that.
With the advance of technology, copyrights are no longer an impediment to creativity; those who want to simply ignore them. This is much bigger than the VHS/Betamax wars of two decades ago. The devices exist, the methods are ubiquitous, end of discussion. Not only can we copy music, movies, television, books, or any other (digital) object with our evil piratical computer devices (don't forget, you can rip mp3s with Windows Media Player!), there is now technology that allows us to copy physical objects, as well. The world is changing, and it's a simple fact of life that during major societal changes, older and less effectual methods become obsolete. The Music And Film Industries of America need to get with the program, and stop paying our government to keep them on life support.
It's an age-old maxim, and it applies just as well here: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
resolv.conf will be written over by DHCP unless you set PEERDNS=no in the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX file.
... or unless you're using a static address, or removing write access to /etc/resolv.conf (chmod, anyone?)
1,008,076,123.09 galactic credits (equal to 0.0008 USD)
Wow, those Aliens have a pretty crappy economy.
Nope, it's the shipping charges that'll get ya.
Ethernet.
VNC.
???
Profit!