This man from Turkey broke no laws because he is not bound to our laws. US law is not universal.
Let's change the target to a major corporation. And let's say that he instead targets their network, and acquires some very sensitive information. I do not think it far fetched that the corporation may well scream bloody murder, and the U.S. government may well demand that this guy be extradited for breaking U.S. laws while invading a network that resides within U.S. borders.
Honestly, why must the goal of Linux be to beat Microsoft?
It's not - it's to make sure that people a) have a choice, and b) to be sure that they can exercise that choice. It's not OSS' fault that Microsoft has to turn everything into a competitive, monopolistic battle - usually by doing something brain-dead with established standards, or implementing "features" in Windows that prevent the use of alternatives. Some of you may cite Microsoft's new leanings toward a more open-source-friendly approach - but seriously - it's only because they have to. I'm sure Microsoft would have no qualms whatsoever about locking down everything, and quite literally taking ownership of your machine if they were not stopped by competitive forces.
This is more a factor of the age of the market, not an inherent flaw in software patents.
This is absolutely wrong. Laywers design to be as broad as possible. The idea of patenting a concept implemented in software removes the possibility of producing a better product that utilizes the same concept. Think for a minute, as to what we'd be facing if software patents existed 20 years ago. I dare say that the face of personal computing would be far different than we now know it, and one of the primary reasons is that competition has allowed the industry to flourish.
Part of the problem is that software relies heavily on algorithms, and there are only so many ways you can accomplish a given task. If someone had locked up the manipulation of hexadecimal values representing the colors used in the digital representation of an image, there might not be a an Adobe Photoshop - or a Corel Painter. Or any number of other alternatives a person can choose. This is ruling is nothing but bad news.
Give it another 2 years and it will be known as Microsoft Firefox.
I'm wondering about that as well. In fact, I think we should all be wary of that that large, horse-shaped shadow that's slowly creeping into was was formerly enemy territory.
Make no mistake about it - there are plenty of young adults, and even older adults that refuse to exercise good jugement while operating a motor vehicle. As a group though, the problems with teen drivers are evident from the high rate of accidents, and their overall severity. Of course, there are always exceptions, and it sounds like you may very well fall into that category.
Much of teen driving problems come from two sources: overconfidence, and distractions. Some states have laws that permit only a certain number of people in the car at certain stages of the licencing process- and they do that for a reason. Teens are notorious for packing friends into a car to go out and 'have a good time', but the passengers become a major source of distraction. Despite what young drivers may think of their abilities, they need to concentrate on driving, and worry about having 'fun' after they exit the vehicle.
don't like the thought someone would be watching me all the time like Big Brother, but on the other hand if I get t-boned, and the other party claims I ran a red light or some other nonsense I like the thought there could be an electronic record showing the other party was traveling way over the speed limit, weaving, slamming brakes, etc. right up to the event.
In that case, solve your problem by installing the same thing police use - a video camera mounted on the rear-view mirror (or dash). At least it's *your* choice then.
I disagree - boycotts are very good solutions, it's just that too many Americans are too fat and lazy to do anything about it. They want their video games, their McFood, all of their convenience, and all of that means so much more than some very fundamental issues that involve some pretty serious stuff. What's worse, is that they look to big daddy government to solve their problems once everything is hopelessly out of hand. That will NEVER work, since the elected representatives are often burning the candle at both ends, and quite successfully at that. The point is, that when you withhold money, the buck truly stops, and there's nothing any company or any democratic government can do about it. It's the market working just like it's supposed to.
in their Writely tour but I can't prevent a disgruntled Google employee from distributing copies of information I've written with Writely except to not give them that information in the first place.
It wouldn't even take a disgruntled employee...many compromises are accomplished through social engineering, where the employees think they are doing something that is perfectly legitimate.
In one sense, I think I agree with Raymond - however, the larger issue isn't just the acceptance of binary drivers, the issue is what may happen to Linux as a result. I don't think it's too far fetched too assume that those who can exert any kind of influence won't hesitate to do so. What if, for example, the vendor of a prorpetary driver started making demands that certain aspects of Linux be implemented in a very specific way in order to "protect" their interest?
I can guarantee you that if this is anything BUT defensive, any transactions between Amazon and I will never see the light of day. Funny thing is...I've held out this long because of the rediculous "one-click: patent that they really believe is innovative. Amazon's absence from my shopping list hasn't mattered- AT ALL. Yes folks, there is life beyond Amazon.
The sad part about this is that there is plenty within recent history to support at least looking into the possibility that this is what may have happened. The creation of a disaster to divert attention and manipulate public support for what would be considered insane under normal circumstances, isn't new. I wonder how many of the non-conspiracy-branded people actually know this. Even after five years, nobody knows exactly what happened with 9/11- too much of it was shrouded in secrecy, and there are still many unanswered questions. That's reason enough to raise at least *some* suspicion.
I don't think it's this bad - I think he has a point (that he puts his own MS positive light on) - but OSS is very often written to solve the problem a developer has, and is then supported and primarily used by developers.
Probably so...but I don't see that as a bad thing. Consider it v.1, an implementation of something at a very early stage in its development. With OS, once an idea is off the ground, there are no constraints on which direction it can take - the ability to fork something so that development does focus on the needs of the user community at large, isn't something that can be offered by the proprietary software model. where you're pretty much stuck with what they give you.
I dunno, I have pirated some games in the past. I never would have bought them in the first place though.
I keep hearing this "it's ok to pirate something if I never intended to buy it anyway," line of reasoning. It's NOT ok for a person to pirate something they don't intend to buy it...if they don't intend to buy it, they have no right to have it, use it, or reap any benefits it may offer. The only exception is something being loaned (where the other entity no longer has it in their possession), rented, or anything that falls under fair use. Piracy (particularly "sharing with a friend") does not fall under fair use. Period. End of story.
Take an interesting case for example...someone does searches related to the production of methamphetamine. An uninformed onlooker might easily conclude that that the individual conducting the searches was interested in producing meth. But perhaps they wanted to learn *about* meth so that they could keep an eye out for suspicious behavior by *others*. Or maybe they encountered a situation where they suspect someone of producing meth, but weren't sure about what they were seeing (or hearing, or smelling, or whatever else might apply). Because situations like this can easily exist, I believe that the release of search data is LOADED with potential to present an horribly inaccurate picture of what's actually going on.
Currently, it's easy to understand...just imagine a big tent with three rings in the middle. In one ring, they do things that are intended to convince you that things are other than what they seem, using magic and slight-of-hand. In another ring, they try to distract you with humor to obscure what's going on in the other two rings. In the third ring, they occasionally throw you a bone with a performance that may actually require skill and talent. As you sit, mesmerized, paid "behind the scenes" help mills about the audience, craftily removing the wallets from exposed pockets and wayward handbags, When you finally discover that you've been ripped off, it's far too late, and doing anything about it will be next to impossible.
The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.
This is an hilarious PR statement, especially in light of the illegal behavior by our own citizens in currently in office. Given our recent track record, this is nothing more than some semantic sugar used to cover the foul taste of political corruption.
It's one of the risks inherent in participating in a capitalist economy. The potential exists to do very well, but there is also the potential that things might slip in the opposite direction. Is it cool? Not really, because it does tend to disrupt peoples' lives. Do I feel sad for them? Not really, because it's all part of the game called "US of A". And let's not forget that there are other parts of the world where just getting a single meal is the biggest worry.
I don't need Microsoft to dictate the appearance of the hardware that I purchase. If the results are anything like their record on security, it will be a disaster- and quite understandably, that's something I'd like very much to avoid.
Somehow the phrase, "Microsoft-approved" seems to be heading in a direction that I never thought possible. Not only will software writers have to conform, but now PC manufacturers should worry about how their systems look, just because they *might* be used to run Vista? What arrogance. Some things never change.
I thought it was accepted practice to stall, misrepresent, impose legal costs, hide behind obscure terminology in a contract, and employ countless other ways to avoid rendering its primary service.
Slashdot Mirror
And you think future hackers aren't going to plant evidence on innocent peoples hard drives for notoriety, or passes from the FBI?
All the suspect has to do is claim that there's no way that the planted evidence is his, because all of *his* illicit material is encrypted. oops...
This man from Turkey broke no laws because he is not bound to our laws. US law is not universal.
Let's change the target to a major corporation. And let's say that he instead targets their network, and acquires some very sensitive information. I do not think it far fetched that the corporation may well scream bloody murder, and the U.S. government may well demand that this guy be extradited for breaking U.S. laws while invading a network that resides within U.S. borders.
Honestly, why must the goal of Linux be to beat Microsoft?
It's not - it's to make sure that people a) have a choice, and b) to be sure that they can exercise that choice. It's not OSS' fault that Microsoft has to turn everything into a competitive, monopolistic battle - usually by doing something brain-dead with established standards, or implementing "features" in Windows that prevent the use of alternatives. Some of you may cite Microsoft's new leanings toward a more open-source-friendly approach - but seriously - it's only because they have to. I'm sure Microsoft would have no qualms whatsoever about locking down everything, and quite literally taking ownership of your machine if they were not stopped by competitive forces.
This is more a factor of the age of the market, not an inherent flaw in software patents.
This is absolutely wrong. Laywers design to be as broad as possible. The idea of patenting a concept implemented in software removes the possibility of producing a better product that utilizes the same concept. Think for a minute, as to what we'd be facing if software patents existed 20 years ago. I dare say that the face of personal computing would be far different than we now know it, and one of the primary reasons is that competition has allowed the industry to flourish.
Part of the problem is that software relies heavily on algorithms, and there are only so many ways you can accomplish a given task. If someone had locked up the manipulation of hexadecimal values representing the colors used in the digital representation of an image, there might not be a an Adobe Photoshop - or a Corel Painter. Or any number of other alternatives a person can choose. This is ruling is nothing but bad news.
Give it another 2 years and it will be known as Microsoft Firefox.
I'm wondering about that as well. In fact, I think we should all be wary of that that large, horse-shaped shadow that's slowly creeping into was was formerly enemy territory.
Make no mistake about it - there are plenty of young adults, and even older adults that refuse to exercise good jugement while operating a motor vehicle. As a group though, the problems with teen drivers are evident from the high rate of accidents, and their overall severity. Of course, there are always exceptions, and it sounds like you may very well fall into that category.
Much of teen driving problems come from two sources: overconfidence, and distractions. Some states have laws that permit only a certain number of people in the car at certain stages of the licencing process- and they do that for a reason. Teens are notorious for packing friends into a car to go out and 'have a good time', but the passengers become a major source of distraction. Despite what young drivers may think of their abilities, they need to concentrate on driving, and worry about having 'fun' after they exit the vehicle.
don't like the thought someone would be watching me all the time like Big Brother, but on the other hand if I get t-boned, and the other party claims I ran a red light or some other nonsense I like the thought there could be an electronic record showing the other party was traveling way over the speed limit, weaving, slamming brakes, etc. right up to the event.
In that case, solve your problem by installing the same thing police use - a video camera mounted on the rear-view mirror (or dash). At least it's *your* choice then.
Simply "boycot" solutions are non-solutions.
I disagree - boycotts are very good solutions, it's just that too many Americans are too fat and lazy to do anything about it. They want their video games, their McFood, all of their convenience, and all of that means so much more than some very fundamental issues that involve some pretty serious stuff. What's worse, is that they look to big daddy government to solve their problems once everything is hopelessly out of hand. That will NEVER work, since the elected representatives are often burning the candle at both ends, and quite successfully at that. The point is, that when you withhold money, the buck truly stops, and there's nothing any company or any democratic government can do about it. It's the market working just like it's supposed to.
in their Writely tour but I can't prevent a disgruntled Google employee from distributing copies of information I've written with Writely except to not give them that information in the first place.
It wouldn't even take a disgruntled employee...many compromises are accomplished through social engineering, where the employees think they are doing something that is perfectly legitimate.
If your fingerprint is compromised, they'll just ask for your password.
In one sense, I think I agree with Raymond - however, the larger issue isn't just the acceptance of binary drivers, the issue is what may happen to Linux as a result. I don't think it's too far fetched too assume that those who can exert any kind of influence won't hesitate to do so. What if, for example, the vendor of a prorpetary driver started making demands that certain aspects of Linux be implemented in a very specific way in order to "protect" their interest?
I can guarantee you that if this is anything BUT defensive, any transactions between Amazon and I will never see the light of day. Funny thing is...I've held out this long because of the rediculous "one-click: patent that they really believe is innovative. Amazon's absence from my shopping list hasn't mattered- AT ALL. Yes folks, there is life beyond Amazon.
The sad part about this is that there is plenty within recent history to support at least looking into the possibility that this is what may have happened. The creation of a disaster to divert attention and manipulate public support for what would be considered insane under normal circumstances, isn't new. I wonder how many of the non-conspiracy-branded people actually know this. Even after five years, nobody knows exactly what happened with 9/11- too much of it was shrouded in secrecy, and there are still many unanswered questions. That's reason enough to raise at least *some* suspicion.
I don't think it's this bad - I think he has a point (that he puts his own MS positive light on) - but OSS is very often written to solve the problem a developer has, and is then supported and primarily used by developers.
Probably so...but I don't see that as a bad thing. Consider it v.1, an implementation of something at a very early stage in its development. With OS, once an idea is off the ground, there are no constraints on which direction it can take - the ability to fork something so that development does focus on the needs of the user community at large, isn't something that can be offered by the proprietary software model. where you're pretty much stuck with what they give you.
I dunno, I have pirated some games in the past. I never would have bought them in the first place though.
I keep hearing this "it's ok to pirate something if I never intended to buy it anyway," line of reasoning. It's NOT ok for a person to pirate something they don't intend to buy it...if they don't intend to buy it, they have no right to have it, use it, or reap any benefits it may offer. The only exception is something being loaned (where the other entity no longer has it in their possession), rented, or anything that falls under fair use. Piracy (particularly "sharing with a friend") does not fall under fair use. Period. End of story.
Take an interesting case for example...someone does searches related to the production of methamphetamine. An uninformed onlooker might easily conclude that that the individual conducting the searches was interested in producing meth. But perhaps they wanted to learn *about* meth so that they could keep an eye out for suspicious behavior by *others*. Or maybe they encountered a situation where they suspect someone of producing meth, but weren't sure about what they were seeing (or hearing, or smelling, or whatever else might apply). Because situations like this can easily exist, I believe that the release of search data is LOADED with potential to present an horribly inaccurate picture of what's actually going on.
I probably don't understand patent law,
Currently, it's easy to understand...just imagine a big tent with three rings in the middle. In one ring, they do things that are intended to convince you that things are other than what they seem, using magic and slight-of-hand. In another ring, they try to distract you with humor to obscure what's going on in the other two rings. In the third ring, they occasionally throw you a bone with a performance that may actually require skill and talent. As you sit, mesmerized, paid "behind the scenes" help mills about the audience, craftily removing the wallets from exposed pockets and wayward handbags, When you finally discover that you've been ripped off, it's far too late, and doing anything about it will be next to impossible.
The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.
This is an hilarious PR statement, especially in light of the illegal behavior by our own citizens in currently in office. Given our recent track record, this is nothing more than some semantic sugar used to cover the foul taste of political corruption.
It's one of the risks inherent in participating in a capitalist economy. The potential exists to do very well, but there is also the potential that things might slip in the opposite direction. Is it cool? Not really, because it does tend to disrupt peoples' lives. Do I feel sad for them? Not really, because it's all part of the game called "US of A". And let's not forget that there are other parts of the world where just getting a single meal is the biggest worry.
Crap. Diebold is offering e-passports too?
I don't need Microsoft to dictate the appearance of the hardware that I purchase. If the results are anything like their record on security, it will be a disaster- and quite understandably, that's something I'd like very much to avoid.
Somehow the phrase, "Microsoft-approved" seems to be heading in a direction that I never thought possible. Not only will software writers have to conform, but now PC manufacturers should worry about how their systems look, just because they *might* be used to run Vista? What arrogance. Some things never change.
I thought it was accepted practice to stall, misrepresent, impose legal costs, hide behind obscure terminology in a contract, and employ countless other ways to avoid rendering its primary service.