Dude, settle down. The primary difference in most cases between HLL and LLL implementations is still algorithm selection and structure. Write a static webserver that competes under load with YAWS and I'll be impressed; otherwise you're just another guy bragging.
Incidentally, a static webserver is several hundred lines of C. It's an extremely simple task, and there's a well defined (and much more satisfactory) benchmarking set under Tsung that will laugh while your server withers under the heat of YAWS. You will not successfully compete with YAWS under the YAWS Tsung test set; timeslicing behavior is way too hard for anyone who would attempt to publically stage a meaningless, undefined "challenge" like this.
As long as you haven't defined the task or the phrase "high level", you've left yourself enough wiggle room to exclude anything that's even slightly challenging. If you want to be taken seriously, produce the competing code, or at least _define_ what challenge you're making.
And, frankly, dude, nobody really cares if you're sick of this crap until you've put up competition. (Don't bother tu quoqueing; I've actually released a webserver.)
First, his blog is standing up to a slashdotting. That's impressive.
Not unless you're used to desparately overburdened shared hosting. My six dollar a month account from HostMonster has handled multiple simultaneous slashdottings with concommitant reddit and digg traffic several times. One of my customers sustained roughly seven megabits of traffic for several days straight inside a VM with no problems.
Slashdot traffic taking a site down means the site isn't hosted at a reputable host, these days.
If your skills were more common we'd have a better world.
As much as Lisp people want to say that Lisp lost because of the price of Lisp machines and Lisp compilers, it actually lost because it isn't a particularly practical language; that's why it hasn't had a resurgance while all these people move to haskell, erlang, clojure, et cetera.
Lisp is a beautiful language. So is Smalltalk. Neither one of them were ever ready to compete with practical languages.
It's very tough to find someone who can code well in C
Er, no, it isn't. You just have to know where to look, and to not get stuck in the Silicon Valley highschool mindset, where nerf guns are believed to adequately substitute for health care, and where nobody can name a formal method.
C programmers are the most numerous professional programmers on Earth today, and we're in the highest unemployment for programmers since the dot com bust, with a number of well meaning companies blindly ditching C for whatever the new hotness is (and eventually going right back). Hell, I get C/C++ programmers for things that aren't looking for C work, because they (rightfully) believe they can pick up the other language as they go and do a better job than the natives due to their understanding of actual costs.
If you can't find someone who writes good C, either there's something wrong with how you're attracting staff, or you're not judging them skillfully, or they have some reason to stay away. I'm putting my chip on #3.
You're not correct. Clean room is legally carefully defined. It means reverse engineering a protocol or specification with no access to any outside information of any form. The germane importance of clean room is to prove that no tainted or protected information was used, as it clearly is in this case. Clean room requires an enormous amount of documentation which has not been produced here. This is not a clean room reimplementation by any stretch of the imagination.
You can get a clearer idea of the issues by reading about how Compaq defended itself against IBM when cloning the IBM PC BIOS, because it had carefully kept all documentation necessary to prove that its reimplementation was clean room, which is why IBM couldn't stop them from opening the PC clone market.
It's a far stronger statement than "no access to original code", which is effectively meaningless: you get caught ripping code off, you just write it again while looking at the ripoff? You do realize that'd entirely destroy every protection the GPL affords, don't you?
Clueless. Please don't pretend to yourself that you know what clean room means. Grandparent poster was correct. You are not.
The clearing blocks in advance is called TRIM, and your computer already supports it, as does Windows 7. As far as defrag, that's completely unnecessary; the article and poster are incorrect, as fragmentation has nothing to do with the problem. Flash drives have zero seek and no performance penalty for random access.
Wow, google brought us an implementation of a standard that's got dozens of implementations already! A failed standard from 1996! One with several legitimate, healthy replacements!
The practice of law used to require one book, when we found this nation maybe a 100
This is complete fiction. The Shakers took years to produce our legal system, and produced nearly a thousand books to describe it. At no point has the legal system you described existed in this nation.
Are you a citizen of Ireland? If you are not, then you are not fundamentally entitled to register a domain on that TLD.
Nonsense. There is no requirement that a TLD be used only by people from that TLD; even its intended use is customer oriented, not vendor oriented. By that logic, amazon.co.uk shouldn't exist. And, of course, Ireland's TLD makes no attempt to control who uses their registrar; indeed they even charge foreigners explicitly higher prices, is how much they agree with you on that point. And nobody at any point in this has argued this as a point of rights due national origin, besides. This is as much a non-sequitur as it is a red herring.
At some point, we have to recognize that the owners of a TLD really do have the right to determine what can and cannot be registered
Number one, I recognize no such thing. Number two, I never challenged that. Number three, what they said does not match the law of their nation. Number four, a court has already upheld the speciousness of their arguments. Number five, my post explicitly acknowledge that this was neither legally nor ethically corrupt, merely a nuisance brought on by some middle manager with delusions of authority.
Rights aren't arbitrarily granted by holding a management job.
Your sense of entitlement is
Nonexistant. I explicitly stated that I had no entitlement. Please learn to read before criticizing people for the exact opposite of what they actually said.
You could just as easily go to another TLD
No, I can't. Domain hacks are explicitly tied to single registrars. Try to keep up.
If you are not an Irish citizen... You have no rights to get involved in the issue.
Why? The registrar in question is owned by someone from not-Ireland, as are more than eighty percent of domains.
Did you think most TLDs were run by companies from the nations they point at? Have you ever actually read through the IANA root zone DB? The Irish registrar is run by a British company with an Irish tax ID, an explicitly for-profit organization who runs the domain as a for-profit venture. Their pricing structure directly countermands several of the claims you make. It's almost as if you haven't thought this through at all from the perspective that your guesswork might not be right.
Your insistance that only an irish person can have an opinion on the Irish TLD is uninformed by common practice, specific context or the RFCs which defined these terms and services. Your arguments are specious and driven by claims towards morality in an ethical framework you've pretty much made up.
Is it a form of censorship? Yes.
No. Censorship is when a government tells an individual that they cannot publish something anywhere in a nation. This is a middle manager in a commercial entity who's made a personal decision made by personal beliefs. They are not an elected official, nor has anyone in government given them any form of authority. They're just some jerk with the keys to a server and no process in place to tell them where their responsibility boundaries are.
The value of the domain just became a heck of a lot less to the world.
Uh, no, it didn't. The number of Irish domains hasn't changed, and the registration rate hasn't dropped significantly. You're just guessing based on some vague pablum about anthropomorphizing the internet to have behaviors and activities. Evidence or it didn't happen. (Common phrases aren't evidence.)
If the Irish TLD is for profit, or needs tax revenue to operate then they are shooting themselves in the foot
What are you talking about? Almost every TLD is a for-profit venture. There are only seven on earth that are government run, and only t
I do. I just found an interesting domain hack (that is, in the way that del.icio.us is a domain hack) ending in IE that was about porn, it was short, it was memorable, it was available, and now I guess I can't register it.
Porn is a massively oversaturated marketplace of free goods. Don't underestimate the importance of a short, memorable domain in porn; in many cases it's the only way a pornographer can stand head and shoulders above the rest. Is it some kind of ethical outrage? No, but it's a drag, it's silly, and it's a slap in the face to those people who had already begun a business in their existing.IE domains.
I mean seriously, who are we kidding? The word "porn" is offensive now? They're not saying the actual pornography is offensive; the way they've written this ruling would not affect a porn site run on the theoretical site BlueWallPaint.ie, which has no offensive words in its title.
This is just some middle manager pretending to have moral authority, and that sort of thing is very much a "boo, hiss" sort of thing. It also sucks for the pornographers who have to start over with a sixty character domain name.
It sucks because.ie is valuable to hacks and for it to be off the table because of some random dude thinking he's a legislative body is lame.
I mean sure, it's not genocide in Rwanda. But it is pretty fail on the part of that registrar, don't you think, to pretend they're in an ethical position to do this? The only reason they can do this is because the design of the network grants them a monopoly. Nobody's ever actually given them any such authority; they're just doing it because they feel like it and nobody can stop them. Someone even took them to court and won and they're doing it anyway, because they think they know appropriate ethics better than do the local courts.
If you were making $20k/y per domain from a domain group that got axed because of some jerk, and had no way to redirect or retain that traffic or its revenue, all because some dude thinks the word porn is somehow offended, wouldn't you be pretty pissed?
It seems to me that such posting of a limited amount copyrighted material for discussion purposes on a public-interest, non-profit Web site falls within the scope of the fair use exemption of US copyright law.
Well, it doesn't.
""quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." "
None of that is what you're doing. Incidentally, the phrase you're really in trouble with is where the court is told explicitly to consider the substantiality of the quotation; you've quoted more than 1/8 of the entire work. Fair use lets you get away with quoting maybe five or six questions in a situation like this, not 75.
Furthermore, you don't actually get to decline the request while you decide what to do. Declining a takedown is a final stance; if you say no, that's not "no while I figure it out", that's no period. You're supposed to be taking the content down until you're convinced it's legal (which it isn't).
The only people here who will tell you that what you're doing is fair use are the people who have never read fair use doctrine. Fair use is for criticism and commentary, and is meant to cover the news and the newspapers talking about things. It is not a blanket to excuse you duplicating and disseminating whatever copywritten material you feel like, even if it's "only" nearly 15% of the complete work.
You're way, way in the wrong here, and you need to call a lawyer and ask, before you get into serious trouble. Slashdot is not a lawyer.
This is what subsampling law is explicitly for; the law even goes as far as to say how long each clip can be and still be legal (and he's way, way in the clear.) Intellectual property law explicitly allows things like this in the United States as long as they're within guidelines, and this is well within guidelines. This is how the TV news and rappers get through their day.
As far as new, bands like White Noise, James Tenney and The Beatles were doing this in the early 1960s; your choice of "The New Elvis" is particularly apropos, as this was determined legal in 1961 regarding James Tenney's Collage #1 ("Blue Suede"), made out of Elvis samples (though some would argue that there are earlier examples.)
Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like.
This is what my old Elvis looked like.
But the video is freaking epic, that much is true.
That's an interesting and viable position. It's somewhat telling that the only actual meritocratic statement here was made by an AC.
Let me ask you a question, in case you're still reading (and watch the three douchebags arguing with me try to pretend to be you): cannot the exact same thing be said of GPL? I'm certainly no fan of software patents, but the parallel I find telling.
Linux is neither the only nor even the first free Unix. TomTom could (should?) have been built on other operating systems which are free without restriction. Without GPL, there would have been no barrier to TomTom's being created. With GPL, there is a barrier once they're underway (and indeed a serious one).
Anyone willing to accept a Random House Dictionary citation deserves what they get. RHD doesn't even require degrees from their authors. They accept definitions from any random jagoff who writes pleasantly and convincingly. Neither reference nor citation is required of their definitions. They're no better than Wikipedia.
From AmHet, a real etymological dictionary: 1581, from L. diatriba "learned discussion," from Gk. diatribe "discourse, study," lit. "a wearing away (of time)," from dia- "away" + tribein "to wear, rub."
should get you marked down immediately as -1 Troll
I agree, if I had said that (cutting half a sentence out of context changes its meaning) that that would be stupid. However, as someone with a four digit UID should know by now, the appropriate moderation is -1, Overrated. I would think you've been here long enough to know what the moderation stamps mean; there's a faq on it. Troll doesn't mean "wrong" and it doesn't mean "disagree with". It means "trying to pick a fight". Troll applies to people who make ugly jokes in order to pick a fight. That isn't one of them, even though it makes you uncomfortable to see someone taking a position you disagree with on solid grounds.
This is the sort of behavior one expects from religious people in secular discussions. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, and it doesn't mean they're causing problems. I would remind you of John Stuart Mill should I believe you'd ever read him: "The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men."
Also, don't use words you don't understand. It's pretty pathetic to see someone use the phrase "ignorant diatribe", when diatribe means "highly educated monologue". The word you were looking for was "speech", though if you wanted to drop big words to seem smart (it doesn't work), you probably should have said "eristic" or "vitriolic". You know, if you knew those words, which given your cumbersome dopery in what is charitably called monologue one tends to doubt.
Honestly. Ignorant diatribe? It amazes me that you're willing to speak in public, the way people must catch you on details. Were you a speech writer for Bush?
Do you know how many intermediate vendors ship GPL code, both v2 and v3 ? It's a *lot*.
Yes, the cutting the sentence out of context game is cute, and all. If you return to context, which was "and who license patents", then that number drops precipitously. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that you cannot name even one, except those who have been sued for it (eg Tivo and TomTom) or perhaps someone you work for.
Things like this make me wish I could request metamoderation. There was no trolling here, and yet it was done in under ten minutes. If someone's ability to request metamoderation was tuned down if they abused the request, then the metamoderation system would waste less work on articles nobody wants challenged, people would get more involved in metamoderation because they'd be presented with more examples of where it's productive, and problems where metamoderation was required would be less likely to slip under the radar simply because the dice didn't come up.
Also, a +0, Disagree flag would go a long, long way to solving the constant abuse of troll and flamebait. Sometimes people are just looking for a way to register disagreement, and having a 0 attached to it visibly would help them remember that disagreement isn't meant to alter a score.
Not exactly. The GPL doesn't prevent you from purchasing licensed technology to use with GPL code, it just requires that you grant the license to anyone you distribute the code to, and let them do the same.
Which is something that's essentially never possible with licensed technologies: you would have to pay the holder enough money for them to forego any other licensor ever. That's effectively saying "you just have to be willing to give anyone who asks for a house a house for one dollar." The sentence makes sense, but the underlying sentiment does not.
Fee seeking patent holders do not grant such licenses, basically ever, because it ruins their ability to continue their existing business practice.
You've completely missed what's going on, here.
No, but maybe I worded it poorly.
No, you really have. The problem here is that the GPL sets up restrictions which no intermediate vendor can realistically comply with. What this should have done was drive intermediate vendors like TomTom and TiVo to BSD, but they were naive; this is exactly why Steve Jobs avoided the GPL, and as much as I hate him, he made the right choice. Going down the GPL path means constantly looking over your shoulder for unexpected threats and costs, shelling out enormously higher patent costs to third parties for special kinds of licenses they're rarely willing to sell at all, and a variety of other business driver poison pills.
Sometimes I wonder just how long it's going to take for the patent vampires to start sinking their teeth in. There is a glorious violation minefield out there, and so many penalties and fines just waiting to be had by the people who will soon be called abusers, but who you're currently positing as the defenders of righteous GPL belief.
Let me ask you a question. What if this kind of lawsuit becomes common? Is the GPL still holding an enviable set of principles then? Is it then all those intermediate vendors' faults? Is this TomTom's fault, for not sticking to GPL principles? Wouldn't you expect the average TomTom user to be happier if they'd used OpenBSD, which would have essentially no impact on the device, but would prevent this lawsuit, the incoming penalties, the service charge increases that the company will have to make to cover it, the bugs that will be introduced when they hastily hack other solutions into place, et cetera?
Don't you see how this is all wasted work, wasted effort? Why are there lawyers involved?
It's because of the GPL. If they'd used BSD license properties, none of this would be happening. Yes, it's the vendor's fault for breaking the spirit of the GPL. The problem is, the spirit of the GPL is very carefully structured so that it appears to cause no problems for business. However, if it really didn't, then TomTom wouldn't be stuck in this spot right now.
Doing normal consumer business may not violate the spirit of the GPL, but the way in which GPL restrictions are written makes it asininely difficult and expensive.
And when this house of cards starts collapsing? Will you be saying "it protects linux from being run away with"? Nobody's run away with Linux. For that matter, nobody's run away with or closed NetBSD, either. That's a giant red herring. It doesn't happen in the real world. People don't just show up one day with the workforce to completely out-do the generating body. It's not realistic.
So tell me. What good did the GPL do here? In what way is the set of GPL's restrictions causing more benefit than harm, here?
And I really don't want to hear a lot of theoretical handwaving about how people might sneak in through an open window one night and steal my source code's good silver. That kind of nonsense doesn't interest me.
Explain to me how this isn't a clear, obvious example of GPL's catastrophic failure to interact with normal business, or if you prefer, instead how this extremely healthy, large money viable business is being shaken to the ground by a few sentences for a good reason.
Make sure you read the lawsuit. The mere aggregation clause isn't strong enough, as evidenced by what's happening right now.
It is, however, classic GPL zealot behavior to question the intelligence of people who disagree with them. So thanks for letting me know you're a dutiful herd member.
1) BSD doesn't cause these problems, because it doesn't forbid things asininely. Same goes for the other counterexamples I gave. 2) Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability. 3) You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems. The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose. This restriction serves no purpose.
I'd say it was a nice try, but it wasn't. Please give concrete examples instead of vague handwaving if you choose to reply. Making universal statements which aren't actually universal is boring GPL canon.
It's not a problem if you agree with the principles of the GPL.
It is if you remember that the context is the device vendors who are going down in a tailspin because the principles of the GPL extend to cutting off everything they need to do business, such as access to purchase licensed technologies.
BSD has the same problem, they don't don't see it as a problem.
You've completely missed what's going on, here. The problem is specifically that GPL says if you license a technology you cannot have ours. BSD explicitly does not have this problem. At all.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to replace the problem with something of your own device, then say it isn't a problem, then say BSD has the problem too. It keeps you from understanding what's wrong with GPL, these jumping through of the standard answer hoops.
If someone wants to close off BSD code to you and I, they can.
Yes. And when they do, it's almost always by moving to GPL; note what happened to the Antigrain Graphics crowd. More important here is that GPL IS ALWAYS CLOSED OFF, which is what's causing this lawsuit in the first place; it's just that the way in which it's closed off is in a fashion that people who drink the koolaid insist isn't a problem.
All the while screaming about how BSD code can be closed.
At no point did I try to evaluate what GPL is; as such by definition I could not be misunderstanding the nature of GPL, as I made no observations in that direction.
Trolling is when people make ugly jokes to start a fight, not when people have an opinion you don't agree with. GPL zealots seem uniquely unable to tell the difference.
The problem at hand is that MS feels that TomTom should be paying for their patents
Wrong. The trouble is that TomTom is paying for their patents. Which means they can't use their GPLed products at all. Wait'll you realize how many other GPL vendors also break this GPL rule; it ruins almost every GPL basis device on the market.
Like that TiVo internet download? Not for long: it licenses Frauenhoffer and Dolby technologies.
Please stop lashing out with attacks every time someone disagrees with you. Slashdot's GPL community didn't used to be this rabid or ugly.
Absolutely. If Tivo weren't using a GPL product, Microsoft wouldn't be able to hang Tivo on disconnected third party patent purchase. You like that Netflix show download? 'Cause Tivo pays Frauenhoffer for their MPEG2 MP3 decoder.
You've never in your entire life seen BSD, ZLib or MIT license cause a problem like this.
His logic wasn't right when he used it; why would it be right when you use it? Mister Ulrich already has ownership rights to his own music, and it's fully legal to download music that you own. It would be no more illegal for me to go flipping through my CD case then to download a CD that I own. That's why all the pirates lie and say they're doing that when they steal music, remember?
Believe it or not, not everything Lars Ulrich does is illegal, immoral or even newsworthy.
Just one more case where the GPL causes unnecessary problems. Unfortunately, I'm about to be marked troll and flamebait, even though this comment is neither, because of the other way that the GPL causes problems: zealots.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, settle down. The primary difference in most cases between HLL and LLL implementations is still algorithm selection and structure. Write a static webserver that competes under load with YAWS and I'll be impressed; otherwise you're just another guy bragging.
Incidentally, a static webserver is several hundred lines of C. It's an extremely simple task, and there's a well defined (and much more satisfactory) benchmarking set under Tsung that will laugh while your server withers under the heat of YAWS. You will not successfully compete with YAWS under the YAWS Tsung test set; timeslicing behavior is way too hard for anyone who would attempt to publically stage a meaningless, undefined "challenge" like this.
As long as you haven't defined the task or the phrase "high level", you've left yourself enough wiggle room to exclude anything that's even slightly challenging. If you want to be taken seriously, produce the competing code, or at least _define_ what challenge you're making.
And, frankly, dude, nobody really cares if you're sick of this crap until you've put up competition. (Don't bother tu quoqueing; I've actually released a webserver.)
Not unless you're used to desparately overburdened shared hosting. My six dollar a month account from HostMonster has handled multiple simultaneous slashdottings with concommitant reddit and digg traffic several times. One of my customers sustained roughly seven megabits of traffic for several days straight inside a VM with no problems.
Slashdot traffic taking a site down means the site isn't hosted at a reputable host, these days.
As much as Lisp people want to say that Lisp lost because of the price of Lisp machines and Lisp compilers, it actually lost because it isn't a particularly practical language; that's why it hasn't had a resurgance while all these people move to haskell, erlang, clojure, et cetera.
Lisp is a beautiful language. So is Smalltalk. Neither one of them were ever ready to compete with practical languages.
Er, no, it isn't. You just have to know where to look, and to not get stuck in the Silicon Valley highschool mindset, where nerf guns are believed to adequately substitute for health care, and where nobody can name a formal method.
C programmers are the most numerous professional programmers on Earth today, and we're in the highest unemployment for programmers since the dot com bust, with a number of well meaning companies blindly ditching C for whatever the new hotness is (and eventually going right back). Hell, I get C/C++ programmers for things that aren't looking for C work, because they (rightfully) believe they can pick up the other language as they go and do a better job than the natives due to their understanding of actual costs.
If you can't find someone who writes good C, either there's something wrong with how you're attracting staff, or you're not judging them skillfully, or they have some reason to stay away. I'm putting my chip on #3.
Of course, this guy didn't benchmark against any modern performance kings, such as Nginx, YAWS, htstub or LightStreamer.
There is no reason to believe this is the world's fastest webserver, and I'm sure as hell not holding my breath.
You're not correct. Clean room is legally carefully defined. It means reverse engineering a protocol or specification with no access to any outside information of any form. The germane importance of clean room is to prove that no tainted or protected information was used, as it clearly is in this case. Clean room requires an enormous amount of documentation which has not been produced here. This is not a clean room reimplementation by any stretch of the imagination.
You can get a clearer idea of the issues by reading about how Compaq defended itself against IBM when cloning the IBM PC BIOS, because it had carefully kept all documentation necessary to prove that its reimplementation was clean room, which is why IBM couldn't stop them from opening the PC clone market.
It's a far stronger statement than "no access to original code", which is effectively meaningless: you get caught ripping code off, you just write it again while looking at the ripoff? You do realize that'd entirely destroy every protection the GPL affords, don't you?
Clueless. Please don't pretend to yourself that you know what clean room means. Grandparent poster was correct. You are not.
The clearing blocks in advance is called TRIM, and your computer already supports it, as does Windows 7. As far as defrag, that's completely unnecessary; the article and poster are incorrect, as fragmentation has nothing to do with the problem. Flash drives have zero seek and no performance penalty for random access.
Wow, google brought us an implementation of a standard that's got dozens of implementations already! A failed standard from 1996! One with several legitimate, healthy replacements!
You can tell they're doing great things.
This is complete fiction. The Shakers took years to produce our legal system, and produced nearly a thousand books to describe it. At no point has the legal system you described existed in this nation.
Stop making points by making up stories.
Nonsense. There is no requirement that a TLD be used only by people from that TLD; even its intended use is customer oriented, not vendor oriented. By that logic, amazon.co.uk shouldn't exist. And, of course, Ireland's TLD makes no attempt to control who uses their registrar; indeed they even charge foreigners explicitly higher prices, is how much they agree with you on that point. And nobody at any point in this has argued this as a point of rights due national origin, besides. This is as much a non-sequitur as it is a red herring.
Number one, I recognize no such thing. Number two, I never challenged that. Number three, what they said does not match the law of their nation. Number four, a court has already upheld the speciousness of their arguments. Number five, my post explicitly acknowledge that this was neither legally nor ethically corrupt, merely a nuisance brought on by some middle manager with delusions of authority.
Rights aren't arbitrarily granted by holding a management job.
Nonexistant. I explicitly stated that I had no entitlement. Please learn to read before criticizing people for the exact opposite of what they actually said.
No, I can't. Domain hacks are explicitly tied to single registrars. Try to keep up.
Why? The registrar in question is owned by someone from not-Ireland, as are more than eighty percent of domains.
Did you think most TLDs were run by companies from the nations they point at? Have you ever actually read through the IANA root zone DB? The Irish registrar is run by a British company with an Irish tax ID, an explicitly for-profit organization who runs the domain as a for-profit venture. Their pricing structure directly countermands several of the claims you make. It's almost as if you haven't thought this through at all from the perspective that your guesswork might not be right.
Your insistance that only an irish person can have an opinion on the Irish TLD is uninformed by common practice, specific context or the RFCs which defined these terms and services. Your arguments are specious and driven by claims towards morality in an ethical framework you've pretty much made up.
No. Censorship is when a government tells an individual that they cannot publish something anywhere in a nation. This is a middle manager in a commercial entity who's made a personal decision made by personal beliefs. They are not an elected official, nor has anyone in government given them any form of authority. They're just some jerk with the keys to a server and no process in place to tell them where their responsibility boundaries are.
Uh, no, it didn't. The number of Irish domains hasn't changed, and the registration rate hasn't dropped significantly. You're just guessing based on some vague pablum about anthropomorphizing the internet to have behaviors and activities. Evidence or it didn't happen. (Common phrases aren't evidence.)
What are you talking about? Almost every TLD is a for-profit venture. There are only seven on earth that are government run, and only t
I do. I just found an interesting domain hack (that is, in the way that del.icio.us is a domain hack) ending in IE that was about porn, it was short, it was memorable, it was available, and now I guess I can't register it.
Porn is a massively oversaturated marketplace of free goods. Don't underestimate the importance of a short, memorable domain in porn; in many cases it's the only way a pornographer can stand head and shoulders above the rest. Is it some kind of ethical outrage? No, but it's a drag, it's silly, and it's a slap in the face to those people who had already begun a business in their existing .IE domains.
I mean seriously, who are we kidding? The word "porn" is offensive now? They're not saying the actual pornography is offensive; the way they've written this ruling would not affect a porn site run on the theoretical site BlueWallPaint.ie, which has no offensive words in its title.
This is just some middle manager pretending to have moral authority, and that sort of thing is very much a "boo, hiss" sort of thing. It also sucks for the pornographers who have to start over with a sixty character domain name.
It sucks because .ie is valuable to hacks and for it to be off the table because of some random dude thinking he's a legislative body is lame.
I mean sure, it's not genocide in Rwanda. But it is pretty fail on the part of that registrar, don't you think, to pretend they're in an ethical position to do this? The only reason they can do this is because the design of the network grants them a monopoly. Nobody's ever actually given them any such authority; they're just doing it because they feel like it and nobody can stop them. Someone even took them to court and won and they're doing it anyway, because they think they know appropriate ethics better than do the local courts.
If you were making $20k/y per domain from a domain group that got axed because of some jerk, and had no way to redirect or retain that traffic or its revenue, all because some dude thinks the word porn is somehow offended, wouldn't you be pretty pissed?
Well, it doesn't.
""quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." "
None of that is what you're doing. Incidentally, the phrase you're really in trouble with is where the court is told explicitly to consider the substantiality of the quotation; you've quoted more than 1/8 of the entire work. Fair use lets you get away with quoting maybe five or six questions in a situation like this, not 75.
Furthermore, you don't actually get to decline the request while you decide what to do. Declining a takedown is a final stance; if you say no, that's not "no while I figure it out", that's no period. You're supposed to be taking the content down until you're convinced it's legal (which it isn't).
The only people here who will tell you that what you're doing is fair use are the people who have never read fair use doctrine. Fair use is for criticism and commentary, and is meant to cover the news and the newspapers talking about things. It is not a blanket to excuse you duplicating and disseminating whatever copywritten material you feel like, even if it's "only" nearly 15% of the complete work.
You're way, way in the wrong here, and you need to call a lawyer and ask, before you get into serious trouble. Slashdot is not a lawyer.
There's nothing new or illegal about this.
This is what subsampling law is explicitly for; the law even goes as far as to say how long each clip can be and still be legal (and he's way, way in the clear.) Intellectual property law explicitly allows things like this in the United States as long as they're within guidelines, and this is well within guidelines. This is how the TV news and rappers get through their day.
As far as new, bands like White Noise, James Tenney and The Beatles were doing this in the early 1960s; your choice of "The New Elvis" is particularly apropos, as this was determined legal in 1961 regarding James Tenney's Collage #1 ("Blue Suede"), made out of Elvis samples (though some would argue that there are earlier examples.)
This is what my old Elvis looked like.
But the video is freaking epic, that much is true.
That's an interesting and viable position. It's somewhat telling that the only actual meritocratic statement here was made by an AC.
Let me ask you a question, in case you're still reading (and watch the three douchebags arguing with me try to pretend to be you): cannot the exact same thing be said of GPL? I'm certainly no fan of software patents, but the parallel I find telling.
Linux is neither the only nor even the first free Unix. TomTom could (should?) have been built on other operating systems which are free without restriction. Without GPL, there would have been no barrier to TomTom's being created. With GPL, there is a barrier once they're underway (and indeed a serious one).
TomTom had other options.
Anyone willing to accept a Random House Dictionary citation deserves what they get. RHD doesn't even require degrees from their authors. They accept definitions from any random jagoff who writes pleasantly and convincingly. Neither reference nor citation is required of their definitions. They're no better than Wikipedia.
From AmHet, a real etymological dictionary: 1581, from L. diatriba "learned discussion," from Gk. diatribe "discourse, study," lit. "a wearing away (of time)," from dia- "away" + tribein "to wear, rub."
I agree, if I had said that (cutting half a sentence out of context changes its meaning) that that would be stupid. However, as someone with a four digit UID should know by now, the appropriate moderation is -1, Overrated. I would think you've been here long enough to know what the moderation stamps mean; there's a faq on it. Troll doesn't mean "wrong" and it doesn't mean "disagree with". It means "trying to pick a fight". Troll applies to people who make ugly jokes in order to pick a fight. That isn't one of them, even though it makes you uncomfortable to see someone taking a position you disagree with on solid grounds.
This is the sort of behavior one expects from religious people in secular discussions. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, and it doesn't mean they're causing problems. I would remind you of John Stuart Mill should I believe you'd ever read him: "The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men."
Also, don't use words you don't understand. It's pretty pathetic to see someone use the phrase "ignorant diatribe", when diatribe means "highly educated monologue". The word you were looking for was "speech", though if you wanted to drop big words to seem smart (it doesn't work), you probably should have said "eristic" or "vitriolic". You know, if you knew those words, which given your cumbersome dopery in what is charitably called monologue one tends to doubt.
Honestly. Ignorant diatribe? It amazes me that you're willing to speak in public, the way people must catch you on details. Were you a speech writer for Bush?
Yes, the cutting the sentence out of context game is cute, and all. If you return to context, which was "and who license patents", then that number drops precipitously. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that you cannot name even one, except those who have been sued for it (eg Tivo and TomTom) or perhaps someone you work for.
Go on, prove me wrong.
Things like this make me wish I could request metamoderation. There was no trolling here, and yet it was done in under ten minutes. If someone's ability to request metamoderation was tuned down if they abused the request, then the metamoderation system would waste less work on articles nobody wants challenged, people would get more involved in metamoderation because they'd be presented with more examples of where it's productive, and problems where metamoderation was required would be less likely to slip under the radar simply because the dice didn't come up.
Also, a +0, Disagree flag would go a long, long way to solving the constant abuse of troll and flamebait. Sometimes people are just looking for a way to register disagreement, and having a 0 attached to it visibly would help them remember that disagreement isn't meant to alter a score.
Which is something that's essentially never possible with licensed technologies: you would have to pay the holder enough money for them to forego any other licensor ever. That's effectively saying "you just have to be willing to give anyone who asks for a house a house for one dollar." The sentence makes sense, but the underlying sentiment does not.
Fee seeking patent holders do not grant such licenses, basically ever, because it ruins their ability to continue their existing business practice.
No, you really have. The problem here is that the GPL sets up restrictions which no intermediate vendor can realistically comply with. What this should have done was drive intermediate vendors like TomTom and TiVo to BSD, but they were naive; this is exactly why Steve Jobs avoided the GPL, and as much as I hate him, he made the right choice. Going down the GPL path means constantly looking over your shoulder for unexpected threats and costs, shelling out enormously higher patent costs to third parties for special kinds of licenses they're rarely willing to sell at all, and a variety of other business driver poison pills.
Sometimes I wonder just how long it's going to take for the patent vampires to start sinking their teeth in. There is a glorious violation minefield out there, and so many penalties and fines just waiting to be had by the people who will soon be called abusers, but who you're currently positing as the defenders of righteous GPL belief.
Let me ask you a question. What if this kind of lawsuit becomes common? Is the GPL still holding an enviable set of principles then? Is it then all those intermediate vendors' faults? Is this TomTom's fault, for not sticking to GPL principles? Wouldn't you expect the average TomTom user to be happier if they'd used OpenBSD, which would have essentially no impact on the device, but would prevent this lawsuit, the incoming penalties, the service charge increases that the company will have to make to cover it, the bugs that will be introduced when they hastily hack other solutions into place, et cetera?
Don't you see how this is all wasted work, wasted effort? Why are there lawyers involved?
It's because of the GPL. If they'd used BSD license properties, none of this would be happening. Yes, it's the vendor's fault for breaking the spirit of the GPL. The problem is, the spirit of the GPL is very carefully structured so that it appears to cause no problems for business. However, if it really didn't, then TomTom wouldn't be stuck in this spot right now.
Doing normal consumer business may not violate the spirit of the GPL, but the way in which GPL restrictions are written makes it asininely difficult and expensive.
And when this house of cards starts collapsing? Will you be saying "it protects linux from being run away with"? Nobody's run away with Linux. For that matter, nobody's run away with or closed NetBSD, either. That's a giant red herring. It doesn't happen in the real world. People don't just show up one day with the workforce to completely out-do the generating body. It's not realistic.
So tell me. What good did the GPL do here? In what way is the set of GPL's restrictions causing more benefit than harm, here?
And I really don't want to hear a lot of theoretical handwaving about how people might sneak in through an open window one night and steal my source code's good silver. That kind of nonsense doesn't interest me.
Explain to me how this isn't a clear, obvious example of GPL's catastrophic failure to interact with normal business, or if you prefer, instead how this extremely healthy, large money viable business is being shaken to the ground by a few sentences for a good reason.
Tell me why GPL is good for TomTom.
Make sure you read the lawsuit. The mere aggregation clause isn't strong enough, as evidenced by what's happening right now.
It is, however, classic GPL zealot behavior to question the intelligence of people who disagree with them. So thanks for letting me know you're a dutiful herd member.
Uh, no.
1) BSD doesn't cause these problems, because it doesn't forbid things asininely. Same goes for the other counterexamples I gave.
2) Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability.
3) You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems. The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose. This restriction serves no purpose.
I'd say it was a nice try, but it wasn't. Please give concrete examples instead of vague handwaving if you choose to reply. Making universal statements which aren't actually universal is boring GPL canon.
It is if you remember that the context is the device vendors who are going down in a tailspin because the principles of the GPL extend to cutting off everything they need to do business, such as access to purchase licensed technologies.
You've completely missed what's going on, here. The problem is specifically that GPL says if you license a technology you cannot have ours. BSD explicitly does not have this problem. At all.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to replace the problem with something of your own device, then say it isn't a problem, then say BSD has the problem too. It keeps you from understanding what's wrong with GPL, these jumping through of the standard answer hoops.
Yes. And when they do, it's almost always by moving to GPL; note what happened to the Antigrain Graphics crowd. More important here is that GPL IS ALWAYS CLOSED OFF, which is what's causing this lawsuit in the first place; it's just that the way in which it's closed off is in a fashion that people who drink the koolaid insist isn't a problem.
All the while screaming about how BSD code can be closed.
Which one do you see happening in the real world?
At no point did I try to evaluate what GPL is; as such by definition I could not be misunderstanding the nature of GPL, as I made no observations in that direction.
Trolling is when people make ugly jokes to start a fight, not when people have an opinion you don't agree with. GPL zealots seem uniquely unable to tell the difference.
Wrong. The trouble is that TomTom is paying for their patents. Which means they can't use their GPLed products at all. Wait'll you realize how many other GPL vendors also break this GPL rule; it ruins almost every GPL basis device on the market.
Like that TiVo internet download? Not for long: it licenses Frauenhoffer and Dolby technologies.
Please stop lashing out with attacks every time someone disagrees with you. Slashdot's GPL community didn't used to be this rabid or ugly.
Absolutely. If Tivo weren't using a GPL product, Microsoft wouldn't be able to hang Tivo on disconnected third party patent purchase. You like that Netflix show download? 'Cause Tivo pays Frauenhoffer for their MPEG2 MP3 decoder.
You've never in your entire life seen BSD, ZLib or MIT license cause a problem like this.
His logic wasn't right when he used it; why would it be right when you use it? Mister Ulrich already has ownership rights to his own music, and it's fully legal to download music that you own. It would be no more illegal for me to go flipping through my CD case then to download a CD that I own. That's why all the pirates lie and say they're doing that when they steal music, remember?
Believe it or not, not everything Lars Ulrich does is illegal, immoral or even newsworthy.
Just one more case where the GPL causes unnecessary problems. Unfortunately, I'm about to be marked troll and flamebait, even though this comment is neither, because of the other way that the GPL causes problems: zealots.
I had to shut my forums down because the spam problem got so out of control. Funny how far blogs are ahead of forums in keeping control of this stuff.