This is as illegal as xeroxing a few pages from a book at the library. I'm not sure how anal retentive laws are at the moment, but is it really so wrong for someone to print a few pages to read on the train on the way to work or something?
Someone mentioned that Something Awful does this. Fark does it too. It sounds great, but the problem is that it creates great distrust in your userbase. I've seen people shadowbanned for years who made a comment or two some moderator thought was offensive. By not knowing if you are shadow banned or not, it creates a sense of paranoia.
My best solution in a blog like setting is to set up a simple yay or nay filter. If something is obviously spam or nothing but vitriol, then flag it. The default view settings for the reply threads will be not to show flagged messages, but you should provide a link for the user at large to see the flagged messages should he desire to.
Yes, the trolls will know that they are having an effect. However, that is life. Anybody can be a jackass and get a reaction. I say let him be a jackass. If he wants to continue posting vitriol I can just keep flagging it.
Of course, if it gets to the point of crapflooding or denial of service, then IP bans will be in order. But if it's just a few messages every day, well, that's just the price of running a blog or forum that values trust, openness, and transparency.
Why did they have to use Oracle? Besides this, the article is seriously lacking in details. What type of support issues did they run into? Where they are specific things are even more mysterious. Why did the application die when too many items were ordered at once? And more importantly, what does that have to do with Linux or Apache? It sure sounds like an application problem to me. Another thing that caught my eye is that one of the companies switched to Linux without adequate internal support. If you migrate to something, anything, without training a significant portion of your staff to use it then you are asking for trouble. It seems like these IT directors wanted Linux to fail. It's a trivial task to make a project fail if you don't want it to succeed.
Added to this is that the endorsements are so glowing and positive that there is no way they can be taken seriously. I've worked with both Windows and Linux extensively, and there simply isn't such a thing as a major complex project going off without a hitch, especially when it involves migrating between two very different operating systems. I'm sure there have been similar endorsements made of Linux, "We switched to Linux and all our problems magically went away." I would be similarly skeptical of such claims.
Remember, the question to ask here is not, "Are the documents authentic?" but rather, "Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?" Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.
The point is that there are always going to be mistakes made. Demanding 100% accuracy is unrealistic and does more harm than good. Mistakes are only blameworthy if they are caused by carelessness. Not to say that CBS is not blameworthy, but we should be sure to ask the right questions here.
It seems that this would break some law or other. Mantraps are quite illegal, and while the stakes are not as high, this is conceptually the exact same thing.
I have bought nvidia cards for the past 3 years because of their superior Linux support. And I am a prolific purchaser. This has amounted to at least seven cards, all nvidia. If ATI created and maintained stable open source video drivers with the Linux kernel, then I would very quickly switch my allegiance. I have always been uncomfortable with the closed source nature of nvidia's Linux drivers. But having a working card is the top priority, and so I've compromised thus far. I'd gladly switch to open source drivers if I could still play, i.e., UT2004 with them.
Re:You mean windows is better than linux at someth
on
ATI Updates Linux Drivers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If the user interface is nice enough, does it really matter what exact steps are taken to install the driver? Even today, you hardly realize that a recompilation is going on with nvidia drivers, as they provide a nice little progress bar. To the user, the progress bar could represent copying files, compiling them from source, or whatever, he doesn't really care.
I think the "documented" adjective was a bit sarcastic. It was likely meant to point out how ATI supports Linux with their words, but not their actions.
Yes, OK, I understand now. You would need special equipment, I imagine, unless there is a way to get a standard card to listen to all traffic on a given channel. But this would still make it easier than WEP. So I guess that answers my question.
Yes, but as far as I've seen, a (whitelist) MAC filter prevents anything not on the list from receiving any acks. So you wouldn't be able to listen to see what MACs are available, right?
I hear that the various encryption protocols are easy to hack. But what about MAC filters? They have the advantage of putting all the security work on the server side. And though MAC addresses are easy enough to spoof, you have to know which MAC address to spoof, and there is quite a large address space.
So, are MAC filters any less/more secure than WEP?
The source code to the base application is still GPL, it's the additions to make it work will for Windows that aren't.
This is simply not allowed by the GPL. If you add onto a GPL application, the entire thing has to be GPL.
he's offering people the oppertunity to have their code removed.
This is no good. This is copyright not trademark. If I write GPL code I don't have to enforce the terms at all. If you break the terms you are breaking the law, whether or not I raise a stink about it.
It might be a GPL violation, it might not be. The shareware distribution system seems suspicious. Let's say someone buys a copy and puts it on his server for all to distribute. This must be allowed under the terms of the GPL. He can charge for the binaries, but he can't stop anyone from redistributing the binaries to everyone in the world.
I'd check out the exact terms of sale, but the site is slashdotted at the moment.
Look, I've heard this line a million times about how the only goal for corporations is to make money for its shareholders. But I disagree, as this greatly oversimplifies the picture. Some companies might decide to forgo trying to monopolize media formats, and concentrate on something like, oh, I don't know, making operating systems. Like Red Hat. Sure, both Red Hat and Microsoft are trying to make money for their shareholders. But that doesn't mean that they'll act the same way when presented with similar situations. A company can make money without being a dick about it. In fact, a company that has rightfully earned the trust of its customers can make a great deal of money. Microsoft isn't a company that has earned the respect and trust of its users.
Microsoft has shown time and time again that it's primary objective is making money in the long term. It'll do that through whatever opportunities present themselves. Now, the players in the movie industry aren't stupid. They've seen how MS has locked others into their proprietary formats and they don't want their revenue streams subverted similarly.
As for MS's "noble" intentions...pure bullshit. Where did MSNBC come from if MS wasn't interested in encroaching on Hollywood?
I was recently getting back into gaming and considering becoming a Transgaming subscriber again. Maybe I would have chosen not to anyway, but I'm certainly not after this. Not because it's really worse than anything any other proprietary software company would do, but because it reminds me of why I prefer free (libre) software over proprietary software.
I remember when Transgaming was going to open source everything they wrote, if only they got enough subscribers. Well that pipe dream fell through. I'll stick to free software. There's no going back on such a promise with free software.
Well, yes, exactly. Why should we reward people for anything? It's usually because we get something in return. But it seems that the Olympics and other athletic competitions are founded on a flawed premise of objective fairness. I was pointing out that this fairness is merely an illusion, and you seem to agree.
To compare to another context, consider a software developer that takes stimulants to help get him through a project. Does that make the project any less valuable? No. Surely the person sacrificing his own long term health to do such a thing, and there is a point of diminishing returns. But generally, we care about the product of his effort, not what he used to generate that effort in the first place.
You're defending the wrong position. What I'm saying is that if there is a drug or genetic therapy that has no harmful effects, that in essence brings up the unlucky to have the "natural" talent that the most genetically lucky athletes currently have, then why should we outlaw this but still allow those that enjoy such an advantage "naturally"? There's no good reason. Because once you admit that such modifications to the genes give an advantage, then you admit that people who's genes were already that way had an unfair advantage all along.
Well that makes it even worse then. If even the mental and motivational aspects of competition are (largely) genetically determined, then what we have is a genetic competition. Why are we rewarding people for this?
Exactly. So what you are saying is that if two athletes have the same "training, coaching and drilling on technique, mental toughness (How nutured/mentored), opportunity and desire also contribute", then the winner is determined by genetics. How is that fair?
How many kids on the playground today have the potential genes to become another Michael Jordan, but lack the desire and drive to get there.
I'll pull a number out of my ass and say it's the minority. How many are even as tall as Jordan, ignoring other important genetic influences for the moment?
It's things like this that makes the whole notion of "natural" competition absurd. If what are essentially changes to the genes can result in an unfair advantage, then you have already been penalizing people who don't have these genes, and rewarding people who do.
Ideally, olympics should be about who has the most perseverance, dedication, and talent. But this exposes the olympics as essentially rewarding people for having the right genes. Why don't we just examine the genes aka Gattaca and declare the winner beforehand? I realize that reaching a competitive level takes quite a bit of effort, but if genes turn out to be the determining factor, we may as well be just testing DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
Go here, then search for all keyboards with "notebook" layout. I'd link to the search directly, but deep linking like that doesn't work on newegg.
This is as illegal as xeroxing a few pages from a book at the library. I'm not sure how anal retentive laws are at the moment, but is it really so wrong for someone to print a few pages to read on the train on the way to work or something?
Someone mentioned that Something Awful does this. Fark does it too. It sounds great, but the problem is that it creates great distrust in your userbase. I've seen people shadowbanned for years who made a comment or two some moderator thought was offensive. By not knowing if you are shadow banned or not, it creates a sense of paranoia.
My best solution in a blog like setting is to set up a simple yay or nay filter. If something is obviously spam or nothing but vitriol, then flag it. The default view settings for the reply threads will be not to show flagged messages, but you should provide a link for the user at large to see the flagged messages should he desire to.
Yes, the trolls will know that they are having an effect. However, that is life. Anybody can be a jackass and get a reaction. I say let him be a jackass. If he wants to continue posting vitriol I can just keep flagging it.
Of course, if it gets to the point of crapflooding or denial of service, then IP bans will be in order. But if it's just a few messages every day, well, that's just the price of running a blog or forum that values trust, openness, and transparency.
Why did they have to use Oracle? Besides this, the article is seriously lacking in details. What type of support issues did they run into? Where they are specific things are even more mysterious. Why did the application die when too many items were ordered at once? And more importantly, what does that have to do with Linux or Apache? It sure sounds like an application problem to me. Another thing that caught my eye is that one of the companies switched to Linux without adequate internal support. If you migrate to something, anything, without training a significant portion of your staff to use it then you are asking for trouble. It seems like these IT directors wanted Linux to fail. It's a trivial task to make a project fail if you don't want it to succeed.
Added to this is that the endorsements are so glowing and positive that there is no way they can be taken seriously. I've worked with both Windows and Linux extensively, and there simply isn't such a thing as a major complex project going off without a hitch, especially when it involves migrating between two very different operating systems. I'm sure there have been similar endorsements made of Linux, "We switched to Linux and all our problems magically went away." I would be similarly skeptical of such claims.
Remember, the question to ask here is not, "Are the documents authentic?" but rather, "Was CBS justified in believing the documents to be authentic?" Of course, if they did not believe the documents to be authentic, but ran the story anyway, that would be even worse.
The point is that there are always going to be mistakes made. Demanding 100% accuracy is unrealistic and does more harm than good. Mistakes are only blameworthy if they are caused by carelessness. Not to say that CBS is not blameworthy, but we should be sure to ask the right questions here.
It seems that this would break some law or other. Mantraps are quite illegal, and while the stakes are not as high, this is conceptually the exact same thing.
I have bought nvidia cards for the past 3 years because of their superior Linux support. And I am a prolific purchaser. This has amounted to at least seven cards, all nvidia. If ATI created and maintained stable open source video drivers with the Linux kernel, then I would very quickly switch my allegiance. I have always been uncomfortable with the closed source nature of nvidia's Linux drivers. But having a working card is the top priority, and so I've compromised thus far. I'd gladly switch to open source drivers if I could still play, i.e., UT2004 with them.
If the user interface is nice enough, does it really matter what exact steps are taken to install the driver? Even today, you hardly realize that a recompilation is going on with nvidia drivers, as they provide a nice little progress bar. To the user, the progress bar could represent copying files, compiling them from source, or whatever, he doesn't really care.
I think the "documented" adjective was a bit sarcastic. It was likely meant to point out how ATI supports Linux with their words, but not their actions.
Yes, OK, I understand now. You would need special equipment, I imagine, unless there is a way to get a standard card to listen to all traffic on a given channel. But this would still make it easier than WEP. So I guess that answers my question.
Yes, but as far as I've seen, a (whitelist) MAC filter prevents anything not on the list from receiving any acks. So you wouldn't be able to listen to see what MACs are available, right?
I hear that the various encryption protocols are easy to hack. But what about MAC filters? They have the advantage of putting all the security work on the server side. And though MAC addresses are easy enough to spoof, you have to know which MAC address to spoof, and there is quite a large address space.
So, are MAC filters any less/more secure than WEP?
This is no good. This is copyright not trademark. If I write GPL code I don't have to enforce the terms at all. If you break the terms you are breaking the law, whether or not I raise a stink about it.
It might be a GPL violation, it might not be. The shareware distribution system seems suspicious. Let's say someone buys a copy and puts it on his server for all to distribute. This must be allowed under the terms of the GPL. He can charge for the binaries, but he can't stop anyone from redistributing the binaries to everyone in the world.
I'd check out the exact terms of sale, but the site is slashdotted at the moment.
Look, I've heard this line a million times about how the only goal for corporations is to make money for its shareholders. But I disagree, as this greatly oversimplifies the picture. Some companies might decide to forgo trying to monopolize media formats, and concentrate on something like, oh, I don't know, making operating systems. Like Red Hat. Sure, both Red Hat and Microsoft are trying to make money for their shareholders. But that doesn't mean that they'll act the same way when presented with similar situations. A company can make money without being a dick about it. In fact, a company that has rightfully earned the trust of its customers can make a great deal of money. Microsoft isn't a company that has earned the respect and trust of its users.
Microsoft has shown time and time again that it's primary objective is making money in the long term. It'll do that through whatever opportunities present themselves. Now, the players in the movie industry aren't stupid. They've seen how MS has locked others into their proprietary formats and they don't want their revenue streams subverted similarly.
As for MS's "noble" intentions...pure bullshit. Where did MSNBC come from if MS wasn't interested in encroaching on Hollywood?
I don't like it so I'm not buying it.
I was recently getting back into gaming and considering becoming a Transgaming subscriber again. Maybe I would have chosen not to anyway, but I'm certainly not after this. Not because it's really worse than anything any other proprietary software company would do, but because it reminds me of why I prefer free (libre) software over proprietary software.
I remember when Transgaming was going to open source everything they wrote, if only they got enough subscribers. Well that pipe dream fell through. I'll stick to free software. There's no going back on such a promise with free software.
Well, yes, exactly. Why should we reward people for anything? It's usually because we get something in return. But it seems that the Olympics and other athletic competitions are founded on a flawed premise of objective fairness. I was pointing out that this fairness is merely an illusion, and you seem to agree.
To compare to another context, consider a software developer that takes stimulants to help get him through a project. Does that make the project any less valuable? No. Surely the person sacrificing his own long term health to do such a thing, and there is a point of diminishing returns. But generally, we care about the product of his effort, not what he used to generate that effort in the first place.
You're defending the wrong position. What I'm saying is that if there is a drug or genetic therapy that has no harmful effects, that in essence brings up the unlucky to have the "natural" talent that the most genetically lucky athletes currently have, then why should we outlaw this but still allow those that enjoy such an advantage "naturally"? There's no good reason. Because once you admit that such modifications to the genes give an advantage, then you admit that people who's genes were already that way had an unfair advantage all along.
Well that makes it even worse then. If even the mental and motivational aspects of competition are (largely) genetically determined, then what we have is a genetic competition. Why are we rewarding people for this?
Exactly. So what you are saying is that if two athletes have the same "training, coaching and drilling on technique, mental toughness (How nutured/mentored), opportunity and desire also contribute", then the winner is determined by genetics. How is that fair?
It's things like this that makes the whole notion of "natural" competition absurd. If what are essentially changes to the genes can result in an unfair advantage, then you have already been penalizing people who don't have these genes, and rewarding people who do.
Ideally, olympics should be about who has the most perseverance, dedication, and talent. But this exposes the olympics as essentially rewarding people for having the right genes. Why don't we just examine the genes aka Gattaca and declare the winner beforehand? I realize that reaching a competitive level takes quite a bit of effort, but if genes turn out to be the determining factor, we may as well be just testing DNA.