As soon as it's cheaper to switch than it is to not switch, people will switch. They won't be able to afford not to (since their competitors certainly will). On the other hand, no one is going to spend the time or money to convert just because it's a gee-whiz new technology. In the U.S. there is no impetus, because NAT is good enough. However, NAT won't scale up well enough to put 2 billion people all behind NATs. So, eventually they will hit a wall and be forced to convert. It may not be in our lifetimes (although I personally am betting on 10 years), but it will definitely happen. As for the recession (if we are in one, rather than just a slowdown), it's not going to last forever, and it certainly isn't going to last long against the timeframe that a switchover to IPv6 of Asia would be against.
If the perpetrators of this get tried as terrorists, I'll eat my hat. No reasonable judge (or even a good majority of the unreasonable ones) is going to look at this and say these kids are the moral and legal equivalent of a bomber who kills dozens of people, or even a hacker who disrupts financial trading or brings down the telephone system.
Unfortunately this latest move to cease distribution of Linux may be seen by the courts as a good faith measure to come under compliance with the GPL now that they are aware that the code is in there. True, it's taken them quite a while to do it (especially since they presumably knew about the violations long before filing suit), but they may (successfully) argue that they required that time to handle the business logistics of the matter--and I wouldn't be surprised to see a court buy that.
1) SCO hasn't done any development on the Unix source as far as I know, so it will be easily verified whether or not it's the same as the Unix source that everyone and their brother has a copy of (under non-disclosure, of course).
2) If they did do development, they are certain to have records of that development, and IBM will be able to subpoena all of that in order to build their defense.
In the law, there is such a thing as intent. Joe Schmoe, ISP owner did not intend to steal SCO's code. Hell, even Linus Torvalds didn't intend to steal SCO's code. Since their code is closed source, there was no reasonable way for anyone other than the person responsible for placing the code in there to even suspect that there was a violation (unless there were extenuating circumstances, like an MCSE who just quit SCO suddenly submitted an advanced scheduling algorithm to the kernel). The better analogy would be to say what if your friend gave you one of those beaded seat covers for you car (that he had unbeknownst to you stolen), and then after you'd been driving around for six months the original owner comes up to you and say that you need to give up your car because there's something in it that was stolen, but he won't tell you what.
The DVD may not last longer than the VHS, but it won't degrade form generation to generation. A 5th generation VHS tape is almost unwatchable, but a 50th generation DVD is just as good as a 1st generation one. As for the problems with reading it, I think that most new hardware won't have a problem, and certainly the burner he uses to make them shouldn't have a problem reading them.
As someone who works on the cutting edge of the software field (and no, I don't mean.Net), I can assure you that the field is far from tapped. Many of the applications of the applications of the 80's (word processors, spreadsheets, databases) are nearly feature complete, and so the companies which make those things are very soon going to either wither or adapt. There are, though, literally thousands of new applications that haven't yet been explored (and many that haven't even yet been thought of). Larry Ellison is just too dumb to see those possibilities, which is why he won't be there when the next software boom happens (and believe me, it won't have anything to do with the World Wide Web).
It seems to me like this would be most useful for cataloging. A museum, for instance, could take a scan of each item in their collection, and then use that as one means of bringing up all of their data on that item. Or a stamp collector could use it to store information on each stamp in his collection. I think the stated uses in the article are kind of silly, but I can definitely see this having some value.
No to be rude, but maybe you should get out more. There are a lot of people with opinions that differ from you and your friends, and a lot of people listen to music for a lot of different reasons. It just so happens that almost every R.E.M. fan I know (myself included) considers them a political band, not everyone listens to System of a Down just because they're heavy, and even though Pearl Jam's popularity has waned, they were most definitely a political band in their prime and many people listened to them because of that.
I disagree. I think there are a lot of people who enjoy politically oriented music of all genres and eras. You may not listen to anything other than '60's protest rock, but I don't think that's representative.
Just a few very political bands/artists of note: R.E.M., Annie DiFranco, Pearl Jam, System of a Down
Also, although I agree that copyrights should be shorter (but not non-existent), I'm not sure that I buy your reason for Disney and other corporations not wanting things to go into the public domain. In what way is anybody's ability to say what they want politically related to whether or not Disney owns the copyright on Steamboat Willy? I don't think Disney wants the copyright on any of their cartoons to expire because then they lose their monopoly on the Mickey Mouse name, not because of political motivations.
I agree that a little bit of access goes a long way, which is why we need to get out there and make sure that these politicians understand the issues. The original poster's view seemed to be that the governor wouldn't care about the issues because he'd do what the MPAA wanted him to regardless. My point was that there is no rationality for him to not listen to reason, and so we shouldn't be defeatist.
Money buys access, and it buys influence, but unless the governor is corrupt, it doesn't buy decisions. Why shouldn't the governor listen to his consituents? After all, they're the ones who voted him into office and the ones who can vote him out of office the next time. I'm sure the MPAA has powerful and convincing lobbyists, but I doubt the governor of Arkansas owes his entire campaign to donations from the Motion Picture Association of America. That just doesn't make sense.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else around here, but I think they're bad for two reasons. The first is practical. I just don't think that a national ID card (java or no java) can be made secure enough yet to justify the amount of trust that those who don't understand security will invariably put in it. If you have a number of different cards, then you aren't "putting all of your eggs in one basket."
The second reason is philisophical. Although it may make life easier, or even safer, I don't feel that the government has a right to know where I am at any given time. Over here in the U.S., we have social security numbers, too. We even have social security cards. They're not ID, though. In fact, technically, no one except the Internal Revenue Service and your employer are allowed to ask for the number (they do, but that's a different discussion entirely).
The defacto ID over here is the driver's license, which is issued by the state. These have become the ID of choice for use in identification under most circumstances, because most people have one and they contain your picture. The difference between a driver's license and a national ID, though (other than the fact that the DI is issued by the states and the NID would be issued by the Federal Govt.) is that no one is required to carry a driver's license unless they're actually driving. A police officer can't come up to me on the street and ask me for my ID because I'm acting suspiciously. Even if he arrests me for something, he can't require me to show him ID. He may be able to find it out anyway if he searches me and finds ID, or if I have a criminal record and he matches my fingerprints, but the point is that the burden of identity is on the government, not me.
You may not agree with me, and may think it's silly since 95% of the time they can find out who I am anyway, and would not have much trouble finding me if they cared to look, but it is an important issue to me. It's not about being afraid of the government tracking me. For the most part I'm not afraid of the government (although I would like to ensure that the govt's powers are limited in case at some point in the future I do need to fear them). However, for me it's about freedom, and being required to present ID to the govt limits my freedom. So, I do "give a fuck" if there is a national ID card, and I hope this clears up a little bit for you why I feel that way, to a degree more than just "National id, bad".
You're right. They sucked back then. I remember having one of them (might still be around somewhere, actually; I'm pretty sure I've seen it in the last couple of years) and thinking that it was a really dumb comic that was just advertising Radio Shack's crappy computers. However, being able to go back and read them now, they're absolutely hilarious. I laughed my a__ off when I read the part where the girl explains how to use the scriptsit (or however you spell it) word processor, or the detectives diatribe on the advantages of the radio shack cell phone's 40! preprogrammable numbers (did you notice just how big that cell phone was?) Truly classic stuff.
Is there a list anywhere of states that are thinking of implementing these laws but haven't yet? I'm in Indiana. Does anyone know what the status of super-DMCA's are here? I can complain all I want to Michigan's legislature, but quite frankly they aren't going to care.
They haven't made the money they can make from your next purchase down the road when you decide you'd like to upgrade to a newer model. Most people who buy Replay's, TiVo's, etc., are gadget people, and gadget people like new gadgets. There's no prestige or coolness factor in having a five year old gadget.
> but I do not suspect a nice happy action-movie type ending here
Awww...but it'd be so cool to see GW and SH duking it out on the rooftop of the White House, before it all finally ends with an injured Dick Cheney bursting through the door and shooting Hussein dead just before he throws Bush off the building.
Re:Fixation on Democracy?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Democracy is a political structure. Socialism is an economic structure. The two are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. You can have democracy with a capitalist economy or a democracy with a socialist economy. Similarly, you can have a dictatorship with a capitalist economy or a dictatorship with a socialist economy.
The Application Binary Interface (ABI) is the interface between the operating system and executable applications at the compiled binary level.
...and, to say something on topic, I disagree with the original poster. Unix is not a standard, Posix is a standard. Unix was an operating system developed back in the '70s, which has evolved and forked over the years into a number of different operatings systems, all collectively referred to as Unices, as well as a mostly source compatible workalikes such as Linux. All of those different Unices offer similar interfaces and implement standards such as Posix to differing degrees of conformity. Above and beyond those standards, each Unix offers its own set of features that set it apart from all of its bretheren, and discussing those features is quite valid. Of course, that doesn't mean more standards wouldn't be a good thing.
I think the issue is that SCO is taking very old patents (let's face it, there's not much new in Unix/Linux) that have remained unenforced for a very long time, and now that they are in financial trouble they're trying to create a cash cow at the expense of the entire rest of the industry. Is it really fair for a company that has created nothing (remember, they bought the IP) to set the entire computer industry back 5-10 years in order to save themselves from their own bad business decisions. It may be legal, but it sure as hell isn't ethical.
(Let's also remember that they seem to be wanting to charge a rediculously high fee for these patents. A per processor cost of > $100 is hardly reasonable.)
Slashdot Mirror
Now, maybe SCO has been totally clean and not infringed or violated some juicy patent from 1945.
I don't think SCO's going to worry too much about whether they violated a patent that expired in 1962, before Unix even existed.
As soon as it's cheaper to switch than it is to not switch, people will switch. They won't be able to afford not to (since their competitors certainly will). On the other hand, no one is going to spend the time or money to convert just because it's a gee-whiz new technology. In the U.S. there is no impetus, because NAT is good enough. However, NAT won't scale up well enough to put 2 billion people all behind NATs. So, eventually they will hit a wall and be forced to convert. It may not be in our lifetimes (although I personally am betting on 10 years), but it will definitely happen. As for the recession (if we are in one, rather than just a slowdown), it's not going to last forever, and it certainly isn't going to last long against the timeframe that a switchover to IPv6 of Asia would be against.
You and me both. I remember when the movie was brand new, and "Anonymous Coward" probably wasn't even born yet.
If the perpetrators of this get tried as terrorists, I'll eat my hat. No reasonable judge (or even a good majority of the unreasonable ones) is going to look at this and say these kids are the moral and legal equivalent of a bomber who kills dozens of people, or even a hacker who disrupts financial trading or brings down the telephone system.
Unfortunately this latest move to cease distribution of Linux may be seen by the courts as a good faith measure to come under compliance with the GPL now that they are aware that the code is in there. True, it's taken them quite a while to do it (especially since they presumably knew about the violations long before filing suit), but they may (successfully) argue that they required that time to handle the business logistics of the matter--and I wouldn't be surprised to see a court buy that.
Well, except for two things.
1) SCO hasn't done any development on the Unix source as far as I know, so it will be easily verified whether or not it's the same as the Unix source that everyone and their brother has a copy of (under non-disclosure, of course).
2) If they did do development, they are certain to have records of that development, and IBM will be able to subpoena all of that in order to build their defense.
In the law, there is such a thing as intent. Joe Schmoe, ISP owner did not intend to steal SCO's code. Hell, even Linus Torvalds didn't intend to steal SCO's code. Since their code is closed source, there was no reasonable way for anyone other than the person responsible for placing the code in there to even suspect that there was a violation (unless there were extenuating circumstances, like an MCSE who just quit SCO suddenly submitted an advanced scheduling algorithm to the kernel). The better analogy would be to say what if your friend gave you one of those beaded seat covers for you car (that he had unbeknownst to you stolen), and then after you'd been driving around for six months the original owner comes up to you and say that you need to give up your car because there's something in it that was stolen, but he won't tell you what.
Bingo!
A friend of mine also overheard someone say that exact line, in complete seriousness.
...and how many people actually pay that? A lot of states do that, but most people just ignore it, since it's pretty much impossible to enforce.
The DVD may not last longer than the VHS, but it won't degrade form generation to generation. A 5th generation VHS tape is almost unwatchable, but a 50th generation DVD is just as good as a 1st generation one. As for the problems with reading it, I think that most new hardware won't have a problem, and certainly the burner he uses to make them shouldn't have a problem reading them.
As someone who works on the cutting edge of the software field (and no, I don't mean .Net), I can assure you that the field is far from tapped. Many of the applications of the applications of the 80's (word processors, spreadsheets, databases) are nearly feature complete, and so the companies which make those things are very soon going to either wither or adapt. There are, though, literally thousands of new applications that haven't yet been explored (and many that haven't even yet been thought of). Larry Ellison is just too dumb to see those possibilities, which is why he won't be there when the next software boom happens (and believe me, it won't have anything to do with the World Wide Web).
It seems to me like this would be most useful for cataloging. A museum, for instance, could take a scan of each item in their collection, and then use that as one means of bringing up all of their data on that item. Or a stamp collector could use it to store information on each stamp in his collection. I think the stated uses in the article are kind of silly, but I can definitely see this having some value.
No to be rude, but maybe you should get out more. There are a lot of people with opinions that differ from you and your friends, and a lot of people listen to music for a lot of different reasons. It just so happens that almost every R.E.M. fan I know (myself included) considers them a political band, not everyone listens to System of a Down just because they're heavy, and even though Pearl Jam's popularity has waned, they were most definitely a political band in their prime and many people listened to them because of that.
I disagree. I think there are a lot of people who enjoy politically oriented music of all genres and eras. You may not listen to anything other than '60's protest rock, but I don't think that's representative.
Just a few very political bands/artists of note: R.E.M., Annie DiFranco, Pearl Jam, System of a Down
Also, although I agree that copyrights should be shorter (but not non-existent), I'm not sure that I buy your reason for Disney and other corporations not wanting things to go into the public domain. In what way is anybody's ability to say what they want politically related to whether or not Disney owns the copyright on Steamboat Willy? I don't think Disney wants the copyright on any of their cartoons to expire because then they lose their monopoly on the Mickey Mouse name, not because of political motivations.
I agree that a little bit of access goes a long way, which is why we need to get out there and make sure that these politicians understand the issues. The original poster's view seemed to be that the governor wouldn't care about the issues because he'd do what the MPAA wanted him to regardless. My point was that there is no rationality for him to not listen to reason, and so we shouldn't be defeatist.
Money buys access, and it buys influence, but unless the governor is corrupt, it doesn't buy decisions. Why shouldn't the governor listen to his consituents? After all, they're the ones who voted him into office and the ones who can vote him out of office the next time. I'm sure the MPAA has powerful and convincing lobbyists, but I doubt the governor of Arkansas owes his entire campaign to donations from the Motion Picture Association of America. That just doesn't make sense.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else around here, but I think they're bad for two reasons. The first is practical. I just don't think that a national ID card (java or no java) can be made secure enough yet to justify the amount of trust that those who don't understand security will invariably put in it. If you have a number of different cards, then you aren't "putting all of your eggs in one basket."
The second reason is philisophical. Although it may make life easier, or even safer, I don't feel that the government has a right to know where I am at any given time. Over here in the U.S., we have social security numbers, too. We even have social security cards. They're not ID, though. In fact, technically, no one except the Internal Revenue Service and your employer are allowed to ask for the number (they do, but that's a different discussion entirely).
The defacto ID over here is the driver's license, which is issued by the state. These have become the ID of choice for use in identification under most circumstances, because most people have one and they contain your picture. The difference between a driver's license and a national ID, though (other than the fact that the DI is issued by the states and the NID would be issued by the Federal Govt.) is that no one is required to carry a driver's license unless they're actually driving. A police officer can't come up to me on the street and ask me for my ID because I'm acting suspiciously. Even if he arrests me for something, he can't require me to show him ID. He may be able to find it out anyway if he searches me and finds ID, or if I have a criminal record and he matches my fingerprints, but the point is that the burden of identity is on the government, not me.
You may not agree with me, and may think it's silly since 95% of the time they can find out who I am anyway, and would not have much trouble finding me if they cared to look, but it is an important issue to me. It's not about being afraid of the government tracking me. For the most part I'm not afraid of the government (although I would like to ensure that the govt's powers are limited in case at some point in the future I do need to fear them). However, for me it's about freedom, and being required to present ID to the govt limits my freedom. So, I do "give a fuck" if there is a national ID card, and I hope this clears up a little bit for you why I feel that way, to a degree more than just "National id, bad".
You're right. They sucked back then. I remember having one of them (might still be around somewhere, actually; I'm pretty sure I've seen it in the last couple of years) and thinking that it was a really dumb comic that was just advertising Radio Shack's crappy computers. However, being able to go back and read them now, they're absolutely hilarious. I laughed my a__ off when I read the part where the girl explains how to use the scriptsit (or however you spell it) word processor, or the detectives diatribe on the advantages of the radio shack cell phone's 40! preprogrammable numbers (did you notice just how big that cell phone was?) Truly classic stuff.
Is there a list anywhere of states that are thinking of implementing these laws but haven't yet? I'm in Indiana. Does anyone know what the status of super-DMCA's are here? I can complain all I want to Michigan's legislature, but quite frankly they aren't going to care.
They haven't made the money they can make from your next purchase down the road when you decide you'd like to upgrade to a newer model. Most people who buy Replay's, TiVo's, etc., are gadget people, and gadget people like new gadgets. There's no prestige or coolness factor in having a five year old gadget.
> but I do not suspect a nice happy action-movie type ending here
Awww...but it'd be so cool to see GW and SH duking it out on the rooftop of the White House, before it all finally ends with an injured Dick Cheney bursting through the door and shooting Hussein dead just before he throws Bush off the building.
Democracy is a political structure. Socialism is an economic structure. The two are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. You can have democracy with a capitalist economy or a democracy with a socialist economy. Similarly, you can have a dictatorship with a capitalist economy or a dictatorship with a socialist economy.
The Application Binary Interface (ABI) is the interface between the operating system and executable applications at the compiled binary level.
...and, to say something on topic, I disagree with the original poster. Unix is not a standard, Posix is a standard. Unix was an operating system developed back in the '70s, which has evolved and forked over the years into a number of different operatings systems, all collectively referred to as Unices, as well as a mostly source compatible workalikes such as Linux. All of those different Unices offer similar interfaces and implement standards such as Posix to differing degrees of conformity. Above and beyond those standards, each Unix offers its own set of features that set it apart from all of its bretheren, and discussing those features is quite valid. Of course, that doesn't mean more standards wouldn't be a good thing.
I don't think it was saying they were. What it was saying was that the same people who invented the wheel and writing also invented this battery.
I think the issue is that SCO is taking very old patents (let's face it, there's not much new in Unix/Linux) that have remained unenforced for a very long time, and now that they are in financial trouble they're trying to create a cash cow at the expense of the entire rest of the industry. Is it really fair for a company that has created nothing (remember, they bought the IP) to set the entire computer industry back 5-10 years in order to save themselves from their own bad business decisions. It may be legal, but it sure as hell isn't ethical.
(Let's also remember that they seem to be wanting to charge a rediculously high fee for these patents. A per processor cost of > $100 is hardly reasonable.)