If I am over at your house and copy your cd, theft has not occurred. It's copyright infringement or commonly referred to as piracy.
I give my friend access to my home and CD library. She shows up and listens to my music whenever she wants. Should that be defined as piracy?
I walk down to my local library, check out a CD, and listen to it at home. I certainly hope RIAA doesn't brand that as piracy.
I tape a song being played on the FM airwaves, and replay it at my lesure. That (time-shifting) too, has not (yet) been branded piracy.
I, with an extensive collection of such tapes, give my friend access to my music library. Now she can listen to them whenever she pleases. At her house. Is this piracy?
Substitute MP3s for tapes above. Same question.
We've let RIAA dictate how piracy is defined. By their definition, all sharing is piracy. The word "sharing" have been villified. Pity.
We can debate the maturity of the view that everyone on the internet is my "friend" and should be given "access" to my music files. We can also debate the sound quality of reproductions by tapes vs. MP3s. But these are irrelevant to the larger question of the cultural legacy of sharing, and its legality.
cheers- raga -- Friends don't share with friends. RIAA slogan.
One of our comp. labs (in an engineering dept. at a state Univ) will be monitored in a similar fashion, The lab does not have a proctor. To unlock the lab door, you have to punch in a unique numeric code. There are approx. 150 grad. students who are provided fresh access codes every semester (old ones expire).
The lab has only 20 PCs, 1 laser printer and a plotter, but we have been having problems with keyboard/mouse walking away, printer abuse, etc.). Thankfully, the rodents have not (yet!) walked away with any of the (expensive!) hardware dongles some of our software requires.
The $20 solution we have came up with is: Mac G3 (333/beige) + ColorQuickCam (both laying around) + $20 for EvoCam. The camera is mounted at one of the top corners of the room and the Mac is setup in the next room. Sampling every second, we save images as a QT movie. The HD can store about 2 weeks of "movie".
Let's see if we catch any rats.
BTW, EvoCam is, by far, the best of its class (of WebCam apps) on any platform.
I can attest to what someone else mentioned: Some Fortran compilers with high optimization flags will spit out code that is fast - and gives wrong results (especially for code with lots of jumps in and out of loops; ya, ya its bad practice, but hey, sometimes you just hav'to do it!)...would have access to the best compiler for their platform
Believe me, a number cruncher knows her compilers better than she knows her spouse.
The attitude that govt. should not be spending money for advances in science, engineering, technology etc. is disturbing, especially coming from folks professing to be "geeks/nerds".
People who base their faith in "let the free-market decide what to do" should read their "bible" (Keyenes) to at least be aware of the limits of the general theory (of JMK).
The role of the govt. should be to foster an environment that improves the lot of its citizenry. The citizens have to do their ethical part as well. Doen't quite happen like that though, does it?
Re:Be afraid "linux crunchies"
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
...practically everybody adopts that position ahead of a court case....
After seeing the 2600 case progress the way it did, I do not wish to go down the same path with the SCO case.
I don't see IBM wondering out loud whether they might lose, and they know a thing or two about the law.
I am vastly encouraged by IBM's presence in this suit.:^)..I can't think of much more that could usefully be done at this stage. Can you?
Nope. Seems like we have a lot about the arguments re. how IBM/Linux (/OSS etc.) will respond. But we really don't know much about SCO's hand. Do they have anything?
But using the same exact rug company that made the rugs of the Titanic? Having the Blue Star logo on the under side of the dinner plates? Why waste money on stuff you'll never see on screen?
In a few years on eBay, said plates will fetch 100x their production cost.
Tabbed browsing apart, users who "feel the advantage" of choosing Cocca over Carbon apps will do just that. The Apple brand (and markettung) helps as well.
The dev. environment from Apple was called MPW (Mac Programmers Workshop) - an Unix-shell-like cl app with lot of cool goodies (like cross-link binaries from C/Fortran/Pascal, etc..). You could also use it as a cl-based replacement for the Finder. IMHO one of the best dev environments of its time. (Originally, Mac OS/apps were developed on the Lisa.) BTW, there was a Basic interpreter available fairly early (1984-5?)
SO... your WORM opens up port n, sends the info, get's it's commands to try on your system, then sends off the next command it's done/how and waits for it's marching orders.
To do this, the worm would already have to be on your disk. If your system is already infected, then all bets are off....
If Jane Q Public has a router that requires port-forwarding for external connections, and she takes other reasonable precautions to prevent an initial infection (re. downloads, email attachments etc.), she will be ok from 99.9% of the s'kiddies out there. Good luck with the remaining.1%!
The right response is to create numerous, smaller, "webs of trust" so that the whole interlocking structure is harder to attack. This is what modular kernels like the GNU/Hurd or Flux project do. Distributions will have many components, mixed and matched, pulling from the same communal pool. By spreading the IP over many projects and users, we can create the same P2P defence that is being used for the same problem in the music arena. There is no central server or even large server (Linus, IBM) to attack.
Some excellent suggestions above. Also consider: James Burke: The Day the Universe Changed & Connections (History of Science/Technology). John Gribbin: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat (Quantum Physics), In Search of the Big Bang, & The Omega Point (Universe/Space-Time) Gary Zukav: The Dancing Wu Li Masters (QP) And of course, the grand daddies of them all, Asimov and Clarke. (Too many titles to list here!).
The copyright doesn't matter in this case - its the license that defines its use. For example, see:
www.tribug.org/pub/tuhs/Caldera-license.pdf ... January 23, 2002
Dear UNIX? enthusiasts,
Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights to use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. ...
How do you emulate 3 buttons with 1 button device?
A well designed interface for a 1-button mouse can be a joy to work with. Take a simple example in Safari. Position your pointer on (say) a URL and:
Click: link opens in current window.
Apple-Click: link opens in new window.
Option-Click: link downloads to you disk.
Ctrl-Click: drop-down menu appears.
(Equivalent to the Windows right-click experience.)
My last 2 "mice" have been 4-button Kensington trackballs. Both did each of the above with just 1-click (do I have to pay Amazon for saying that??). I tend to use them only when working with graphic programs. AFAIC, nothing beats a trackball for fast and accurate positioning of the pointer anywhere on the screen. Comaparitively, a traditional mouse is *highly* inefficient. YMMV.
However, when writing/surfing/ etc. on a TiBook, I'd much rather use the builtin (touchpad) button+ modifier keys. This may be because both my hands are always draped over the keyboard, and I am quite confortable using more than just a few of the 10 digits at the end of my hands.
Further, other action keys (e.g., again, in a Safari window, try hitting the space-bar, or shift+space-bar, or tab, or shift+tab...etc.) reduce the need of the screen pointer (especially for navigation).
MS has made a decision to be backwards compatible.
MS is backward compatible?? You have been brainwashed by the marketting hype. Try running a 1994 software on a 1995 OS. Try loading a 2000 OS on a1996 hardware. Try running the latest OfficeXP on a Win95 (or Office95 on XP).
As for Apple, their transition from 68000 to PPC was smooth and completely transparent to the user (less so for OS9->OSX and even that is ok under classic). Other than the number crunchers, the average consumer did not care that the chip instruction set had changed; even most programmers did not care as long as the APIs remained the same. Thus, a circa 1988 ResEdit (MacOS 6/Mode32) will let you tweak high-level Sys resources even for OS9.2 (the latest pre-OSX version.) That's a 14 year life-span (OS9.2.2 update came out some time this year) Know of any circa 1994 system tools that would even load, much less be functional, on Win95 (1 year later)? Or a Win95 system-level tool that would run on Win2000 (5 years later)?
Backward compatibility is a marketing myth not supported by data. I have original disks for many older MS products (DOS6.21/Win3.11/NT3.5/Win95/NT4/98SE/2000/XP, along with most of the respective Offices). Come check it out and see for your self. You won't be proclaiming backward compatibility for long.
MS on the other hand is trying to evolve rather than start over
Win3.xx-> NT3.5 = Startover. Win3.xx-> Win95 = Startover. Win95->Win2000/XP = Startover. NT to 2000 is probably the only evolution that may be argued, and even there the code base/dll has changed almost entirely (and to a lesser extant, the APIs as well).
The products has evolved all right -but it's more like a series of mutations gone awry.
"...called to gloat over the fact that his mother was going to replace her aging PowerMac 7200 with a PC and that clock speeds on Apple Machines were clearly inferior. I know a number of people who've made the same choice...."
In their switch ad, MS wants to portray that XP is better than OS X, not 'that there are cheaper, faster boxes.
I suppose I'm glad that Apple isn't implementing DRM into their products, but this is simply a strategic business move, not some brave defense of our rights.
It is not a business move... it is their philosophy, and they have had it since the early days. For example, they have always discouraged developers (for the Mac) to have copy protection schemes. They view such things as "user-hostile".
In their world view, piracy is a social problem that needs to be solved with a social solution, and not a tech-based one.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still waiting for GPSy,
cheers- raga
If I am over at your house and copy your cd, theft has not occurred. It's copyright infringement or commonly referred to as piracy.
I give my friend access to my home and CD library. She shows up and listens to my music whenever she wants. Should that be defined as piracy?
I walk down to my local library, check out a CD, and listen to it at home. I certainly hope RIAA doesn't brand that as piracy.
I tape a song being played on the FM airwaves, and replay it at my lesure. That (time-shifting) too, has not (yet) been branded piracy.
I, with an extensive collection of such tapes, give my friend access to my music library. Now she can listen to them whenever she pleases. At her house. Is this piracy?
Substitute MP3s for tapes above. Same question.
We've let RIAA dictate how piracy is defined. By their definition, all sharing is piracy. The word "sharing" have been villified. Pity.
We can debate the maturity of the view that everyone on the internet is my "friend" and should be given "access" to my music files. We can also debate the sound quality of reproductions by tapes vs. MP3s. But these are irrelevant to the larger question of the cultural legacy of sharing, and its legality.
cheers- raga
--
Friends don't share with friends. RIAA slogan.
One of our comp. labs (in an engineering dept. at a state Univ) will be monitored in a similar fashion, The lab does not have a proctor. To unlock the lab door, you have to punch in a unique numeric code. There are approx. 150 grad. students who are provided fresh access codes every semester (old ones expire).
The lab has only 20 PCs, 1 laser printer and a plotter, but we have been having problems with keyboard/mouse walking away, printer abuse, etc.). Thankfully, the rodents have not (yet!) walked away with any of the (expensive!) hardware dongles some of our software requires.
The $20 solution we have came up with is:
Mac G3 (333/beige) + ColorQuickCam (both laying around) + $20 for EvoCam. The camera is mounted at one of the top corners of the room and the Mac is setup in the next room. Sampling every second, we save images as a QT movie. The HD can store about 2 weeks of "movie".
Let's see if we catch any rats.
BTW, EvoCam is, by far, the best of its class (of WebCam apps) on any platform.
cheers- raga
The author of the G5 test, whom I don't know how to contact, hasn't named the compilers, though I wish he would.
...
..."
Actually he does mention them futher down the thread:
"...
G4/OSX: Absoft, NAG
P4/Linux: Portland Group, Lahey, Intel (ifc)
P4/Windows: Compaq Visual Fortran
cheers- raga
Any constitutional rights granted to women?
cheers- raga
I can attest to what someone else mentioned: Some Fortran compilers with high optimization flags will spit out code that is fast - and gives wrong results (especially for code with lots of jumps in and out of loops; ya, ya its bad practice, but hey, sometimes you just hav'to do it!) ...would have access to the best compiler for their platform
Believe me, a number cruncher knows her compilers better than she knows her spouse.
cheers- raga
The attitude that govt. should not be spending money for advances in science, engineering, technology etc. is disturbing, especially coming from folks professing to be "geeks/nerds".
People who base their faith in "let the free-market decide what to do" should read their "bible" (Keyenes) to at least be aware of the limits of the general theory (of JMK).
The role of the govt. should be to foster an environment that improves the lot of its citizenry. The citizens have to do their ethical part as well. Doen't quite happen like that though, does it?
cheers- raga
This is all a round-about way of saying that SCO got me laid.
And now SCO is trying to get you screwed.
cheers-raga
You forgot the iSight...
cheers- raga
...practically everybody adopts that position ahead of a court case....
:^) ..I can't think of much more that could usefully be done at this stage. Can you?
After seeing the 2600 case progress the way it did, I do not wish to go down the same path with the SCO case.
I don't see IBM wondering out loud whether they might lose, and they know a thing or two about the law.
I am vastly encouraged by IBM's presence in this suit.
Nope. Seems like we have a lot about the arguments re. how IBM/Linux (/OSS etc.) will respond. But we really don't know much about SCO's hand. Do they have anything?
cheers- raga
You, sir, are correct!
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." (who said that?..some celb..??)
cheers- raga
Whatever the merits of the case, the Linux community should not take the SCO suits lightly.0 618linux.h tml
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_
cheers- raga
But using the same exact rug company that made the rugs of the Titanic? Having the Blue Star logo on the under side of the dinner plates? Why waste money on stuff you'll never see on screen?
In a few years on eBay, said plates will fetch 100x their production cost.
cheers- raga
Tabbed browsing apart, users who "feel the advantage" of choosing Cocca over Carbon apps will do just that. The Apple brand (and markettung) helps as well.
cheers- raga
The dev. environment from Apple was called MPW (Mac Programmers Workshop) - an Unix-shell-like cl app with lot of cool goodies (like cross-link binaries from C/Fortran/Pascal, etc..). You could also use it as a cl-based replacement for the Finder. IMHO one of the best dev environments of its time. (Originally, Mac OS/apps were developed on the Lisa.) BTW, there was a Basic interpreter available fairly early (1984-5?)
cheers- raga
To do this, the worm would already have to be on your disk. If your system is already infected, then all bets are off....
If Jane Q Public has a router that requires port-forwarding for external connections, and she takes other reasonable precautions to prevent an initial infection (re. downloads, email attachments etc.), she will be ok from 99.9% of the s'kiddies out there. Good luck with the remaining
cheers- raga
The right response is to create numerous, smaller, "webs of trust" so that the whole interlocking structure is harder to attack. This is what modular kernels like the GNU/Hurd or Flux project do. Distributions will have many components, mixed and matched, pulling from the same communal pool. By spreading the IP over many projects and users, we can create the same P2P defence that is being used for the same problem in the music arena. There is no central server or even large server (Linus, IBM) to attack.
Abolutely!
cheers- raga
...but there's no evidence to suggest a larger conspiracy.
The "good" ones (conspiracies) leave no evidence.
cheers- raga
James Burke: The Day the Universe Changed & Connections (History of Science/Technology).
John Gribbin: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat (Quantum Physics), In Search of the Big Bang, & The Omega Point (Universe/Space-Time)
Gary Zukav: The Dancing Wu Li Masters (QP)
And of course, the grand daddies of them all, Asimov and Clarke. (Too many titles to list here!).
cheers- raga
www.tribug.org/pub/tuhs/Caldera-license.pdf
January 23, 2002
Dear UNIX? enthusiasts,
Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights to use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code.
cheers- raga
A well designed interface for a 1-button mouse can be a joy to work with. Take a simple example in Safari. Position your pointer on (say) a URL and:
Click: link opens in current window.
Apple-Click: link opens in new window.
Option-Click: link downloads to you disk.
Ctrl-Click: drop-down menu appears. (Equivalent to the Windows right-click experience.)
My last 2 "mice" have been 4-button Kensington trackballs. Both did each of the above with just 1-click (do I have to pay Amazon for saying that??). I tend to use them only when working with graphic programs. AFAIC, nothing beats a trackball for fast and accurate positioning of the pointer anywhere on the screen. Comaparitively, a traditional mouse is *highly* inefficient. YMMV.
However, when writing/surfing/ etc. on a TiBook, I'd much rather use the builtin (touchpad) button+ modifier keys. This may be because both my hands are always draped over the keyboard, and I am quite confortable using more than just a few of the 10 digits at the end of my hands.
Further, other action keys (e.g., again, in a Safari window, try hitting the space-bar, or shift+space-bar, or tab, or shift+tab ...etc.) reduce the need of the screen pointer (especially for navigation).
cheers- raga
http://home.wanadoo.nl/mp3rulz/sagabegins.mp3
Ummm...come to think of it, technically, this is a parody of American Pie, so I guess you can keep your butter knife clean for a little longer.
Cheers- raga
MS is backward compatible?? You have been brainwashed by the marketting hype.
Try running a 1994 software on a 1995 OS.
Try loading a 2000 OS on a1996 hardware.
Try running the latest OfficeXP on a Win95 (or Office95 on XP).
As for Apple, their transition from 68000 to PPC was smooth and completely transparent to the user (less so for OS9->OSX and even that is ok under classic). Other than the number crunchers, the average consumer did not care that the chip instruction set had changed; even most programmers did not care as long as the APIs remained the same. Thus, a circa 1988 ResEdit (MacOS 6/Mode32) will let you tweak high-level Sys resources even for OS9.2 (the latest pre-OSX version.) That's a 14 year life-span (OS9.2.2 update came out some time this year) Know of any circa 1994 system tools that would even load, much less be functional, on Win95 (1 year later)? Or a Win95 system-level tool that would run on Win2000 (5 years later)?
Backward compatibility is a marketing myth not supported by data. I have original disks for many older MS products (DOS6.21/Win3.11/NT3.5/Win95/NT4/98SE/2000/XP, along with most of the respective Offices). Come check it out and see for your self. You won't be proclaiming backward compatibility for long.
MS on the other hand is trying to evolve rather than start over
Win3.xx-> NT3.5 = Startover.
Win3.xx-> Win95 = Startover.
Win95->Win2000/XP = Startover.
NT to 2000 is probably the only evolution that may be argued, and even there the code base/dll has changed almost entirely (and to a lesser extant, the APIs as well).
The products has evolved all right -but it's more like a series of mutations gone awry.
Cheers- raga
"...called to gloat over the fact that his mother was going to replace her aging PowerMac 7200 with a PC and that clock speeds on Apple Machines were clearly inferior. I know a number of people who've made the same choice...."
In their switch ad, MS wants to portray that XP is better than OS X, not 'that there are cheaper, faster boxes.
Cheers- raga
It is not a business move... it is their philosophy, and they have had it since the early days. For example, they have always discouraged developers (for the Mac) to have copy protection schemes. They view such things as "user-hostile".
In their world view, piracy is a social problem that needs to be solved with a social solution, and not a tech-based one.
Cheers-raga