I also ANAL, but I think the reasoning is that there's no license unless there is an ongoing payment -- i.e. just because there's a piece of paper in the box doesn't make it a legally binding one. Without the ongoing payment, it's a simple transfer of property.
No, not at all. My mistake was thinking the Geniuses were simple overpaid marketing "tech" droids. If they are exclusively for already-paid customers, then I'm with ya entirely.:)
As for your accusations of religion, rest assured that amoral Capitalism ain't my chosen one. Apple and FSF people can fight it out in their pigsty as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea what methodology of mine you mean, but thanks for your support for my religion (whichever that is).
Of course, but "just one" is the same as my using Google and deliberately not clicking on the ads, or watching my TiVo and skipping the ads.:) I'm using a service I am not paying for, and that other people want. The service is based on the provider speculating (incorrectly) about the likelihood of my future actions subsidizing their prior investment.
No no, I wasn't trolling. We're just working from different assumptions, as you can see in my flame.
I believe that about 10 people will do this, making accusations of "DoS" absolutely ridiculous. You seem to believe hundreds or thousands of people will do so, making accusations of "DoS" perfectly accurate.
You must at least concede that there is no way to tell what will actually happen, and the only thing suggesting it (most especially based on the 400 responses to this article), is the incendiary summary and CNET article.
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that it is possible his sitting in jail wasn't about showing the government is incompetent or screwed; it's quite possible his concern was in fact, about minimizing harm.
Since neither of us, I don't think, are familiar enough with the facts either way, I couldn't make any claim as to why he actually did it -- just that there are possible alternative explanations than the one you'd suggested that "everyone" wondered about.
Waste the time of large numbers of people who have nothing to do with making decisions for Apple
Since they are not the decision makers at Apple, what negative affect does wasting their time have on the alleged "attackers"? Since the target effect is to spend Apple's money (something the real decision makers WILL notice), your implication that "hearts and minds" (whose?) should be relevant is just silly. Apple's pocketbook is what they're aiming for -- hearts and minds belong to people, not companies. Do you think these Apple users will stop buying "Free Software" because of this?
and also the time of those people who actually need help with their Apple equipment.
Why don't they book a time slot? Or is the web server slow from all the new bookings? Or do you imply the inflammatory interpretation in TFS is correct? Have you RTFA? Your/. ID suggests you might not have.
Why would you assume a subpoena is required? By submitting to the policy, you clearly indicate that you have NO expectation of privacy, and thus would have no actual right to privacy within those communications. As always, IANAL.;)
I think that 'steadfastly refusing to allow ANYONE any access to the administration of a system that is no longer your responsibility to maintain, and indeed you are no longer permitted access to, based solely on your subjective belief that they are incapable of running it to a standard of security you think worthy' causes more 'harm' than otherwise.
No doubt you think that. Others, however, see that their responsibility for preventing harm to others by their own actions or inactions does not suddenly end just because some genius decides "You're Fired!".
Are you familiar with the ACM code of ethics? Section 1.2, Verbatim:
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
"Harm" means injury or negative consequences, such as undesirable loss of information, loss of property, property damage, or unwanted environmental impacts. This principle prohibits use of computing technology in ways that result in harm to any of the following: users, the general public, employees, employers. Harmful actions include intentional destruction or modification of files and programs leading to serious loss of resources or unnecessary expenditure of human resources such as the time and effort required to purge systems of "computer viruses."
Well-intended actions, including those that accomplish assigned duties, may lead to harm unexpectedly. In such an event the responsible person or persons are obligated to undo or mitigate the negative consequences as much as possible. One way to avoid unintentional harm is to carefully consider potential impacts on all those affected by decisions made during design and implementation.
To minimize the possibility of indirectly harming others, computing professionals must minimize malfunctions by following generally accepted standards for system design and testing. Furthermore, it is often necessary to assess the social consequences of systems to project the likelihood of any serious harm to others. If system features are misrepresented to users, coworkers, or supervisors, the individual computing professional is responsible for any resulting injury.
In the work environment the computing professional has the additional obligation to report any signs of system dangers that might result in serious personal or social damage. If one's superiors do not act to curtail or mitigate such dangers, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to help correct the problem or reduce the risk. However, capricious or misguided reporting of violations can, itself, be harmful. Before reporting violations, all relevant aspects of the incident must be thoroughly assessed. In particular, the assessment of risk and responsibility must be credible. It is suggested that advice be sought from other computing professionals. See principle 2.5 regarding thorough evaluations.
I think that everyone was wondering why he'd sit in jail to bring to light something that's already obvious.
See this previous response here. More or less, some people have values/ethics and try to appreciate (in advance) the outcomes of their potential actions.
I can tolerate taxation for basic services (police, etc.) as a necessary evil, but that does not make it not evil.
How do you decide which basic services are "necessary" for you to pay for? How does everyone else decide? Do you need to agree? Are you suggesting simple vote-with-your-dollars Voluntary Anarchy? You seem to imply that there are some basic collective services which *are* necessary, and thus anarchy would neccessarily transform into minarchy, or the services would simply not be provided except on a voluntary basis (what you seem to want to avoid, whilst arguing for voluntary payment). Which brings us back to democracy.
--dist-upgrade-mode is for upgrading to the next release of your distro, such as for ff2->ff3 (via eg ubuntu gutsy->intrepid).
You're right that "upgrade" only upgrades to the latest version available for your distro. Some distros offer multiple independent versions within one distro (eg) both Python2.5 and Python2.4. In that case:
$ sudo apt-get install firefox3
I still can't see this as any reason to switch from one package manager to another.:(
So, let's say I have a debain based set up a full year out of date. It doesn't have firefox 3, which I want. I don't have the latest versions of GTK, and associated libs etc. The terminal window is open, what's the process look like? Go!
Ok ok. So now that I've RTFA... what kind of lame reason to switch distros is that? Does Fedora *really* have that many unique packages that aren't in the other distros? Could this not be fixed with a simple Python script to scrape the license data?
Slashdot Mirror
This seems to be WHOOOOOSH all the way down.
I also ANAL, but I think the reasoning is that there's no license unless there is an ongoing payment -- i.e. just because there's a piece of paper in the box doesn't make it a legally binding one. Without the ongoing payment, it's a simple transfer of property.
No, not at all. My mistake was thinking the Geniuses were simple overpaid marketing "tech" droids. If they are exclusively for already-paid customers, then I'm with ya entirely. :)
As for your accusations of religion, rest assured that amoral Capitalism ain't my chosen one. Apple and FSF people can fight it out in their pigsty as far as I'm concerned. I have no idea what methodology of mine you mean, but thanks for your support for my religion (whichever that is).
Of course, but "just one" is the same as my using Google and deliberately not clicking on the ads, or watching my TiVo and skipping the ads. :) I'm using a service I am not paying for, and that other people want. The service is based on the provider speculating (incorrectly) about the likelihood of my future actions subsidizing their prior investment.
I believe that about 10 people will do this, making accusations of "DoS" absolutely ridiculous. You seem to believe hundreds or thousands of people will do so, making accusations of "DoS" perfectly accurate.
You must at least concede that there is no way to tell what will actually happen, and the only thing suggesting it (most especially based on the 400 responses to this article), is the incendiary summary and CNET article.
I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting ...
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that it is possible his sitting in jail wasn't about showing the government is incompetent or screwed; it's quite possible his concern was in fact, about minimizing harm.
Since neither of us, I don't think, are familiar enough with the facts either way, I couldn't make any claim as to why he actually did it -- just that there are possible alternative explanations than the one you'd suggested that "everyone" wondered about.
Dick Cheney
At least Dick knew whose hearts and minds he was talking about. ;) I'm still wondering whose hearts and minds will be affected here.
(Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
Waste the time of large numbers of people who have nothing to do with making decisions for Apple
Since they are not the decision makers at Apple, what negative affect does wasting their time have on the alleged "attackers"? Since the target effect is to spend Apple's money (something the real decision makers WILL notice), your implication that "hearts and minds" (whose?) should be relevant is just silly. Apple's pocketbook is what they're aiming for -- hearts and minds belong to people, not companies. Do you think these Apple users will stop buying "Free Software" because of this?
and also the time of those people who actually need help with their Apple equipment.
Why don't they book a time slot? Or is the web server slow from all the new bookings? Or do you imply the inflammatory interpretation in TFS is correct? Have you RTFA? Your /. ID suggests you might not have.
FSM needs no dice. It's got gigantic meatballs.
Why would you assume a subpoena is required? By submitting to the policy, you clearly indicate that you have NO expectation of privacy, and thus would have no actual right to privacy within those communications. As always, IANAL. ;)
I think that 'steadfastly refusing to allow ANYONE any access to the administration of a system that is no longer your responsibility to maintain, and indeed you are no longer permitted access to, based solely on your subjective belief that they are incapable of running it to a standard of security you think worthy' causes more 'harm' than otherwise.
No doubt you think that. Others, however, see that their responsibility for preventing harm to others by their own actions or inactions does not suddenly end just because some genius decides "You're Fired!".
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
"Harm" means injury or negative consequences, such as undesirable loss of information, loss of property, property damage, or unwanted environmental impacts. This principle prohibits use of computing technology in ways that result in harm to any of the following: users, the general public, employees, employers. Harmful actions include intentional destruction or modification of files and programs leading to serious loss of resources or unnecessary expenditure of human resources such as the time and effort required to purge systems of "computer viruses."
Well-intended actions, including those that accomplish assigned duties, may lead to harm unexpectedly. In such an event the responsible person or persons are obligated to undo or mitigate the negative consequences as much as possible. One way to avoid unintentional harm is to carefully consider potential impacts on all those affected by decisions made during design and implementation.
To minimize the possibility of indirectly harming others, computing professionals must minimize malfunctions by following generally accepted standards for system design and testing. Furthermore, it is often necessary to assess the social consequences of systems to project the likelihood of any serious harm to others. If system features are misrepresented to users, coworkers, or supervisors, the individual computing professional is responsible for any resulting injury.
In the work environment the computing professional has the additional obligation to report any signs of system dangers that might result in serious personal or social damage. If one's superiors do not act to curtail or mitigate such dangers, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to help correct the problem or reduce the risk. However, capricious or misguided reporting of violations can, itself, be harmful. Before reporting violations, all relevant aspects of the incident must be thoroughly assessed. In particular, the assessment of risk and responsibility must be credible. It is suggested that advice be sought from other computing professionals. See principle 2.5 regarding thorough evaluations.
I think that everyone was wondering why he'd sit in jail to bring to light something that's already obvious.
See this previous response here. More or less, some people have values/ethics and try to appreciate (in advance) the outcomes of their potential actions.
. It's not his network, this is just a job and certainly not worth going to jail over.
Maybe not to you, but to him, obviously so. See the ACM code of ethics, Section 1.2. It's pretty similar to any professional code of ethics, really.
well, at least there's an 8 out of 9 chance that's the case.
You really think alignment is evenly distributed?
too precious
Ok, more like too fragile/needy.
Moderation -1
100% Overrated
Sorry. "Frosty piss".
only a couple more days to package any applications that they want to be included in the next release of Debian
If you've left packaging until the freeze announcement, you don't deserve to be included.
So, this won't work:
dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}\t${License}\n' -W *
"Posted by timothy on Thursday July 24, @04:28PM"
I scoffed a bit when I RTFS
I read them...but really didn't find any major unaddressed concerns.
"by clang_jangle (975789) * on Thursday July 24, @04:33PM"
"Submitted by Brad Templeton on Thursday July 24, @05:51PM "
Ditto.
I can tolerate taxation for basic services (police, etc.) as a necessary evil, but that does not make it not evil.
How do you decide which basic services are "necessary" for you to pay for? How does everyone else decide? Do you need to agree? Are you suggesting simple vote-with-your-dollars Voluntary Anarchy? You seem to imply that there are some basic collective services which *are* necessary, and thus anarchy would neccessarily transform into minarchy, or the services would simply not be provided except on a voluntary basis (what you seem to want to avoid, whilst arguing for voluntary payment). Which brings us back to democracy.
The format does, of course. That's why this whole thing is ridiculous. Good tip about queryformat :D
--dist-upgrade-mode is for upgrading to the next release of your distro, such as for ff2->ff3 (via eg ubuntu gutsy->intrepid).
You're right that "upgrade" only upgrades to the latest version available for your distro. Some distros offer multiple independent versions within one distro (eg) both Python2.5 and Python2.4. In that case:
$ sudo apt-get install firefox3
I still can't see this as any reason to switch from one package manager to another. :(
So, let's say I have a debain based set up a full year out of date. It doesn't have firefox 3, which I want. I don't have the latest versions of GTK, and associated libs etc. The terminal window is open, what's the process look like? Go!
Easy:
$ sudo apt-get upgrade firefox
Hard:
$ sudo synaptic --dist-upgrade-mode
Is this a trap?
Ok ok. So now that I've RTFA... what kind of lame reason to switch distros is that? Does Fedora *really* have that many unique packages that aren't in the other distros? Could this not be fixed with a simple Python script to scrape the license data?