...don't work. And I don't see the point in it. Let the kids cope with the real world, or don't let 'em use internet at all.
Default deny policy for the web is not practical, and default-allow policy don't work. I recently was at a lan party where almost all ports was blocked except for 80. So I just tunneled all trafic trough another server (trough port 80). You can tunnel stuff trough anything that can transfer information. Heck, you can even tunnel trough ICMP or email... Even kids who don't have years of computer experience, can easily use a web based proxy, or something similar...
And, why porn? I don't see what the fuck is so wrong with children seeing people making love to eachother. I mean, hey, I bet it's much better than 50% of the bullshit they see on tv, like people killing eachother, or them brainwashing children's programs.
The thing children need to learn before they even should be allowed to touch a computer with internet, is to always think about what they see and read, and not swallow all of it.
Censorship is about lies, and if we let the lies continue to pass on, the human-race is doomed. Oh wait... it already is (though free software do give me a slight piece of hope...:)
Re:Put it in the hands of a known agentcy
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... I'm sure mr. Stallman would have been an excellent boss for a such project, but you have to remember one thing: the fsf is about free software, and only free software. If you add an open dns system to the political goal of the fsf, it would be a crime against the people who believe in free software, but do not support an open dns system.
What I'm basically trying to say is, fsf has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because, if you believed in one of the things only, you would have to compromise if you wanted to support fsf.
Everyone who knows something about video compression and who loves free software, to come together, and create a new, truly open standard.
Unfornately, the only requirement, I myself, fill, is that I love free software. And I would hate seeing people walking away from it, just because it can't follow state-of-art video technology.
Compared to it's bitrate. I don't know if it scales up to as high bitrate as DVD, but at least I think a mpeg4 movie scaled that have 5 times the resolution of a normal dvd movie, would be better. Although, I gueess you would need a powerfull computer...
$5000 + an IMac is not a good price for something advanced like mpeg4. Almost any programmer can code a word-editor, or even a simple image manipulation program, given enough time, but when it comes to the more advanced audio and video codecs... it's heavy stuff. And this is also something you also almost always have to work with on a full-time basis, to produce any usefull code at all. I once tried to learn how MPEG1 works, and while reading the specs, I must admit I understood little of it.
Anyway, even though all odds are against me, I would like to learn this stuff. And I need good pointers to documentation about it (not describing MPEG, but more about basic video-compression techniques).
Since DivX is based on the over-patented MPEG4 standard. What we really need is a fully free format to play highly compressed motion pictures something like Ogg/Vorbis, only for video instead. Actually the future goal of the ogg project, is a complete set of free, open multimedia formats, with corresponding free (like in (l?)gpl) libraries.
Btw, as I have understood it, Microsoft's implementation of MPEG4 is open, but only to developers who have paid a huge um, and that have signed a head-cutting nda.
Thats exactly what LGPL is for. You see, with mandatory libraries like libc, it's would harm the development of opensource development if it couldn't be linked with propritiary software (YES, glibc is licensed under the LGPL) . But when it comes to libraries that are unique to free software(like readline), and not a seen as standard, it should, by RMS recommendation, be licensed under the GPL.
It's totally wrong that you can dynamically link your propriarity-non-gpl binaries with the GPL software, the license explicitly disallow it.
When it comes to making other communication methods to the GPL'ed library than dynamically linking it, it's getting a little in the grayarea, but your propriarity program would still use the GPL'ed code, if just not directly.
If I wanted to use a GPL library with a closedsource project of mine, I would have offered the author a certain amount money to sell you a license, which you CAN use with your closedsource application.
This is a very good system (I think), because while it give gnu software the advantage of being able to use GPL'ed libraries, it still permits commerical non-gpl software being used on a gnu system (like linux and the hurd). You can look at LGPL as a strategic transition from propriarity software to a world ruled by free (yes, as in speech) software. It's bait for big gpl-doubting companies...
The only ideal companies there is, is the really small ones, which are operating on screwing investors with optimistic ideas. This is the sick thing about humanity and money, money is no longer about the values created by the work the money represent, but only by the amount of money. Money is simply no good, if it's used for shit.
Well, the free software community is not like that, and that's why I love it with all my heart. I've met a lot of people saying "you wouldn't do it if it were zero money in it", but they don't know about the pleasure of creating values, with nothing else in return but values created by other people. It's like... values represent values, like it should, and not like the corporate way, where values are exchanged for screwing customer most possible without being taken on the bed.
There will never be any big company spending a big amount of money on charity, without thinking they will get something back (pr, higher stocks, etc...), which again is to raise income.
The problem is that corporates as we know them today is about making money, not creating stuff...
But... it may still be the right, or at least best way to do it. A lot of free software advocates (like Richard Stallman; extreme example) does not. I'll leave the question open
I tried this (with the standard celeron coolers). It lasted about 19seconds, to when it shut down. Too much heat. What cooling setup did you have? if its possible, I want it too:)
Slashdot Mirror
...don't work. And I don't see the point in it. Let the kids cope with the real world, or don't let 'em use internet at all.
:)
Default deny policy for the web is not practical, and default-allow policy don't work. I recently was at a lan party where almost all ports was blocked except for 80. So I just tunneled all trafic trough another server (trough port 80). You can tunnel stuff trough anything that can transfer information. Heck, you can even tunnel trough ICMP or email... Even kids who don't have years of computer experience, can easily use a web based proxy, or something similar...
And, why porn? I don't see what the fuck is so wrong with children seeing people making love to eachother. I mean, hey, I bet it's much better than 50% of the bullshit they see on tv, like people killing eachother, or them brainwashing children's programs.
The thing children need to learn before they even should be allowed to touch a computer with internet, is to always think about what they see and read, and not swallow all of it.
Censorship is about lies, and if we let the lies continue to pass on, the human-race is doomed. Oh wait... it already is (though free software do give me a slight piece of hope...
Hmmm... I'm sure mr. Stallman would have been an excellent boss for a such project, but you have to remember one thing: the fsf is about free software, and only free software. If you add an open dns system to the political goal of the fsf, it would be a crime against the people who believe in free software, but do not support an open dns system.
What I'm basically trying to say is, fsf has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because, if you believed in one of the things only, you would have to compromise if you wanted to support fsf.
Everyone who knows something about video compression and who loves free software, to come together, and create a new, truly open standard.
Unfornately, the only requirement, I myself, fill, is that I love free software. And I would hate seeing people walking away from it, just because it can't follow state-of-art video technology.
Compared to it's bitrate. I don't know if it scales up to as high bitrate as DVD, but at least I think a mpeg4 movie scaled that have 5 times the resolution of a normal dvd movie, would be better. Although, I gueess you would need a powerfull computer...
$5000 + an IMac is not a good price for something advanced like mpeg4. Almost any programmer can code a word-editor, or even a simple image manipulation program, given enough time, but when it comes to the more advanced audio and video codecs... it's heavy stuff. And this is also something you also almost always have to work with on a full-time basis, to produce any usefull code at all. I once tried to learn how MPEG1 works, and while reading the specs, I must admit I understood little of it.
Anyway, even though all odds are against me, I would like to learn this stuff. And I need good pointers to documentation about it (not describing MPEG, but more about basic video-compression techniques).
Since DivX is based on the over-patented MPEG4 standard. What we really need is a fully free format to play highly compressed motion pictures something like Ogg/Vorbis, only for video instead. Actually the future goal of the ogg project, is a complete set of free, open multimedia formats, with corresponding free (like in (l?)gpl) libraries.
Btw, as I have understood it, Microsoft's implementation of MPEG4 is open, but only to developers who have paid a huge um, and that have signed a head-cutting nda.
Thats exactly what LGPL is for. You see, with mandatory libraries like libc, it's would harm the development of opensource development if it couldn't be linked with propritiary software (YES, glibc is licensed under the LGPL) . But when it comes to libraries that are unique to free software(like readline), and not a seen as standard, it should, by RMS recommendation, be licensed under the GPL.
It's totally wrong that you can dynamically link your propriarity-non-gpl binaries with the GPL software, the license explicitly disallow it.
When it comes to making other communication methods to the GPL'ed library than dynamically linking it, it's getting a little in the grayarea, but your propriarity program would still use the GPL'ed code, if just not directly.
If I wanted to use a GPL library with a closedsource project of mine, I would have offered the author a certain amount money to sell you a license, which you CAN use with your closedsource application.
This is a very good system (I think), because while it give gnu software the advantage of being able to use GPL'ed libraries, it still permits commerical non-gpl software being used on a gnu system (like linux and the hurd). You can look at LGPL as a strategic transition from propriarity software to a world ruled by free (yes, as in speech) software. It's bait for big gpl-doubting companies...
The only ideal companies there is, is the really small ones, which are operating on screwing investors with optimistic ideas. This is the sick thing about humanity and money, money is no longer about the values created by the work the money represent, but only by the amount of money. Money is simply no good, if it's used for shit.
Well, the free software community is not like that, and that's why I love it with all my heart. I've met a lot of people saying "you wouldn't do it if it were zero money in it", but they don't know about the pleasure of creating values, with nothing else in return but values created by other people. It's like... values represent values, like it should, and not like the corporate way, where values are exchanged for screwing customer most possible without being taken on the bed.
There will never be any big company spending a big amount of money on charity, without thinking they will get something back (pr, higher stocks, etc...), which again is to raise income.
The problem is that corporates as we know them today is about making money, not creating stuff...
But... it may still be the right, or at least best way to do it. A lot of free software advocates (like Richard Stallman; extreme example) does not. I'll leave the question open
I tried this (with the standard celeron coolers). It lasted about 19seconds, to when it shut down. Too much heat. What cooling setup did you have? if its possible, I want it too :)
What does he know about copy_right_ anyways? He can't even spell it right...