In theory, popular music should make popular torrents, not the other way around (the egg came before the chicken, people). The reason independent artists aren't as popular is to do with level of awareness. It is far easier to find out about labeled brands than independent ones. Perhaps someone knows of a good list of such artists, or could make one? (Wikiart, anyone???)
Someone should point out to the itellectual property lawyers that a society based on the ability to communicate large amounts of information very rapidly (read internet) is incompatible with money. It leads to attempts to create artificial scarcity - which in tern annoys anyone who doesn't like artificial limitations. The evidence for this is clear when you consider how many people are willing to violate IP laws (especially copyright).
The situation is exacerbated by releasing in different formats and countries at different times (people will start downloading illegally because they are unable to obtain a legal copy). Evidence is, as before, in wide spread torrenting.
Conficker anyone? I dare all to find any logical person (not Microsoft associated) who will fail to observe that Microsoft are promoting their operating system in a fairy tail (or demon horn) world...
In addition to the myriad of technological benefits of Linux, open source software is, by nature, more compatible with its self.
Suppose you have a piece of software written today, in today's environment. Ten or more years from now, you upgrade, and find that the software is no longer binary compatible. Suppose the software is closed source. You're stuck. There's nothing you can do. If, however, you have access to the source, it should be possible to recompile it to be compatible with the new environment. Failing this, it is likely a few simple modifications are all that would be needed to regain compatibility.
Usually, if there is demand for a product, the open source community will have created and maintained it. If enough people wanted Linux 1.0 rather than 2.6, there would be a distribution based on it.
Three reasons to switch to Linux and an Open Source environment are, therefore:
-Technologically superior
-Increased resilianse to change in environment
-If you need an older system, chances are it will still be maintained (and if it's not, you can fix small bugs your self:p)
That may or may not work until the Automation of Copyright Enforcement Act comes into force giving proprietary RIAA and MPAA software legal right to determine what is and is not copyright infringement.
I think it's an excellent school of thought. Information is naturally self duplicating. Think of the muffin analogy (I've seen the cartoon). The difference between copying a file, and stealing a a car (ever seen those annoying piracy adverts on genuine DVDs?) is this: muffins cannot be copied. Files can. In today's information age, it is not feasible to continue to make information a scarce commodity. I just wish I had a muffin duplicator...
Of course they're worried! If Linux (and the rest of the open source projects) become even slightly common, Microsoft have lost. They can't buy Linux, they can't do deals with it. They don't seem to be able to out perform it either. Short of zapping every magnetic and (some how) optical media on the planet, Microsoft cannot kill an open source project of a large magnitude; there'll always be community members willing to take over where one was "bought" by Microsoft.
Why not modify the installer to install even if you click Decline (maybe even get it to say "OK, we changed our minds, your licence is unconditional."). Or perhaps get the installer to display a different agreement.
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is it's non-commercialistic nature. As soon as advertisements are brought in, and money paid for contributors, the focus is lifted from the community, and brought back to money. I'd hate to see that happen. As a scientist, I find the drive to money to be a source of great impurity.
Embargoes like this are unfair to the innocent people - who have no malintent towards the US. They likely don't even approve of their government's activities. Why wouldn't the ordinary Iranian, therefore, have access to printers?
This is just another example of something that penalises innocent people who just want to communicate, while barely hindering those who are up to genuine mischief. These bills are usually designed to counter terrorism. One fatal flaw: most terrorist organisations would have someone with the technological experience to find a way around such monitoring - like routing network traffic through servers in foreign countries, or using TOR.
Remember: these people are in the business of making money. If they can charge many times their cost to send text messages, they will. There are far too many things in this world that are governed by money, not that which is technologically possible. And as a scientist - there's a certain lack of purity in that, which I very much dislike.
Whether it will admit it or not, the RIAA is an organisation which sets out to curb illegal (though sometimes justified) file sharing. Since their is no technological means to accomplish this (it's almost a form of censorship - it restricts what people may communicate to each other - and people don't like being told what they can and cannot communicate), they resort to intimidation and scare tactics. Clearly, if the proceedings were to be made publicly viewable, some of the mystery would be lost. Or perhaps the RIAA are afraid they might loose, and don't want to do so in a very public way.
Censoring The Internet (without enormous economic losses) does not work. Here's why:
Step 1: Introduce content filters that work on HTTP only. They filter only "extreme stuff".
Anti-Step 1: Use a simple web proxy based in another country to see what you want.
Step 2: Block access to web proxies and similar sites
Anti-Step 2: Use your own proxy server - based in another country, on another port.
Step 3: Block access to all ports except port 80
Anti-Step 3: Create a redundant proxy mechanism that encrypts and decrypts the site to be beyond filterability - again the servers are in another country.
Step 4: Make the internet available only between computers in your country/not at all.
Anti-Step 4: Huge economic losses due to inability to trade effectively with other nations, and a secret underground internet society of DOOM!
Short(ish) answer: in a democratic country, there would be outrage long before The Internet was effectively censored. Once this has happened, you've got a Nazi style nation. Make your conclusions from this as you will.
Why was it classified? Given that all good security must be based on rigorous unbreakability, not secrecy, the analytical powers of many eyes would have been useful. Also, I'm opposed to governmental secrecy.
Personally, I am very anti restrictions. They're generally easy to bypass (I'd be very tempted to reinstall the OS - or Linux). Even when restrictions aren't bypassed, they're generally ineffective - they block that which shouldn't be, and fail to block that which "should" be blocked. Government rules requiring such controls are ridiculous.
Just remember: The Chinese can't censor the internet properly, so why do you think you can?
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, popular music should make popular torrents, not the other way around (the egg came before the chicken, people). The reason independent artists aren't as popular is to do with level of awareness. It is far easier to find out about labeled brands than independent ones. Perhaps someone knows of a good list of such artists, or could make one? (Wikiart, anyone???)
Someone should point out to the itellectual property lawyers that a society based on the ability to communicate large amounts of information very rapidly (read internet) is incompatible with money. It leads to attempts to create artificial scarcity - which in tern annoys anyone who doesn't like artificial limitations. The evidence for this is clear when you consider how many people are willing to violate IP laws (especially copyright). The situation is exacerbated by releasing in different formats and countries at different times (people will start downloading illegally because they are unable to obtain a legal copy). Evidence is, as before, in wide spread torrenting.
Conficker anyone? I dare all to find any logical person (not Microsoft associated) who will fail to observe that Microsoft are promoting their operating system in a fairy tail (or demon horn) world...
The Police are merely guarding our rights
Oh? You mean like the right to use two different operating systems?
In addition to the myriad of technological benefits of Linux, open source software is, by nature, more compatible with its self. Suppose you have a piece of software written today, in today's environment. Ten or more years from now, you upgrade, and find that the software is no longer binary compatible. Suppose the software is closed source. You're stuck. There's nothing you can do. If, however, you have access to the source, it should be possible to recompile it to be compatible with the new environment. Failing this, it is likely a few simple modifications are all that would be needed to regain compatibility. Usually, if there is demand for a product, the open source community will have created and maintained it. If enough people wanted Linux 1.0 rather than 2.6, there would be a distribution based on it. Three reasons to switch to Linux and an Open Source environment are, therefore: -Technologically superior -Increased resilianse to change in environment -If you need an older system, chances are it will still be maintained (and if it's not, you can fix small bugs your self :p)
That may or may not work until the Automation of Copyright Enforcement Act comes into force giving proprietary RIAA and MPAA software legal right to determine what is and is not copyright infringement.
Then he needs an operating system with an automatically shrinking file system.
I think it's an excellent school of thought. Information is naturally self duplicating. Think of the muffin analogy (I've seen the cartoon). The difference between copying a file, and stealing a a car (ever seen those annoying piracy adverts on genuine DVDs?) is this: muffins cannot be copied. Files can. In today's information age, it is not feasible to continue to make information a scarce commodity. I just wish I had a muffin duplicator...
Of course they're worried! If Linux (and the rest of the open source projects) become even slightly common, Microsoft have lost. They can't buy Linux, they can't do deals with it. They don't seem to be able to out perform it either. Short of zapping every magnetic and (some how) optical media on the planet, Microsoft cannot kill an open source project of a large magnitude; there'll always be community members willing to take over where one was "bought" by Microsoft.
The UK government may have the cohesion of slush, but at least they can do one sensible thing...
Why not modify the installer to install even if you click Decline (maybe even get it to say "OK, we changed our minds, your licence is unconditional."). Or perhaps get the installer to display a different agreement.
The moral of the story is: don't trust a commercialistic company not to try to gain advantage - any way it can. Especially Microsoft.
One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is it's non-commercialistic nature. As soon as advertisements are brought in, and money paid for contributors, the focus is lifted from the community, and brought back to money. I'd hate to see that happen. As a scientist, I find the drive to money to be a source of great impurity.
Embargoes like this are unfair to the innocent people - who have no malintent towards the US. They likely don't even approve of their government's activities. Why wouldn't the ordinary Iranian, therefore, have access to printers?
This is just another example of something that penalises innocent people who just want to communicate, while barely hindering those who are up to genuine mischief. These bills are usually designed to counter terrorism. One fatal flaw: most terrorist organisations would have someone with the technological experience to find a way around such monitoring - like routing network traffic through servers in foreign countries, or using TOR.
Remember: these people are in the business of making money. If they can charge many times their cost to send text messages, they will. There are far too many things in this world that are governed by money, not that which is technologically possible. And as a scientist - there's a certain lack of purity in that, which I very much dislike.
Whether it will admit it or not, the RIAA is an organisation which sets out to curb illegal (though sometimes justified) file sharing. Since their is no technological means to accomplish this (it's almost a form of censorship - it restricts what people may communicate to each other - and people don't like being told what they can and cannot communicate), they resort to intimidation and scare tactics. Clearly, if the proceedings were to be made publicly viewable, some of the mystery would be lost. Or perhaps the RIAA are afraid they might loose, and don't want to do so in a very public way.
Censoring The Internet (without enormous economic losses) does not work. Here's why: Step 1: Introduce content filters that work on HTTP only. They filter only "extreme stuff". Anti-Step 1: Use a simple web proxy based in another country to see what you want. Step 2: Block access to web proxies and similar sites Anti-Step 2: Use your own proxy server - based in another country, on another port. Step 3: Block access to all ports except port 80 Anti-Step 3: Create a redundant proxy mechanism that encrypts and decrypts the site to be beyond filterability - again the servers are in another country. Step 4: Make the internet available only between computers in your country/not at all. Anti-Step 4: Huge economic losses due to inability to trade effectively with other nations, and a secret underground internet society of DOOM! Short(ish) answer: in a democratic country, there would be outrage long before The Internet was effectively censored. Once this has happened, you've got a Nazi style nation. Make your conclusions from this as you will.
This will be exploited only in the situation where the DBA is a complete and total moron of the highest degree.
You mean the kind of person who'd use Microsoft software in a security critical situation?
Why was it classified? Given that all good security must be based on rigorous unbreakability, not secrecy, the analytical powers of many eyes would have been useful. Also, I'm opposed to governmental secrecy.
Personally, I am very anti restrictions. They're generally easy to bypass (I'd be very tempted to reinstall the OS - or Linux). Even when restrictions aren't bypassed, they're generally ineffective - they block that which shouldn't be, and fail to block that which "should" be blocked. Government rules requiring such controls are ridiculous. Just remember: The Chinese can't censor the internet properly, so why do you think you can?