Oh please. This is trivial already. Just signup for a hotmail / yahoo account. Email FSF. End of story.
As for theft of GPLed code, the GPL includes conditions already to handle that. The theif loses the right to use that code ever again. The author can ALWAYS take the infringer to court. Most likely, the FSF will help.
So if you have seen GPL infringment in action, why didn't YOU report it? Go get yourself a yahoo mail account and do so today. You can also go through an anonymous remailer (search google for one.)
The manager of a programmmer BETTER know EXACTLY what is going on or he / she should find a new line of work - like burger flipper.
Sigma is big enough that the managers of programmers will also have some technical skills. They are big enough to have things like code-reviews. They are big enough and the product complex enough that there is NO WAY they only had one programmer on this project.
Sigma is full of crap. They need to make ammends. Heads need to roll, and it seems that senior managment is part of the problem.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
Actually, they are still liable and can be sued.
If you rob a bank and are caught with all the money intact, you are STILL a bank robber. Doesn't matter that you didn't get away with the crime.
These guys are liars. Bad ones at that. They admitted the theft of code. If taken to court, these guys are toast.
No matter if Sigma is a "good company" or not, or whether they are a real bunch of nice guys, you have to take them to court and sue them. The world needs to know that you can't steal GPL'ed code and get away with it.
To date, Sigma has NOT restored the original copyright notices that were on this code that they had stripped out. This is a clear indication that they still are trying to play games.
Oh, I HAVE to disagree with you here. Yes, there ARE stupid questions. This one isn't however, and I agree with that point. It's an interesting idea, but would require hacking the mouse hardware which isn't really feasable. But there ARE stupid questions.
There also are questions where the answer is TRIVIALLY found in Google. Probably at least half the Ask Slashdot questions fall into this category. They have NO BUSINESS being posted. It's stupid to post an Ask Slashdot question if the answer is so easily found in Google.
Finally, there are the questions that are totally inappropriate for Ask Slashdot, and therefore it's stupid to ask them here. For example, this week someone who apparently was a co-owner in a business was asking an income tax question. HELLO, this is NOT H&R Block! It's News for Nerds! If you are running a business you already HAVE an accountant / tax person who would be the appropriate authority on the subject. Would you REALLY trust a bunch of random nerds to give you good solid advise to an important financial question? Be REAL!
To sum up, this particular case isn't a stupid question, but we have had a LONG string of really bad / stupid / inappropriate questions on Ask Slashdot lately. The flamming poster is probably just frustrated that the quality of questions has been pathetic and was taking his frustrations out on the wrong person.
No. Junk faxes are illegal because it shifts costs onto the recipient. Junk faxes use your paper / toner / ink, and tie up your fax line for other IMPORTANT business stuff. Paper / toner isn't free. The average cost on a business class laser fax is around 6 cents per page. Multiply that out by 10 spam faxes a day, 365 days a year, times the number of fax machines your business has. Factor in the potential lost business due to not being able to receive an important document.
Please inform us on all the technological measures to stop fax spam at the receiver.... Oh. There AREN'T any?
Your right to free speech ENDS at my door. You can deliver me all the bulk US mail you want, and I have the right to heat my house with it. I also have the right to call any telemarketers four letter words until they hang up (Telemarketing should be illegal as well. It's an intrusion on my peace and quiet. For now it's not, hpowever many sgtates are begining to enact laws that restrict it much more.) Email spam, like fax spam, also forces the cost on me as I am forced to pay for bandwidth / server storage. Yeah, it's not much, but it's getting MUCH worse, and the costs are starting to be significant. Spam was so bad for AT&T that it took their servers down for a couple days a few months back. 15% of all email on the net is now spam according to Gartner, and it's increasing at a rate of 5 fold per year.
This free speech argument is a red herring anyway. It's not Free as in beer, it's Free as in Freedom in content. Freedom of speech allows you to stand on a street corner and say pretty much anything you want. You can also publish a newsletter, put up a web site, etc. Basically, you are free to get your message out but there are reasonable limits. For example, free speech doesn't mean that Kinko's is required to provide you with free photocopies to get your message out. That's essentially what's happening with fax spam, or email spam, except that it's not Kinkos paying, it's YOU, and ME. So yeah, you have freedom of speech as long as you pay for ALL costs associated with getting your message out.
Re:Quite right, and possibly a Good Thing
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
By charging an arm and leg for support on software products infested with bugs and riddled with security holes.
OK, they do this now. You didn't answer the question of How long can MS' Office division remain profitable in this scenario?
I think the POINT is that the more software companies crack down on license compliance via hardware / software protection, "product activation" or audits, the more shift we will see to Open Source alternatives. The fact is that many people just won't pay for software. Many people use MS stuff because they can get it for free by pirating.
To enforce paid licenses at an extremely high level is detrimental to their own business and they KNOW it. It will cause "the great shift." In fact, just license terms alone is starting to cause a shift in corporate mindsets, as well as certain governments.
Once this migration gets past a certain point (adoption level), MS's business model is TOAST. Migration will avalanche.
That's the theory, but it doesn't always hold true in practice.
Tax laws vary state by state. You will NEED to consult a tax person who is familiar with tax laws in both states.
If you border hop to go to work, IE live in NH and work in MA, you pay MA income tax. NH doesn't have an income tax, but DOES have really high property tax (about 4 times the rate in San Jose for example) and high sales tax. A person in this situation gets screwed.
If you work out of a home office, things get "tricky" but you will probably only need to pay local (to where you live) taxes.
For any horror story on software installation on Linux, I could come up with one for Windows too. For all the "reasons" someone comes up with for why linux sucks, I could come up with Windows couterparts. It's pointless.
I've got a major newsflash for all you OS bigots. Learning a new OS requires learning new skills, terminology, etc. It takes time. OS's are also different. Yessiree, folks. Setting an IP address on Windows is different than Linux, the Mac, VMS, AS/400, Mainframe, etc. Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses, but YOUR lack of skill is NOT a weakness in the OS. The poster who claims that his linux kernel took 175M is a good example of someone who does not have the skill or knowledge to understand what he is doing / seeing (which in this case it's probably the fact that Linux uses most of the available memory for buffers / cache, and free's it as needed for other uses. One of those "performance enhancing" features.)
Understanding a feature and understanding the CONCEPTS behind the feature are two different things. Someone with conceptual / theoritical knowledge is going to be able to pick up a new OS easier than someone who doesn't. Someone without the conceptual knowledge moving from one OS to another is going to try apply the old OS's features and behaviors to the new one and therefore will have LOTS of problems. Stick a Windows user in front of a Mac for the first time and watch them squirm.
Yeah, a newbie installing Linux for the first time is going to be JUST AS CONFUSED as a newbie installing Windows. So what's a newbie to do?
First, any novice should buy a book on linux and READ THE DAMN THING. There are several modern distros that are well geared towards the novice. Most install MUCH easier than windows. As long as your hardware is listed as being supported on the compatablility matrix for the distro, things just work. Once installed, the system is fairly self-maintaining, and virtually anything can be done via GUI tools. Users don't need to use vi or emacs, they can use one of the bajillion other editors out there for either the command line or GUI. The solution to virtually any problem a newbie may face is easily solvable by typing a few keywords into google (since ALL linux documentation is online) or browsing the online manuals that come with the distro to find the solution. Next, get the damn book out again and try some of the examples. Learn the system. It's NOT that hard - if my 65 year old non-computer literate mother can do it, and my 9 year old nephew can do it, so can you.
Enough of the tired old whiney claim that Linux is hard. It's 100% FUD at this point. You just make yourself look incompetent.
While Win2k doesn't blue screen very often (like twice in a year), it does just lock up solid quite frequently. Depending on how much I use it and what I'm doing, it may be once a week or a dozen times a day.
Linux on the same machine has NEVER crashed.
When ANY version of windows can run for a year without crashing, THEN it deserves the title of "rock solid", but not until then. Windows has a LONG way to go...
OK, I'm not the original poster but,... You must not have read the same article I did. The problem is that this article did NOTHING to dispel myths, which was my big beef with it.
The core of the article in my opinion was that researchers have nothing to fear, because they are free to discuss issues, just not release code. The interesting part was that the author of the article describes code as being a VITAL part in research. If you can't share VITAL code with other researchers in fear of the DMCA, then indeed the DMCA IS causing a chilling effect, and hampers research. DUH!
The article also made a reference to HP's recent DMCA threat against a researcher who was going to release vunerabilities in HPUX (no code in this one). HP backed off, but the threat was still made. The article seems to just dismiss this as a fluke. Why? Maybe because it invalidates the authors claims that "it's the code" you need to fear.
Near the end of the article, the author states: "Any type of publishing carries risks, including possible suits for libel, copyright infringement or invasion of privacy." This is true, but the DMCA has CRIMINAL penalties, not just civil penalties. This makes a HUGE difference. People may be willing to risk a few bucks, but very few are willing to risk their liberty.
The article also has a few quotes from DMCA supporters whose opinions are that the chilling effect is a myth, yet provide no backup facts to support those opinions.
The only "myth" here is that the DMCA is not so bad after all. It makes one wonder if the author's claim of not liking the DMCA is a red herring...
Judges frequently don't know what the true "intent" of laws really are. They read the text, and interpret the text. Judges don't go back to the congressional records to find out what the lawmakers intent was, what arguments for and against, etc. So they usually do the best job they can trying to guess intent by reading the law as written. That's it.
The supreme court analyzes laws, cases, and the constitution, puts weight on various parts, and makes a decision. Desenting opinions are all fine and good, but the bottom line is that the majority rules. When the supreme court makes a decision, that's it. Lower courts use the MAJORITY decision to base other cases on, as the decision is basically the new "this is the intent of the law" statement. Desenting opinions can be used by the supreme court if it ever decides to review a prior decision, or by lawmakers (congress) to alter (ammend) laws.
What got the DMCA passed had nothing to do with sheep, and all to do with the fact that congress is bought and paid for by special interests / big corporations. Our lawmakers no longer work for the common man. That should be QUITE clear by now.
Depends. If the airlines KNEW you were flying to california to kill someone and said or did nothing.... (ISP's have logs, and know about sites like listen4ever...)
Hate the RIAA, but I'll play devils advocate here...
If you are the driver in a getaway car in a bank robbery, are you not a criminal too?
Hopefully the ISP's can use a "common carrier" defense, but I thought that has been tried before and lost in court.
Yup. SpamAssassin is pretty good at identifying spam. Only problem is that you have already incurred loos of bandwidth and CPU power. Yeah, not TOO big of deal for individual users, but magnify that by 1,000,000 or so if you are a big ISP or some other number if you are a business and it is STILL a real problem.
Filters are great for keeping spam out of your inbox but it doesn't solve ANY of the other problems associated with spam. While many people don't like the idea of spam laws, they would create a financial / criminal incentive to cut the volume. What if kidnapping and rape were not illegal? Wouldn't the problem be MUCH larger than it is today? The trend we see with spam is that it is increasing by orders of magnitude. If I had no filters turned on, I would get more spam than legit email. If the rate of increase in spam keeps up, I will see 10 spams for every legit email in about a year. This is just not right.
I don't have high-speed internet access available where I am. Spam costs me real dollars. Why should I pay for someone elses advertising?
Spam needs to be stopped at the source.
There is another argument that spam is a world-wide problem and that US laws wouldn't have much impact. While it's true that it wouldn't stop all spam, it would cut the volume. I also have no problem with a "usenet death penalty" for countries that don't take effective steps to curb spam. I already do this with a whitelist allowing the few international users that I do communicate with to communicate with me. Bottom line is that international spam stopped for me. I still incure a small bandwidth cost for the connection attempt, but not nearly as much as if I recieved the entire spam.
The big difference is that we can SEE where spam comes from. It's in our log files. Heroin is all underground. Music is not email. We also have laws against copyright infringment and yet the labels have not gone after traders. Believe me, if there were good tough, well-written NATIONAL (not state) laws on spam, I would go after EVERY SINGLE SPAMMER. It would be a GREAT source of additional income.
I don't know why you say that spam laws would be difficult to enforce. We have logs, the illegal mail (spam), and the target phone numbers / web sites (the spamvertized material.) It's pretty cut and dried. If the DOJ get's a chunk of the fine, and the spammie gets "restitution", it would be a self-funded program.
I have ZERO problems instituting a "usenet death penalty" type block on coutries that don't have tough laws on spam. I already do so personally on my servers for about 30 countries. Emailers in those countries get rejected with a pointer to a web page that tells them whats going on, and how to get "whitelisted" if they are legit.
I have no problems with having filters as well as laws, but we need the laws to reduce the bandwidth bills. Spam takes Massive bandwidth and a toll on server CPU. Not too long ago, spam took AT&T's email servers for worldnet down for 3 days. This kind of thing HAS to stop. Filters at the recieving end won't stop the bandwidth usage of spam. Without stopping spam at the source, the problem will just get worse.
We had a graffiti problem on a wall of a parking area. Got tagged 4 times in a month. The landlord put in a couple fake cameras (and to my eye they were OBVIOUSLY fake) and a "this area under 24hr surveillance" sign and the problem stopped.
That's actually a GREAT idea. Best one I've heard in a while. Put in all sorts of unreasonable crap including the right to hack your PC, invade your privacy, lock you out of your own files, put all sorts of restrictions with how you can use the app, etc.
Here's the deal. No matter what abstraction you use, you have to code for the lowest common denominator. This means that even if a DB supports subselects, you can't use it. Ditto for features like MySQL's "LIMIT" and such. Transactions? Forget em. You will also need to use only a limited set of data types.
This also means that you will have to emulate most advanced features yourself (which can DRASTICALLY complicate your project.)
A side effect is also that you won't be able to take advantage of many of the performance enhancing features of different databases, meaning that your code may run THOUSANDS of times slower depending on the DB, schema, etc. than if you supported a limited set of databases directly in your code.
I guess it all depends what your needs are, and what tradeoff's you can handle. But you do need to ask yourself the question: Is it truely worth it? Many of the large application vendors require a specific DB for all the issues described above and by other people.
Oh Man. Where have you been? MS doesn't want "government"controlled DRM, they want "Bill Gates" controled DRM. It's only a matter of time (and not much time either) before MS locks you in with palladium and you have no choices at all.
Go back a few years in news archives and you will see the "chipping away" as you read story after story of MS adding restrictions, killing competitors, eliminating privacy, using closed standards over open standards, and basically doing everything possible to lock you into pricy MS products and proprietary-closed-invasive technology.
Anyone remember the GUID in office docs? The privacy violations in passport? The "right" to delete stuff off your hard drives in the new EULA?
MS's "stances" always have some sinister motive behind them resulting in more $$$ in Bill's pockets. You seem to think they have the consumers best interest in mind. I guess that's why the XP products have WPA and why DRM is in there at all... DRM restrictions are "good for you" dontcha know...
Oh yeah.... Using the google search terms: "video frame grabber linux", Integral Tech shows up about halfway down the first page. Does ANYONE do ANY research for themselves anymore???? Even the most trivial google search? Sheesh.
... And you are wondering why you can't find what you are looking for? Fry's sucks. Last time I bothered to look, they mostly carried no-name junk, with just a couple mobo's from good companies. There are Many companies on the web with Much better selection, pricing, and service than Fry's.
There is still an assertion here that case sensitive file names is hard. This is just FUD. Bull crap. Horse hockey. I have NEVER EVER met anyone that can't handle the concept. My 80 year old dad can handle it, my 8 year old nephew can handle it, Every Single person I worked with can handle it (even people I consider too stupid to pour a glass of water.)
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
Can someone please point the/. community to the research which shows that people are unable to handle the concept of case sensitivity? Oh. There ISN'T ANY? Hmm.
Poor Granny's fingers get tired too. Better limit us to 8.3 filenames like DOS.
Granny also has trouble with her password. Sometimes she has the capslock key on and can't login. Better make all passwords case insensitive
Where do you stop? Granny shouldn't use the shell. Granny should use a GUI. Would you suggest that granny use a "command prompt" in Windows instead of Windows Explorer?
This is a flamebait topic, sorry. If granny is a fucking idiot, she will have trouble with certain features / behaviors in ANY type of computer / OS. If she is NOT a fucking idiot, she can learn that filenames, like passwords, are case sensitive. It's just not that hard of a concept to grasp. You seem to think it is for some reason. I've taught a number of not-very-bright people that filenames are case sensitive on UNIX. They never needed to be taught twice. The response was usually "Oh, OK. Now I know!"
I'll give you one VERY good reason why you shouldn't do "LETTER.TXT", "Letter.Txt" and "letter.txt", as "Letter.Txt(1)", "Letter.Txt(2)", and "Letter.Txt(3)" in a "basic shell". NO OTHER PROGRAM WILL KNOW WHAT "Letter.Txt(3)" IS. You are going to make Granny MUCH more confused than she already is. She will wonder what happened to her files as the names are "changed" out from under her. Sorry, changing things on the user behind the scenes is NOT userfriendly. Trying to explain to the user why filenames get changed and how is MUCH more difficult than just saying "Filenames in UNIX are case sensitive which means that letter.txt is different than Letter.txt.
There are MANY usability issues in Linux that need to be addressed. Filename case isn't one of them. You are attempting to make a "big deal" out of a TRIVIAL educational issue.
There is an old medical saying that applies: The cure is often worse than the disease (usually heard refering to side effects of drugs, some of which are nasty.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. This is trivial already. Just signup for a hotmail / yahoo account. Email FSF. End of story.
As for theft of GPLed code, the GPL includes conditions already to handle that. The theif loses the right to use that code ever again. The author can ALWAYS take the infringer to court. Most likely, the FSF will help.
So if you have seen GPL infringment in action, why didn't YOU report it? Go get yourself a yahoo mail account and do so today. You can also go through an anonymous remailer (search google for one.)
The manager of a programmmer BETTER know EXACTLY what is going on or he / she should find a new line of work - like burger flipper.
Sigma is big enough that the managers of programmers will also have some technical skills. They are big enough to have things like code-reviews. They are big enough and the product complex enough that there is NO WAY they only had one programmer on this project.
Sigma is full of crap. They need to make ammends. Heads need to roll, and it seems that senior managment is part of the problem.
Now that they have released the source, there might not be any legal recourse (unless someone wants to try to prove willful infringement). But from an ethical standpoint, the company is guilty as sin. I suppose the ultimate dilemma is that you can't sue for unethical conduct.
Actually, they are still liable and can be sued.
If you rob a bank and are caught with all the money intact, you are STILL a bank robber. Doesn't matter that you didn't get away with the crime.
These guys are liars. Bad ones at that. They admitted the theft of code. If taken to court, these guys are toast.
No matter if Sigma is a "good company" or not, or whether they are a real bunch of nice guys, you have to take them to court and sue them. The world needs to know that you can't steal GPL'ed code and get away with it.
To date, Sigma has NOT restored the original copyright notices that were on this code that they had stripped out. This is a clear indication that they still are trying to play games.
Oh, I HAVE to disagree with you here. Yes, there ARE stupid questions. This one isn't however, and I agree with that point. It's an interesting idea, but would require hacking the mouse hardware which isn't really feasable. But there ARE stupid questions.
There also are questions where the answer is TRIVIALLY found in Google. Probably at least half the Ask Slashdot questions fall into this category. They have NO BUSINESS being posted. It's stupid to post an Ask Slashdot question if the answer is so easily found in Google.
Finally, there are the questions that are totally inappropriate for Ask Slashdot, and therefore it's stupid to ask them here. For example, this week someone who apparently was a co-owner in a business was asking an income tax question. HELLO, this is NOT H&R Block! It's News for Nerds! If you are running a business you already HAVE an accountant / tax person who would be the appropriate authority on the subject. Would you REALLY trust a bunch of random nerds to give you good solid advise to an important financial question? Be REAL!
To sum up, this particular case isn't a stupid question, but we have had a LONG string of really bad / stupid / inappropriate questions on Ask Slashdot lately. The flamming poster is probably just frustrated that the quality of questions has been pathetic and was taking his frustrations out on the wrong person.
No. Junk faxes are illegal because it shifts costs onto the recipient.
Junk faxes use your paper / toner / ink, and tie up your fax line for other IMPORTANT business stuff. Paper / toner isn't free. The average cost on a business class laser fax is around 6 cents per page. Multiply that out by 10 spam faxes a day, 365 days a year, times the number of fax machines your business has. Factor in the potential lost business due to not being able to receive an important document.
Please inform us on all the technological measures to stop fax spam at the receiver.... Oh. There AREN'T any?
Your right to free speech ENDS at my door. You can deliver me all the bulk US mail you want, and I have the right to heat my house with it. I also have the right to call any telemarketers four letter words until they hang up (Telemarketing should be illegal as well. It's an intrusion on my peace and quiet. For now it's not, hpowever many sgtates are begining to enact laws that restrict it much more.) Email spam, like fax spam, also forces the cost on me as I am forced to pay for bandwidth / server storage. Yeah, it's not much, but it's getting MUCH worse, and the costs are starting to be significant. Spam was so bad for AT&T that it took their servers down for a couple days a few months back. 15% of all email on the net is now spam according to Gartner, and it's increasing at a rate of 5 fold per year.
This free speech argument is a red herring anyway. It's not Free as in beer, it's Free as in Freedom in content. Freedom of speech allows you to stand on a street corner and say pretty much anything you want. You can also publish a newsletter, put up a web site, etc. Basically, you are free to get your message out but there are reasonable limits. For example, free speech doesn't mean that Kinko's is required to provide you with free photocopies to get your message out. That's essentially what's happening with fax spam, or email spam, except that it's not Kinkos paying, it's YOU, and ME. So yeah, you have freedom of speech as long as you pay for ALL costs associated with getting your message out.
By charging an arm and leg for support on software products infested with bugs and riddled with security holes.
OK, they do this now. You didn't answer the question of How long can MS' Office division remain profitable in this scenario?
I think the POINT is that the more software companies crack down on license compliance via hardware / software protection, "product activation" or audits, the more shift we will see to Open Source alternatives. The fact is that many people just won't pay for software. Many people use MS stuff because they can get it for free by pirating.
To enforce paid licenses at an extremely high level is detrimental to their own business and they KNOW it. It will cause "the great shift." In fact, just license terms alone is starting to cause a shift in corporate mindsets, as well as certain governments.
Once this migration gets past a certain point (adoption level), MS's business model is TOAST. Migration will avalanche.
That's the theory, but it doesn't always hold true in practice.
Tax laws vary state by state. You will NEED to consult a tax person who is familiar with tax laws in both states.
If you border hop to go to work, IE live in NH and work in MA, you pay MA income tax. NH doesn't have an income tax, but DOES have really high property tax (about 4 times the rate in San Jose for example) and high sales tax. A person in this situation gets screwed.
If you work out of a home office, things get "tricky" but you will probably only need to pay local (to where you live) taxes.
For any horror story on software installation on Linux, I could come up with one for Windows too. For all the "reasons" someone comes up with for why linux sucks, I could come up with Windows couterparts. It's pointless.
I've got a major newsflash for all you OS bigots. Learning a new OS requires learning new skills, terminology, etc. It takes time. OS's are also different. Yessiree, folks. Setting an IP address on Windows is different than Linux, the Mac, VMS, AS/400, Mainframe, etc. Each OS has it's strengths and weaknesses, but YOUR lack of skill is NOT a weakness in the OS. The poster who claims that his linux kernel took 175M is a good example of someone who does not have the skill or knowledge to understand what he is doing / seeing (which in this case it's probably the fact that Linux uses most of the available memory for buffers / cache, and free's it as needed for other uses. One of those "performance enhancing" features.)
Understanding a feature and understanding the CONCEPTS behind the feature are two different things. Someone with conceptual / theoritical knowledge is going to be able to pick up a new OS easier than someone who doesn't. Someone without the conceptual knowledge moving from one OS to another is going to try apply the old OS's features and behaviors to the new one and therefore will have LOTS of problems. Stick a Windows user in front of a Mac for the first time and watch them squirm.
Yeah, a newbie installing Linux for the first time is going to be JUST AS CONFUSED as a newbie installing Windows. So what's a newbie to do?
First, any novice should buy a book on linux and READ THE DAMN THING. There are several modern distros that are well geared towards the novice. Most install MUCH easier than windows. As long as your hardware is listed as being supported on the compatablility matrix for the distro, things just work. Once installed, the system is fairly self-maintaining, and virtually anything can be done via GUI tools. Users don't need to use vi or emacs, they can use one of the bajillion other editors out there for either the command line or GUI. The solution to virtually any problem a newbie may face is easily solvable by typing a few keywords into google (since ALL linux documentation is online) or browsing the online manuals that come with the distro to find the solution. Next, get the damn book out again and try some of the examples. Learn the system. It's NOT that hard - if my 65 year old non-computer literate mother can do it, and my 9 year old nephew can do it, so can you.
Enough of the tired old whiney claim that Linux is hard. It's 100% FUD at this point. You just make yourself look incompetent.
rock-solid OSes like Windows 2000 Pro
While Win2k doesn't blue screen very often (like twice in a year), it does just lock up solid quite frequently. Depending on how much I use it and what I'm doing, it may be once a week or a dozen times a day.
Linux on the same machine has NEVER crashed.
When ANY version of windows can run for a year without crashing, THEN it deserves the title of "rock solid", but not until then. Windows has a LONG way to go...
By the way, this ENTIRE THREAD is off topic.
OK, I'm not the original poster but, ... You must not have read the same article I did. The problem is that this article did NOTHING to dispel myths, which was my big beef with it.
The core of the article in my opinion was that researchers have nothing to fear, because they are free to discuss issues, just not release code. The interesting part was that the author of the article describes code as being a VITAL part in research. If you can't share VITAL code with other researchers in fear of the DMCA, then indeed the DMCA IS causing a chilling effect, and hampers research. DUH!
The article also made a reference to HP's recent DMCA threat against a researcher who was going to release vunerabilities in HPUX (no code in this one). HP backed off, but the threat was still made. The article seems to just dismiss this as a fluke. Why? Maybe because it invalidates the authors claims that "it's the code" you need to fear.
Near the end of the article, the author states: "Any type of publishing carries risks, including possible suits for libel, copyright infringement or invasion of privacy." This is true, but the DMCA has CRIMINAL penalties, not just civil penalties. This makes a HUGE difference. People may be willing to risk a few bucks, but very few are willing to risk their liberty.
The article also has a few quotes from DMCA supporters whose opinions are that the chilling effect is a myth, yet provide no backup facts to support those opinions.
The only "myth" here is that the DMCA is not so bad after all. It makes one wonder if the author's claim of not liking the DMCA is a red herring...
Oops, that's where you lost me.
OK, let me help clear things up.
Judges frequently don't know what the true "intent" of laws really are. They read the text, and interpret the text. Judges don't go back to the congressional records to find out what the lawmakers intent was, what arguments for and against, etc. So they usually do the best job they can trying to guess intent by reading the law as written. That's it.
The supreme court analyzes laws, cases, and the constitution, puts weight on various parts, and makes a decision. Desenting opinions are all fine and good, but the bottom line is that the majority rules. When the supreme court makes a decision, that's it. Lower courts use the MAJORITY decision to base other cases on, as the decision is basically the new "this is the intent of the law" statement. Desenting opinions can be used by the supreme court if it ever decides to review a prior decision, or by lawmakers (congress) to alter (ammend) laws.
What got the DMCA passed had nothing to do with sheep, and all to do with the fact that congress is bought and paid for by special interests / big corporations. Our lawmakers no longer work for the common man. That should be QUITE clear by now.
Depends. If the airlines KNEW you were flying to california to kill someone and said or did nothing.... (ISP's have logs, and know about sites like listen4ever...)
Hate the RIAA, but I'll play devils advocate here...
If you are the driver in a getaway car in a bank robbery, are you not a criminal too?
Hopefully the ISP's can use a "common carrier" defense, but I thought that has been tried before and lost in court.
Yup. SpamAssassin is pretty good at identifying spam. Only problem is that you have already incurred loos of bandwidth and CPU power. Yeah, not TOO big of deal for individual users, but magnify that by 1,000,000 or so if you are a big ISP or some other number if you are a business and it is STILL a real problem.
Filters are great for keeping spam out of your inbox but it doesn't solve ANY of the other problems associated with spam. While many people don't like the idea of spam laws, they would create a financial / criminal incentive to cut the volume. What if kidnapping and rape were not illegal? Wouldn't the problem be MUCH larger than it is today? The trend we see with spam is that it is increasing by orders of magnitude. If I had no filters turned on, I would get more spam than legit email. If the rate of increase in spam keeps up, I will see 10 spams for every legit email in about a year. This is just not right.
I don't have high-speed internet access available where I am. Spam costs me real dollars. Why should I pay for someone elses advertising?
Spam needs to be stopped at the source.
There is another argument that spam is a world-wide problem and that US laws wouldn't have much impact. While it's true that it wouldn't stop all spam, it would cut the volume. I also have no problem with a "usenet death penalty" for countries that don't take effective steps to curb spam. I already do this with a whitelist allowing the few international users that I do communicate with to communicate with me. Bottom line is that international spam stopped for me. I still incure a small bandwidth cost for the connection attempt, but not nearly as much as if I recieved the entire spam.
Am I just totally off base here? If so, why?
The big difference is that we can SEE where spam comes from. It's in our log files. Heroin is all underground. Music is not email. We also have laws against copyright infringment and yet the labels have not gone after traders. Believe me, if there were good tough, well-written NATIONAL (not state) laws on spam, I would go after EVERY SINGLE SPAMMER. It would be a GREAT source of additional income.
I don't know why you say that spam laws would be difficult to enforce. We have logs, the illegal mail (spam), and the target phone numbers / web sites (the spamvertized material.) It's pretty cut and dried. If the DOJ get's a chunk of the fine, and the spammie gets "restitution", it would be a self-funded program.
I have ZERO problems instituting a "usenet death penalty" type block on coutries that don't have tough laws on spam. I already do so personally on my servers for about 30 countries. Emailers in those countries get rejected with a pointer to a web page that tells them whats going on, and how to get "whitelisted" if they are legit.
I have no problems with having filters as well as laws, but we need the laws to reduce the bandwidth bills. Spam takes Massive bandwidth and a toll on server CPU. Not too long ago, spam took AT&T's email servers for worldnet down for 3 days. This kind of thing HAS to stop. Filters at the recieving end won't stop the bandwidth usage of spam. Without stopping spam at the source, the problem will just get worse.
We had a graffiti problem on a wall of a parking area. Got tagged 4 times in a month. The landlord put in a couple fake cameras (and to my eye they were OBVIOUSLY fake) and a "this area under 24hr surveillance" sign and the problem stopped.
That's actually a GREAT idea. Best one I've heard in a while. Put in all sorts of unreasonable crap including the right to hack your PC, invade your privacy, lock you out of your own files, put all sorts of restrictions with how you can use the app, etc.
Bing Bing. Mod that up.
Here's the deal. No matter what abstraction you use, you have to code for the lowest common denominator. This means that even if a DB supports subselects, you can't use it. Ditto for features like MySQL's "LIMIT" and such. Transactions? Forget em. You will also need to use only a limited set of data types.
This also means that you will have to emulate most advanced features yourself (which can DRASTICALLY complicate your project.)
A side effect is also that you won't be able to take advantage of many of the performance enhancing features of different databases, meaning that your code may run THOUSANDS of times slower depending on the DB, schema, etc. than if you supported a limited set of databases directly in your code.
I guess it all depends what your needs are, and what tradeoff's you can handle. But you do need to ask yourself the question: Is it truely worth it? Many of the large application vendors require a specific DB for all the issues described above and by other people.
Oh Man. Where have you been? MS doesn't want "government"controlled DRM, they want "Bill Gates" controled DRM. It's only a matter of time (and not much time either) before MS locks you in with palladium and you have no choices at all.
Go back a few years in news archives and you will see the "chipping away" as you read story after story of MS adding restrictions, killing competitors, eliminating privacy, using closed standards over open standards, and basically doing everything possible to lock you into pricy MS products and proprietary-closed-invasive technology.
Anyone remember the GUID in office docs? The privacy violations in passport? The "right" to delete stuff off your hard drives in the new EULA?
MS's "stances" always have some sinister motive behind them resulting in more $$$ in Bill's pockets. You seem to think they have the consumers best interest in mind. I guess that's why the XP products have WPA and why DRM is in there at all... DRM restrictions are "good for you" dontcha know...
Oh yeah.... Using the google search terms: "video frame grabber linux", Integral Tech shows up about halfway down the first page. Does ANYONE do ANY research for themselves anymore???? Even the most trivial google search? Sheesh.
Check out Integral Tech (.com). They support Linux and have some frame grabbers with 8 inputs.
There is still an assertion here that case sensitive file names is hard. This is just FUD. Bull crap. Horse hockey. I have NEVER EVER met anyone that can't handle the concept. My 80 year old dad can handle it, my 8 year old nephew can handle it, Every Single person I worked with can handle it (even people I consider too stupid to pour a glass of water.)
/. community to the research which shows that people are unable to handle the concept of case sensitivity? Oh. There ISN'T ANY? Hmm.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
Can someone please point the
Poor Granny's fingers get tired too. Better limit us to 8.3 filenames like DOS.
Granny also has trouble with her password. Sometimes she has the capslock key on and can't login. Better make all passwords case insensitive
Where do you stop? Granny shouldn't use the shell. Granny should use a GUI. Would you suggest that granny use a "command prompt" in Windows instead of Windows Explorer?
This is a flamebait topic, sorry. If granny is a fucking idiot, she will have trouble with certain features / behaviors in ANY type of computer / OS. If she is NOT a fucking idiot, she can learn that filenames, like passwords, are case sensitive. It's just not that hard of a concept to grasp. You seem to think it is for some reason. I've taught a number of not-very-bright people that filenames are case sensitive on UNIX. They never needed to be taught twice. The response was usually "Oh, OK. Now I know!"
I'll give you one VERY good reason why you shouldn't do "LETTER.TXT", "Letter.Txt" and "letter.txt", as "Letter.Txt(1)", "Letter.Txt(2)", and "Letter.Txt(3)" in a "basic shell". NO OTHER PROGRAM WILL KNOW WHAT "Letter.Txt(3)" IS. You are going to make Granny MUCH more confused than she already is. She will wonder what happened to her files as the names are "changed" out from under her. Sorry, changing things on the user behind the scenes is NOT userfriendly. Trying to explain to the user why filenames get changed and how is MUCH more difficult than just saying "Filenames in UNIX are case sensitive which means that letter.txt is different than Letter.txt.
There are MANY usability issues in Linux that need to be addressed. Filename case isn't one of them. You are attempting to make a "big deal" out of a TRIVIAL educational issue.
There is an old medical saying that applies: The cure is often worse than the disease (usually heard refering to side effects of drugs, some of which are nasty.)
Yeah. Rent it and rip it for now, buy the full version later.