I think it runs IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently. That's usually the way you run IPv6. I'm not sure what you mean by 6-to-4 bridge.
If you mean tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, then yes, most likely. You probably won't see a huge increase in latency, properly configured, its just another hop.
If you mean support IPv4 apps on a pure IPv6 network, than no. AFAIK, no one has a good 4-to-6 bridge, which is what you would be talking about.
Most apps don't have proper IPv6 support yet, however, there isn't any reason not to run IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently. The only limitation is IP addresses, but thats not a limitation that we'll be able to resolve. The only solution to that is native IPv6 support in apps; there's simply no way to map it correctly. The only possible solutions become hopelessly complex and kludgy; this means things like dynamically allocating IPv4 addresses in VPNs routed over IPv6 for legacy supported apps.
Far better to just hobble along as we've been doing so, and properly switch to IPv6 for new equipment and apps. The main point of the 6-to-4 stuff is so you can run concurrently, so there isn't a break. Eventually, we'll be able to turn off the IPv4 stuff. Perhaps then, we'll have a functional IPv4 VPN over IPv6 tunnel that will allow us to setup private IPv4 networks for legacy apps.
You can tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, so you can do it right now, with your existing ISP service. Of course, there aren't a whole lot of destinations, yet. But that'll come with time.
Also, you won't remember 128-bit numbers. That's what DNS is for. I feel its a small price to pay for all the improvements in IPv6.
The current plan for most ISPs is to give each individual his own/64 prefix.
That means: Q: What does that mean, "a/64 IPv6 network prefix"? A: An IPv6 address contains 128 bits. A "network prefix" is the first N bits of an IPv6 address. If we refer to a "/64" network, we mean a network in which the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address identify the network, while the last 64 bits define individual nodes on that network. A/64 network may contain up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 individual nodes. In contrast, the entire address space for IPv4 only supports a theoretical maximum of 4,294,967,296 individual nodes.
Q: That seems like overkill. Why would you give out such big network blocks? A: Because "that's just the way it's done". A lot of the functionality of IPv6 depends on the network block being a/64 (or larger) prefix. If you have a network block smaller than a/64, certain things (like Stateless Autoconfiguration) will no longer work.
You haven't grasped the number of addresses IPv6 will make avaliable.
65535?
Think bigger: IPv6 is intended to address the concern of IPv4 address exhaustion. There are too few IP addresses available for the future demand of device connectivity (especially cell phones and mobile devices). IPv4 supports 4.2 billion (2564 4.294 × 109) addresses, which is inadequate for giving even one address to every living person, much less support the burgeoning market for connective devices. IPv6 addresses this problem by supporting 340 undecillion (655368 3.4 × 1038) addresses. For scale, this would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 1020) unique addresses per square inch, or 670 quadrillion (6.7 × 1017) per square millimeter, of the Earth's surface. In other terms, assuming a population of about 6.5 billion humans, there are enough IPv6 addresses such that every atom of every person on Earth could be assigned 7 unique addresses with enough to spare (assuming 7 × 10^27 atoms per human). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
So, think more like 4.9 x 10^28 address _per person_ (not per connection).
Actually, they said they _might_ support some form of OpenDocument if they determined that customers _really_ wanted it, and so far they hadn't had enough interest.
Even if its Windows on Windows, virtualization allows you to dumb down your clients, and use manicured virtual machines for any Windows/Linux/Whatever applications that you need.
This is why VMware has been a blockbuster success, this is why java has taken off, and this is why the next generation of AMD and Intel processors will natively support virtualization.
Your Windows images gets infected? Fine; load up yesterday's image. Someone breaks a virtual machine? Fine; roll it back.
You want to test out some new options? No problem. Make a copy.
A workstation blows up, a you replace it with different hardware, something that would force a windows reinstall? No problem; setup the new box, reimage Linux (total time, 3 minutes), boot, login, and you are up and running, with exactly the same setup as before.
As modern office machines get more and more powerful, and start to natively support the requirements of virtualization, the business-world benefits become more and more desirable.
Hell, with Apple/Sun switching to x86 processors, you'll be able to virtualize a Windows install on ANY environment.
Not all environments can have everyone run with minimal privledges.
Setting up a safe Windows environment is easy. Setting up a powerful Windows environment is easy.
Finding exactly the right balance of options that gives enough options for each user's needs without compromising security is very, very difficult, and in some cases, impossible.
And once you've compromised your security for configurability, its about damage control, which is _always_ a no-win situation.
Damage control never works perfectly. You _think_ that you've got the rest of the network correctly setup so that infection is limited, and then you'll discover something else was broken.
I like to call this the 'House of Cards' effect.
On UNIX'y environments, finding the compromise between security/configurability is much easier. Not trivial, but much easier.
Does your IT department have an authorization process?
Depending upon their level of fascism, you might be able to suggest one.
Either they are of the bueacracy school of IT, in which case they'd love a new 'authorization' process so that users could jump through hoops to get a new piece of software, or they are of the 'We Knows Best!' school of IT, in which case you are screwed:)
It always a good idea to ask, but you should be tricky with how you phrase the question.
"Can I install Linux on my desktop?"
Will often be answered with a "No. Don't mess with the network."
"I'd like to experiment with Linux on my desktop. This won't interfere with my regular work, will help me associate better with my Linux clients, and I won't be replacing Windows; they'll be installed side-by-side. Plus, there's the potential to save the company $X per client if I can find a working configuration!"
Will often be answered with a "Wow. I've heard of this Linux thing on the news. Sounds like a great idea for you to look into; don't let it interfer with your regular work, and keep me appraised on your progress."
No matter what you want to do in the workplace, you've got to sell it. Change, without arguments for it, is risk, and risk alone. Change, for the purpose of _research_, is investment. Investment, plus minimized risk= return.
They'd call it Windows Media Player for Linux, with the "for Linux" in a smaller font.
Either that, or they'd just call it 'Windows Media Player', and put "RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake" version, and distibute it as an RPM only.
If you want to figure out Microsoft branding for alternative OSs, you don't have to go further than the Mac.
From Microsoft.com: Downloads for Windows Media Player 9 for Mac (OS X):
Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X Sporting a new brushed steel skin for Apple's newest operating system, this new version of our player opens the world of Windows Media 9 content to Macintosh users.
I could imagine:
Downloads for Windows Media Player 9 for Linux (Redhat/SuSE):
Copyright, and the entire notion of intellectual property, represent government sponsored monopolies. Copyright is not some innate human right.
In my view, the very notions of copyright, trademark, and patent protections stand in the way of a purely free market.
On the one hand, intellectual property rights helps promote new product development. On the other, maintaining these monopoly rights allows select individuals to collect monopoly profits. If Windows went out of copyright in 2 years, Microsoft would still turn a profit on it, but after 2 years, anyone would be able to get the software for free.
And if you think that there isn't a for-profit development model with 2 year copyright lengths, think again. For one, embedded systems would still be golden; development work is necessary on any such system. For two, think consoles, and media centers. This is a place where the latest and greatest will sell, at ANY cost. Plus, its not like it would ever be possible to buy a console without an OS.
Think of driver development. System integration. Hardware development. Software development. These are all tasks that an organization could charge money for, and be responsible for, in a world of limited copyright.
Would MS be the behemoth it is today? Probably not; would MS vanish overnight? Probably not. But its not a criticism of my argument to say that radically curtailing copyright would reallocate resources; of course it would, you'd be breaking the back of all these government monopolies.
Don't be so critical of the free market. I'm not one to say that market failures don't happen, however, pointing to copyright holders as a 'market failure' is misleading, at best. The standard "solution" of the free market to this sort of government interference in a black market, where suppliers and consumers 'route around' these artificial regulatory schemes. Hilariously, these black markets should be distributing goods at close to the competitive market value.
You get pirates selling CDs for $1 a disk (software & music). This is far closer to the distribution cost for a CD.
You get people downloading this stuff for free. This is far closer to the distribution cost online.
Is purely free the 'right' answer? Should Intellectual Property be totally abolished?No, probably not. There is a good argument saying that the individual should be permitted to profit on his work, as that encourages him to create.
However, the emergency of these HUGE black markets suggest that the free-market is indeed 'groaning' under the weight of these overly broad property protections.
The U.S. needs radical intellectual property reform. Given that the cost/time of capitalizing on inventions and media has gone down, copyright and patent protection should NOT last as long as it does. Certain fields probably don't even deserve this sort of protection. (Software patents? Hell, copyright on Music! Muscians can make money on live performances; everything else is just gravy. Same with film; shouldn't need copyright for more than 6 months->1 year)
We live in a society with the technology avaliable to make ALL media avaliable to nearly everyone at almost no cost. As such, the government interference in the market, the 'grant' of monopoly profits to content creators, should be reduced based upon the reduction in distribution costs. There is every reason to believe that we should heed the free markets call, and allow this proliferation of media to occur.
How does this apply to your position?
Without monopoly protection from the government, MS would not be an entity which we would NEED to fight in court.
Ultimately, the entire MS fortress, the bundling, the incompatiblity, the security problems, the upgrade treadmill, is built upon a government grant of monopoly copyright, forever.
The free market does have a solution to these problems. Not that there aren't market failures, but pointing at a government granted monopoly is NOT a good way to find one.
Also, I believe the software allows you to rip one (three?) copies of the CD to your hard drive. Sony's DRM could be some form of encryption applied to bog-standard mp3s. Or they could use a portion of lame, or something like that.
I was reading dilbert on the porcelain throne this morning, and I glanced over the comic where wally is coding the critical code for the nation's air traffic control system.
"Suddenly, the gifted programmer employees a rarely seen strategy of, 'code reuse'"
"The Crowd goes Wild!"
First4Internet sounds like a fly by night operation, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just stole lame for this purpose rather than license some encoder at $x per copy.
Even if they licensed it from Sony, their customer, it would cut into their fee.
Free > Fee to these people, and they obviously don't give a flying fuck about ethics.
In court, damages would be determined based upon the length of time when you were told you were in violation, and when you decided to correct this behavior.
If you were warned that you were in violation, today, and correct the violation in a week, or stop distributing the code in a month (as soon as reasonably possible) damages would be 'negligible'.
If you were warned that you were in violation, then ignored it indefinitely, until the matter was brought up in court, that would be considered willfully infringing. There would be damages, but of a limited amount, and an injunction against you for this kind of behavior.
If you were warned that you were in violation, then you denied it, then you tried to disprove it, then you counter-sued, then you ignored it, attempted to settle, caused settlement negotiations to break down, filed to have the hearing moved to a different jurisdiction, etc etc, the court could be persuaded to lean towards the '$100,000 per CD copyright fine'.
The court is given a fair amount of leeway in deciding this kind of thing. Behave badly, and unless you have a crack legal team, you'll get slapped. Judges, regardless of whether they are right wing or left wing have a _very_ serious sense of fairness. Fuck with some one in a willful way, and play with them in court to prolong your profiteering, and a judge _will_ come down on you hard.
Hilariously, this seemed to work too well for Microsoft. They got the judge so damn pissed off that had to reverse his decision. In my opinion, however, you'll never see this happen again. No judge will make the kind of comments that were made in that case.
Nader, Chomsky, ACLU, EFF, DVD Jon, and a handful of other organizations.
One of the above doesn't belong.
(Hint, begins with a C, and ends with a Y)
The rest, even if you don't always agree with them, have contributed significantly to society.
Even as a libertarian, with strange views, one who was, at one point, suckered by a small sampling of Chomsky's writings, I acknowledge that the rest of that group represent very positive forces.
Chomsky, as the other poster listed, is indeed a useless assbag.
That being said, they are quite good texts. Its pretty well thought and explained to be able to teach yourself .
In 24-hours? Not unless your a crazed, methampthetamine monkey with an IQ of 180 and a degree in speed reading, not too mention the ability to type ~200 wpm.
More realistic would be 1-3 hours per lesson, 3-5 lessons per week.
Each 'hour' in the book is one 'lesson', and there really is no reason to try and complete each lesson in one hour; far better to go over it and make sure you grasp it, and to just generally take it at a relaxed pace.
Their reasons for banning Skype could apply directly to most closed source software implementations without peer-review.
What are the properities that make Windows dangerous? It's not standards-compliant, uses closed source encryption.
The only one that doesn't apply to most other packages is the audting of communications. And even then, when you are using encrypted mail clients, and encrypted IM clients, god knows what goes in and out.
And yes, many corporations sign/encrypted e-mails by default.
Skype is no worse than any other closed source solution. Closed source e-mail servers do weird things. Closed source operating systems sometimes have inexplicable behavior.
And a closed-source VoIP solution will do weird things, too.
You accept these risks, you attempt to mitigate them as best as possible, and you move onwards.
If you disagree with Sony's policies, don't buy anything from them.
It's _that_ simple.
Until Sony is a monopoly, and you cannot buy alternative products, its really easy to get around this kind of thing. Don't buy from them.
Don't buy Sony Computers. Don't buy Sony Electronics. Don't buy Sony Music. Don't buy Sony anything.
*shrug*
If you buy Sony products after they pull crap like this, quite frankly, you are part of the problem, not the solution, no matter how loudly you complain.
You don't have to get your music through Sony. You don't have to get your laptop through Sony. You don't have to get your stereo through Sony.
It's really not that hard; and sure, other people might continue to buy their stuff. That's not your problem; after all, there is _competition_ in these marketplaces, so you can safely stray away from Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
As usual, I made an error.
/
;-)
Someone's apparently solved the IPv4 over IPv6 problem.
Solution here:http://www.ipv6.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/dstm
I might try and make my household IPv6
I think it runs IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently. That's usually the way you run IPv6. I'm not sure what you mean by 6-to-4 bridge.
If you mean tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, then yes, most likely. You probably won't see a huge increase in latency, properly configured, its just another hop.
If you mean support IPv4 apps on a pure IPv6 network, than no. AFAIK, no one has a good 4-to-6 bridge, which is what you would be talking about.
Most apps don't have proper IPv6 support yet, however, there isn't any reason not to run IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently. The only limitation is IP addresses, but thats not a limitation that we'll be able to resolve. The only solution to that is native IPv6 support in apps; there's simply no way to map it correctly. The only possible solutions become hopelessly complex and kludgy; this means things like dynamically allocating IPv4 addresses in VPNs routed over IPv6 for legacy supported apps.
Far better to just hobble along as we've been doing so, and properly switch to IPv6 for new equipment and apps. The main point of the 6-to-4 stuff is so you can run concurrently, so there isn't a break. Eventually, we'll be able to turn off the IPv4 stuff. Perhaps then, we'll have a functional IPv4 VPN over IPv6 tunnel that will allow us to setup private IPv4 networks for legacy apps.
And another point, its not really question of how it'll work in the future.
/64 IPv6 network?
That's how it works, NOW. Want your own routable
See here:
http://www.6bone.net/
and here:
http://ipv6tb.he.net/
You can tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, so you can do it right now, with your existing ISP service. Of course, there aren't a whole lot of destinations, yet. But that'll come with time.
Also, you won't remember 128-bit numbers. That's what DNS is for. I feel its a small price to pay for all the improvements in IPv6.
Simple, like this:
/64 prefix.
/64 IPv6 network prefix"? /64 network may contain up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 individual nodes. In contrast, the entire address space for IPv4 only supports a theoretical maximum of 4,294,967,296 individual nodes.
/64 (or larger) prefix. If you have a network block smaller than a /64, certain things (like Stateless Autoconfiguration) will no longer work.
http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/
The current plan for most ISPs is to give each individual his own
That means:
Q: What does that mean, "a
A: An IPv6 address contains 128 bits. A "network prefix" is the first N bits of an IPv6 address. If we refer to a "/64" network, we mean a network in which the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address identify the network, while the last 64 bits define individual nodes on that network. A
Q: That seems like overkill. Why would you give out such big network blocks?
A: Because "that's just the way it's done". A lot of the functionality of IPv6 depends on the network block being a
Source: http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/faq.html#4
Doesn't matter. There are many organizations which will give you a /64 prefix, no problem.
1 d74953d2143978bddd2e17b4e4c14
Earthlink, for one: http://www.research.earthlink.net/ipv6/faq.html#4
Or Hurricane Electric:
http://ipv6tb.he.net/index.php?Example_Session=2f
There are many more.
You haven't grasped the number of addresses IPv6 will make avaliable.
65535?
Think bigger:
IPv6 is intended to address the concern of IPv4 address exhaustion. There are too few IP addresses available for the future demand of device connectivity (especially cell phones and mobile devices). IPv4 supports 4.2 billion (2564 4.294 × 109) addresses, which is inadequate for giving even one address to every living person, much less support the burgeoning market for connective devices. IPv6 addresses this problem by supporting 340 undecillion (655368 3.4 × 1038) addresses. For scale, this would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 1020) unique addresses per square inch, or 670 quadrillion (6.7 × 1017) per square millimeter, of the Earth's surface. In other terms, assuming a population of about 6.5 billion humans, there are enough IPv6 addresses such that every atom of every person on Earth could be assigned 7 unique addresses with enough to spare (assuming 7 × 10^27 atoms per human).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
So, think more like 4.9 x 10^28 address _per person_ (not per connection).
That's a little more than 65536.
Actually, they said they _might_ support some form of OpenDocument if they determined that customers _really_ wanted it, and so far they hadn't had enough interest.
That's what the beauty of virutalization is for.
Even if its Windows on Windows, virtualization allows you to dumb down your clients, and use manicured virtual machines for any Windows/Linux/Whatever applications that you need.
This is why VMware has been a blockbuster success, this is why java has taken off, and this is why the next generation of AMD and Intel processors will natively support virtualization.
Your Windows images gets infected? Fine; load up yesterday's image. Someone breaks a virtual machine? Fine; roll it back.
You want to test out some new options? No problem. Make a copy.
A workstation blows up, a you replace it with different hardware, something that would force a windows reinstall? No problem; setup the new box, reimage Linux (total time, 3 minutes), boot, login, and you are up and running, with exactly the same setup as before.
As modern office machines get more and more powerful, and start to natively support the requirements of virtualization, the business-world benefits become more and more desirable.
Hell, with Apple/Sun switching to x86 processors, you'll be able to virtualize a Windows install on ANY environment.
That's the issue.
Not all environments can have everyone run with minimal privledges.
Setting up a safe Windows environment is easy.
Setting up a powerful Windows environment is easy.
Finding exactly the right balance of options that gives enough options for each user's needs without compromising security is very, very difficult, and in some cases, impossible.
And once you've compromised your security for configurability, its about damage control, which is _always_ a no-win situation.
Damage control never works perfectly. You _think_ that you've got the rest of the network correctly setup so that infection is limited, and then you'll discover something else was broken.
I like to call this the 'House of Cards' effect.
On UNIX'y environments, finding the compromise between security/configurability is much easier. Not trivial, but much easier.
Does your IT department have an authorization process?
:)
Depending upon their level of fascism, you might be able to suggest one.
Either they are of the bueacracy school of IT, in which case they'd love a new 'authorization' process so that users could jump through hoops to get a new piece of software, or they are of the 'We Knows Best!' school of IT, in which case you are screwed
It always a good idea to ask, but you should be tricky with how you phrase the question.
"Can I install Linux on my desktop?"
Will often be answered with a "No. Don't mess with the network."
"I'd like to experiment with Linux on my desktop. This won't interfere with my regular work, will help me associate better with my Linux clients, and I won't be replacing Windows; they'll be installed side-by-side. Plus, there's the potential to save the company $X per client if I can find a working configuration!"
Will often be answered with a "Wow. I've heard of this Linux thing on the news. Sounds like a great idea for you to look into; don't let it interfer with your regular work, and keep me appraised on your progress."
No matter what you want to do in the workplace, you've got to sell it. Change, without arguments for it, is risk, and risk alone. Change, for the purpose of _research_, is investment. Investment, plus minimized risk= return.
Just my 2 cents, but thats how you talk to a PHB.
They'd call it Windows Media Player for Linux, with the "for Linux" in a smaller font.
Either that, or they'd just call it 'Windows Media Player', and put "RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake" version, and distibute it as an RPM only.
If you want to figure out Microsoft branding for alternative OSs, you don't have to go further than the Mac.
From Microsoft.com:
Downloads for Windows Media Player 9 for Mac (OS X):
Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X
Sporting a new brushed steel skin for Apple's newest operating system, this new version of our player opens the world of Windows Media 9 content to Macintosh users.
I could imagine:
Downloads for Windows Media Player 9 for Linux (Redhat/SuSE):
You shouldn't have admitted it on a public forum.
AC, the BSA is on its way now. Prepare for your cavity search.
Copyright, and the entire notion of intellectual property, represent government sponsored monopolies. Copyright is not some innate human right.
In my view, the very notions of copyright, trademark, and patent protections stand in the way of a purely free market.
On the one hand, intellectual property rights helps promote new product development. On the other, maintaining these monopoly rights allows select individuals to collect monopoly profits. If Windows went out of copyright in 2 years, Microsoft would still turn a profit on it, but after 2 years, anyone would be able to get the software for free.
And if you think that there isn't a for-profit development model with 2 year copyright lengths, think again. For one, embedded systems would still be golden; development work is necessary on any such system. For two, think consoles, and media centers. This is a place where the latest and greatest will sell, at ANY cost. Plus, its not like it would ever be possible to buy a console without an OS.
Think of driver development. System integration. Hardware development. Software development. These are all tasks that an organization could charge money for, and be responsible for, in a world of limited copyright.
Would MS be the behemoth it is today? Probably not; would MS vanish overnight? Probably not. But its not a criticism of my argument to say that radically curtailing copyright would reallocate resources; of course it would, you'd be breaking the back of all these government monopolies.
Don't be so critical of the free market. I'm not one to say that market failures don't happen, however, pointing to copyright holders as a 'market failure' is misleading, at best. The standard "solution" of the free market to this sort of government interference in a black market, where suppliers and consumers 'route around' these artificial regulatory schemes. Hilariously, these black markets should be distributing goods at close to the competitive market value.
You get pirates selling CDs for $1 a disk (software & music). This is far closer to the distribution cost for a CD.
You get people downloading this stuff for free. This is far closer to the distribution cost online.
Is purely free the 'right' answer? Should Intellectual Property be totally abolished?No, probably not. There is a good argument saying that the individual should be permitted to profit on his work, as that encourages him to create.
However, the emergency of these HUGE black markets suggest that the free-market is indeed 'groaning' under the weight of these overly broad property protections.
The U.S. needs radical intellectual property reform. Given that the cost/time of capitalizing on inventions and media has gone down, copyright and patent protection should NOT last as long as it does. Certain fields probably don't even deserve this sort of protection. (Software patents? Hell, copyright on Music! Muscians can make money on live performances; everything else is just gravy. Same with film; shouldn't need copyright for more than 6 months->1 year)
We live in a society with the technology avaliable to make ALL media avaliable to nearly everyone at almost no cost. As such, the government interference in the market, the 'grant' of monopoly profits to content creators, should be reduced based upon the reduction in distribution costs. There is every reason to believe that we should heed the free markets call, and allow this proliferation of media to occur.
How does this apply to your position?
Without monopoly protection from the government, MS would not be an entity which we would NEED to fight in court.
Ultimately, the entire MS fortress, the bundling, the incompatiblity, the security problems, the upgrade treadmill, is built upon a government grant of monopoly copyright, forever.
The free market does have a solution to these problems. Not that there aren't market failures, but pointing at a government granted monopoly is NOT a good way to find one.
LAME can be used for mp3 playback.
Also, I believe the software allows you to rip one (three?) copies of the CD to your hard drive. Sony's DRM could be some form of encryption applied to bog-standard mp3s. Or they could use a portion of lame, or something like that.
I was reading dilbert on the porcelain throne this morning, and I glanced over the comic where wally is coding the critical code for the nation's air traffic control system.
"Suddenly, the gifted programmer employees a rarely seen strategy of, 'code reuse'"
"The Crowd goes Wild!"
First4Internet sounds like a fly by night operation, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just stole lame for this purpose rather than license some encoder at $x per copy.
Even if they licensed it from Sony, their customer, it would cut into their fee.
Free > Fee to these people, and they obviously don't give a flying fuck about ethics.
No, its not cut and dry like that.
In court, damages would be determined based upon the length of time when you were told you were in violation, and when you decided to correct this behavior.
If you were warned that you were in violation, today, and correct the violation in a week, or stop distributing the code in a month (as soon as reasonably possible) damages would be 'negligible'.
If you were warned that you were in violation, then ignored it indefinitely, until the matter was brought up in court, that would be considered willfully infringing. There would be damages, but of a limited amount, and an injunction against you for this kind of behavior.
If you were warned that you were in violation, then you denied it, then you tried to disprove it, then you counter-sued, then you ignored it, attempted to settle, caused settlement negotiations to break down, filed to have the hearing moved to a different jurisdiction, etc etc, the court could be persuaded to lean towards the '$100,000 per CD copyright fine'.
The court is given a fair amount of leeway in deciding this kind of thing. Behave badly, and unless you have a crack legal team, you'll get slapped. Judges, regardless of whether they are right wing or left wing have a _very_ serious sense of fairness. Fuck with some one in a willful way, and play with them in court to prolong your profiteering, and a judge _will_ come down on you hard.
Hilariously, this seemed to work too well for Microsoft. They got the judge so damn pissed off that had to reverse his decision. In my opinion, however, you'll never see this happen again. No judge will make the kind of comments that were made in that case.
Nader, Chomsky, ACLU, EFF, DVD Jon, and a handful of other organizations.
One of the above doesn't belong.
(Hint, begins with a C, and ends with a Y)
The rest, even if you don't always agree with them, have contributed significantly to society.
Even as a libertarian, with strange views, one who was, at one point, suckered by a small sampling of Chomsky's writings, I acknowledge that the rest of that group represent very positive forces.
Chomsky, as the other poster listed, is indeed a useless assbag.
That being said, they are quite good texts.
Its pretty well thought and explained to be able to teach yourself .
In 24-hours? Not unless your a crazed, methampthetamine monkey with an IQ of 180 and a degree in speed reading, not too mention the ability to type ~200 wpm.
More realistic would be 1-3 hours per lesson, 3-5 lessons per week.
Each 'hour' in the book is one 'lesson', and there really is no reason to try and complete each lesson in one hour; far better to go over it and make sure you grasp it, and to just generally take it at a relaxed pace.
Just before you go out and purchase more SUVs....
They closed that tax loophole in 2005.
I suspect using _total_ world population is the wrong statistic.
The entire world was not exposed to the other pandemics. Its unclear how many people were.
Apparently, most of the pandemic level 'virulent' flus kill through something called cytomic(sp?) shock?
This means an immune system over-response which destroys various membranes in your body, like your lungs, or spinal cord.
Healthier people get hit harder.
Their reasons for banning Skype could apply directly to most closed source software implementations without peer-review.
What are the properities that make Windows dangerous? It's not standards-compliant, uses closed source encryption.
The only one that doesn't apply to most other packages is the audting of communications. And even then, when you are using encrypted mail clients, and encrypted IM clients, god knows what goes in and out.
And yes, many corporations sign/encrypted e-mails by default.
Skype is no worse than any other closed source solution. Closed source e-mail servers do weird things. Closed source operating systems sometimes have inexplicable behavior.
And a closed-source VoIP solution will do weird things, too.
You accept these risks, you attempt to mitigate them as best as possible, and you move onwards.
If you disagree with Sony's policies, don't buy anything from them.
It's _that_ simple.
Until Sony is a monopoly, and you cannot buy alternative products, its really easy to get around this kind of thing. Don't buy from them.
Don't buy Sony Computers.
Don't buy Sony Electronics.
Don't buy Sony Music.
Don't buy Sony anything.
*shrug*
If you buy Sony products after they pull crap like this, quite frankly, you are part of the problem, not the solution, no matter how loudly you complain.
You don't have to get your music through Sony. You don't have to get your laptop through Sony. You don't have to get your stereo through Sony.
It's really not that hard; and sure, other people might continue to buy their stuff. That's not your problem; after all, there is _competition_ in these marketplaces, so you can safely stray away from Sony.
Or just waive your right to a trial.
And also accept that you aren't permitted to talk about their DRM.
Hear hear!
I've stopped buy Sony electronics, cause in my experience that crap just falls apart now.