> I am almost positive that there are no state/province governments that rely strictly on Open Source software because at > least some of their systems are are Windows.
Actually, in the backend of the school board here there is only a single Windows machine, it obtains the AV signatures for the workstations. But to distribute those files that one Windows machine pushes the stuff to a Samba share which gets rsynced out to the school sites and made available locally via http (apache). The school automation (gradebook, etc) is a closed app of course, but it is hosted on Linux. The file servers are old Novell Netware and I'm still hopeful that when their time comes I can convince them to go with Samba servers.
So no, the backend is close enough to being Windows Free as you could ask for. The desktops are a lost cause for now. I can't even get em to use OO.o.
> I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution > to a large government's IT infrastructure.
And you would be wrong. In 2000 I was the lone wolf howling in the wilderness. Today there probably isn't an agency in our state's government that doesn't have a Linux box here or there. The main state webserver is now running it, the state library has been there for years. The school board in my parish is totally penetrated in the backend as is the parish to the north. I contract for our parish and know one of the IT guys to the north so I can speak first hand about those.... but we aren't alone.
That said, the desktop is a case of fighting the FUD amongst the teachers. I really don't think students would care, but most people don't realize that the government schools are designed for and run for the sole benefit of the teachers. Students are just there to justify the whole game. So until we find a way to get the teachers to buy in the desktop belongs to Microsoft forever, and teachers (as a group) don't DO anything unless they have absolutely no option. So unless we hit a budget crunch so hard it becomes a case of Windows or RIFs that bite deeply enough to get teachers they will veto anything that would require even an hour of retraining. And again, for those who don't know better, that isn't possible because teachers are the absolute last place cuts are made. They would discontinue the use of computers in schools entirely, RIF the whole IT budget, eliminate building maintaince and stop buying textbooks before they allowed one teacher to lose out on their annual cost of living increase.
> Once you can store a bit-stream, the other fundamental problem is what format to use.
Jeeze, this isn't the 80's where most files were stored in oddball formats understood only by the one package that wrote it and perhaps poorly importable into one or two competing packages. It's called standards and it isn't brain surgery.
First off this is put some digital photos into a 25 year time capsule problem, not how to archive the sum total of human knowledge for the ages or a 'how to rebuild civilization after doomsday.' question. So unless you think computers of the future will discard every vestige of POSIX support, to the point where bog standard pure CLI C code won't build you can just include a copy of the source for libjpeg on the media and consider the format documented. But even that isn't needed because millions of people will still have Sagan's of digital photographs shot by digital cameras & cellphones currently in use, fairly safe bet any serious photo manipulation software of the future will support those.jpeg files. Not to mention the jillions of current.jpegs that will still be sloshing around the Internet's porn underground and sitting in perv's stashes.
> and I know for a fact that CDRs deteriorate after about 10 years.
Some archival media is rated for 100 years. But forget that, just make a gold master and send it out to be commercially duplicated. It isn't THAT exensive, so have a small run of 100 copies made. Sell 90 of them in a fundraiser to recoup the expense of duplication and stick the other ten into a small stainless steel airtight container with an inert gas. Wrap that in some quality insulation to protect it againt the heat when the main capsule gets welded shut. I have heard lots of 25 year old audio compact discs and they sound just fine. But if there is enough bit rot to make recovering data dodgy, well you have nine more still shrinkwrapped copies to try reading any bad blocks from.
The only remaining question is whether equipment to read a Compact Disc will still be available in twenty five years. And the answer is almost certainly. It probably won't be nearly as popular as it is today but the LP is ten years in the grave and you can still buy a new turntable at Sears.
A pressed DVD might be even better because the recorded media is safely between two layers of substrate instead of only protected by the screenprinted label on the top. On the other hand we have enough history with the CD to know beyond any doubt that they survive in readable condition for the required time, even under typical consumer storage conditions.
> The only reason the terms of the GPL are binding to distribution via pre-installation is because you need a license, and the GPL > is the license that allows for this.
Actually, you are wrong. If you bought 100 copies of Ubuntu and preloaded them onto machines you could legally sell them... so long as you included one set of official Ubuntu media with each one. The end user would either have the source on the media (DVD) or have the right to obtain source (CD) from Ubuntu... the right you had when you bought the media and then transferred along with 'all rights' when you sold the copy. Same as when you used to buy a CD from Walnut Creek, they didn't have to supply source but they had to allow you to obtain it for a reasonable charge. The GPL only needs to be considered when you engage in acts not otherwise permitted by copyright law. Reselling, preloads, etc. are all legal activities in the absence of the GPL. I sold a crapload of Dos6.x/WfW3.11 machines preloaded back when I worked for a hole in the wall screwdriver shop and we never had any sort of permission. But each machine went out the door with OEM copies of DOS/Windows. I never asked about the authenticity though... some of those DOS manuals were a bit blurry....:) Downloading one master disc, loading a hundred machines from it and selling them is illegal in the absence of a license to reproduce a copyrighted work, thus one would need to agree to the GPL or have some other legal arrangement (Site License, etc) before making copies, whether modified or not.
I think where you are losing it is in thinking preinstallation is making an illegal copy. Think of it instead as selling a machine, a set of OS media and the SERVICE of installing the OS. Just like the law allows YOU to install legally owned software on your own computer, it is equally legal for you to pay ME to install it for you, like when you are buying a new computer and software.
>..it is an adaptation, and that section is quite clear that transferring adaptations > authorized by 17 USC 117(a) requires consent of the copyright holder.
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such. But just taking the defaults in the installer doesn't count. Now if they added stuff they would be in very grey territory depending on what they added. Purely functional changes to get the software properly running on the platform would probably be ok but changing the look and feel of the default install would be much more likely to be ruled as interferring with Apple's right to have a product that says OS X actually behave like their trademarked product.
But since the poiht of a general purpose computer is to run programs, could an OEM add whole seperate apps? It is standard practice in every other OEM situation,but most involve having a deal with the various software vendors. But the VAR market often doesn't have signed deals and they routinely do it, including with Apple hardware. You can buy a Mac pre configured as a video editing workstation with all of the software bindled in and preloaded and fully integrated, just power it on and go. Would a court want to get into the middle of that much long established industry practice? Interesting questions.
> Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store.
That would reduce the clones, not eliminate them.
Consider: There is a huge hole in Apple's product line between the Mini and the overspecced Xeons they sell as desktops. What if I bought a stack of Mini's and put a bullet through the hard drive and motherboard of each one, then sold that bundled with a midrange workstation loaded with that Mini's copy of OS X? The insane part is that between Apple's margins and the size of the hole in their line there is probably a window where that would actually be profitable. Care to give ANY moral justification for my plan to be 'wrong?'
>..we have this construct called intellectual property..
Never use that phrase around here, we know better. Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks exist. None of those permit a EULA and with out the Apple EULA being an enforcable contract there is no grounds to stop what Pystar is doing.
> copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make
Correct. But Pystar is buying retail boxed copies of OS X. Were they making illegal copies the case would have been over before it started with everyone involved snatched up in an FBI raid.
> In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies.
Of course they do. One is free to resell an item they bought legally.
> The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple > branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same > case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
First off the acronym itself gives the game away. An "End User License Agreement", even if they were legal, would only be binding on the end user. Pystar isn't.
As for your stupid (sorry, this one gets batted down weekly, use Google before opening your piehole on a GPL FAQ issue) argument trying to make an equivelence with the GPL it just doesn't track. The GPL is a grant of rights above and beyond what normal copyright grants while a EULA is a subtraction without any consideration. So I can toss Apple's EULA into the nearest bin and still have all of the rights under law I had before. I have the right to own the copy I bought, use it, etc. I don't have the right to reproduce it (outside of working copies made as typical use of the material) or publicaly perform it (not very applicable to most software) but there is no legal question whether I lawfully own a copy.
Now consider your hypothetical. If I give you a copy of Linux you lawfully posses that copy of Linux in exactly the same way I would own my copy of OS X sans EULA. You could do anything copyright law permitted, including sell it. You could sell/give away the ONE copy I gave to you. To do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now? Read the GPL.
>..which gets into the issues with peak oil and its effects on society.
Peak oil will being a few changes, but not be the cause of the far ranging changes the fear mongers bleat on about. As oil becomes more expensive (as a function of supply and demand) other sources of energy will become practical. This process would be greatly aided if we had the vision to build lots of nuke plants to lower demand for oil (buying more time for R&D) and to make electricity cheap and plentiful enough to spur plug in cars. But even if we must suffer idiots like Obama and McCain the invisible hand will end up solving the problem, just a matter of how much pain we go through in the process. Surburbs won't be vanishing anytime soon.
> Firefox gained visibility and market share after being ported to Windows and not before.
You have that backwards. Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox is a Windows app. Most of the developers check in patches from Windows development machines, features are planned based on a Windows target, etc. Linux/Unix/Mac are the ports.
It is fairly obvious for us old timers. Back in the Netscape days the ports would sometimes trail the Windows releases, never the other way around. We lived in fear that Netscape would either be paid off to abandon the Linux port or decide they weren't worth the developer time; which would have pretty much ended our favorite upstart OS in the cradle since it was the only usable browser.
And more on topic, who gives a crap if the DNC sold out? Of course they did! Bet the Republicans run Silverlight too, and for the same reason. Campaign contributions. They are politicans, remember? Oh, I'm sorry. You Democrats were Hoping for Change. Ha! Welcome to the real world.
But it isn't like there aren't plenty of news organizations you can't get video from. Although MSNBC is probably right out....
> What is your purpose in making up statistics like that?
Making up? Hardly. Both of us have a/. UID low enough to know what the average slashdot opinion on nukes and such are. Do you dispute the approx 50-50 split I have observed? As for the greater green movement being pretty much 100% in agreement that nuke == bad, if you don't know that you really need to get out more. They wrote the founder of Greenpeace out of the environmental movement for the sin of concluding nukes needed to be on the table when trying to 'save the world.'
> Compared to many states in the region, it's citizens have a great deal of freedom.
Saying one is more free than the rest of the one party states/kingdoms that infest that region is like saying one particular French diplomat is less arrogant than most. Or that one Playboy Bunny is hotter than most. All objects in the sets are so much more similar than they differ the point kinda gets lost.
> The blurb is certainly buzzword compliant, but where are the specs and data?
Yea, but utter BS. Which greens eat up without question, notice the Slashdot editors did.
Carbon neutral my ass. That sucker is going to need either a huge electric feedline or an internal nuke plant and since it is a 'green' project nukes are out of the question. (Half of a tech site such as this are dead set against anything with the N word attached, in the general green crowd it approaches 100% enough to egnore the outriders.) Then it will need a major railhead to bring in the food.
This isn't hard people, even with efficient solar power the population is a 3d volume powered from a 2D surface. And if you cover the whole surface with photovoltiac collectors where to you get the sunlight for a food source?
But as for getting people into it were it to actually be built, this is Dubai we are talking about; the government tells people to live in it they will live in it. Actually I'd like a few built here.... solve the low income housing problem overnight. Just tell people their choice is to get off their ass and fend for themselves or accept the 'free' government (ware)housing. I suspect most would be horrified enough at the concept of being forced to live in such conditions they would find the motivation to get their life into order. Be a great boost to the economy. And ones who did go in, well out of sight out of mind.
> Which is ridiculous for the simple reason I point out: "the (current) Bush Administration doesn't have people smart enough to pull a stunt like that.
It isn't a matter of smart. You can't keep a secret of that magnitude in our current society, period. The Soviets or Chinese might, because they can make credible threats against leakers (yer head will come right fscking off!) but we don't have anything sufficient to keep that many mouths closed. Just this weekend is a good example in microcosm. Obama has good loyal people around him and couldn't keep the veep announcement out of the MSM before that famous text message went out. Every network had "highly placed but unnamed sources" talking their heads off the second it looked like SOMEONE was going to talk and they didn't want to be left out. It is a side effect of the sort of ego needed to work a 'high placed' sort of job. The same thing would happen (and probably will Thursday evening) to McCain in a similar situation, I'm not making any sort of partisan political point here.
All these Bush did 9/11 theories would need tens of civilian types in on it and at least that many intel/military field agents, not ONE of which has talked to the NYT off the record.
> I'd bet good money Firefox doesn't even use it in dialogs it KNOWS are asking for a password.
Replying to myself.... Doh, I could have checked it myself so I just did and nope, Firefox doesn't lock the keyboard. Even when it pops up a specific box asking for a username/password pair. Of course if you allow FF to autofill passwords it is a moot point anyway since any process that can run as you can read the obfuscated passwords.
Amazingly enough the designers of X back in the Elder Days thought of that possibility and took steps. X has the ability to stop keyloggers from getting things like passwords (barring root, then all bets are off) by including the exclusive keyboard grab. Of course since Moz Corp basically just ports from Windows and Windows doesn't have anything of the sort I'd bet good money Firefox doesn't even use it in dialogs it KNOWS are asking for a password.
It would be an instructive exercise to look at the various places where passwords are requested and see if any of them use it. Does the new GNOME root protection wrappers use it? Does KDE, or any of the distro specific tools? Security is a process, drop the ball at any step and the bad guys win. X did it's bit, did anyone else follow through?
For example xterm does support Secure Keyboard while gnome-terminal doesn't. That said, how many of us have actually USED the secure keyboard feature?
Which is just great if all of your users are Windows/Mac users who click on the pretty icons and wipe the drool from their chins every couple of minutes. If you have any UNIX folk using the system they will hoist yer ass on a rope minutes after you kill all those scripts and such in their ~/bin directory. And some of us have a ~/src or an ~/rpmbuild tree in our $HOME as well.
I guess if are to ever achieve "World Domination" we need to accept most users will probably be "displaced Windows users" who will keep their same end user habits because the Unix Way isn't for the masses. But jeeze, barring them from ever trying to write/download so much as a bash script is one way to make that a self fulfilling prophesy.
> If you're so dumb, you DESERVE to be ripped off.
We must make stupidity more painful.
I know that goes against everything the Democrats who run the government schools who trained you shoveled into your young skull full of mush, but it's the only way... for them and us. Understanding the wisdom in that one line will set you on the road to freeing your mind so please turn off the computer for a few minutes, put whatever music you do your best thinking to on the iPod and ponder it a few meinutes.
> Typically the victims of this scam agree to break the law in some way,
Exactly right. Bust em all for attempted wire fraud to start with and go from there. You have to work both ends of the supply and demand on these things, especially since on end is typically in lawless parts of the world like Nigeria but one end is typically in a country where people have enough cash to be worth trying to rip off.
Way too many stupid people think they can try to work those deals, in the belief that they can prevent being ripped off if it is a scam and in the hope they might just hit the one that is 'legit.' These idiots don't understand what is actually happening, that it is usually an identity theft happening. Put the threat of jail time for even TRYING to hook up with the "Nigerean minister of finance" and we might take a bite outta crime. Same for all the other spam scams involving illegal acts. We have to get serious about stopping this crap.
> Sounds like thing are pretty much consistent with the currently accepted climate models, > at least for the time being.
To borrow a phrase I have grown to hate.... citation needed.
Show me one warmer's scare charts that predicted we would COOL DOWN for a decade. Every chart I have ever seen showed ever increasing temps until we all DIE.
And even when the MSM report stories like this one, about a cooling trend, they have to get the "but we are still gonna f**king DIE!" into the second paragraph.
> I don't see why nVidia would have it any different or wouldn't be able to do the same.
There are already a crapload of people who are now or have in the past sold x86 compatible chips. You generally can't claim an exclusive on the public interfaces like the instruction set. Patents on various sub systems are a problem for anyone doing anything these days, but new products somehow manage to get to market.
Cyrix->Via didn't have a cross license deal. Don't think Transmeta did either. I even remember 8086 compatible chips with NEC's stamp on the package. And there are a couple more I remember existed but can't pull the name from memory. The skills to make an x86 compatible processor from scratch is getting pretty widespread, making and selling one competitive with Intel and AMD is a different kettle of fish as so many others have found to this dismay.
> But a standalone fact > is that racism is indeed > terrorism.
No. Some skinhead pansy prancing around is an idiot. Not enough of a threat to waste the word terrorist on. Some hillbilly who still uses the N word in public is not a terrorist. Bigot? Yes. Terrorist? No.
The Klan burning a cross in somebody's front yard? Terrorist. Burning one at a Klan rally? Stupid but not terrorist.
To qualify for terrorist there needs to be violence or the direct threat of violence.
Of course lesser evil still needs to be defeated, not just terrorists. I'm just objecting to throwing that word around so much it becomes meaningless. And stupid is sometimes just ignorant. Ignorant can be cured.... sometimes.
> at least acknowledge that cryptography provides a unique characteristic to the requested > information: it is verifiable.
Not really. Forget all this technowanking and keep focused on what is happening. If a court can't order somebody to turn over files from a computer because of encryption then the whole justice system is dead, it's every man for himself and we all better be stocking up on ammo and food because civilization won't last much longer because if "encryption" is the magic word stops any investigation then you won't believe how fast EVERY criminal will adopt it.
It's time for you kids to get a grip. When a judge signs an order for somebody to turn over documents you have to fork em over. Imagine if Microsoft had tried this guy's stunt. "Nope, we all put our emails on encrypted volumes. So we are taking the 5th and thus don't have to give you guys anything." After the judge stopped laughing his ass off he would toss their butts in the pokey. The courts don't and shouldn't care about the tech details; they order you to produce documents/files/physical evidence and you comply, if they happen to be on an encrypted volume you unlock it and dump the goddamned files out as ordered. If they are in a safe you open it. And if they are in a rented storage in another state you drive over there and get them because telling a judge anything other than "Yes your Honor." makes judges cranky.
Encryption stops people from snooping on your files, it doesn't stop a properly issued warrant. Just because one judge got it wrong doesn't mean it won't get sorted out higher up.
> So why present this in a cumbersome video format?
Welcome to the 21st Century. Text is dead, video is everything.
Litteracy in written English will be as common as basic arithmetic skills are now in another generation or so. The pocket calculator did in math, the mouse and cameras on everything will do in writing.
> As someone above points out, "It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence. > It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt."
Ok, last attempt to drive this through you folks's thick skulls. On one side you have the eye witness testimony of two officers. On the other you have a guy saying "But I didn't do it. And no I won't allow anyone to see the evidence which I swear would clear me." So the score for those following along is two eyewitnesses to "I didn't do it." If two eyewitnesses, sworn officers no less, who apparently had ample time to look at the evidence before somebody shut the machine down, aren't enough to get 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then we better fucking empty the prisons. If this guy wants to beat the rap he needs to put on a defense and the only realistic one available is to unlock that laptop and show a jury that he just has normal porn on it. Of course this is all just wanking because I don't think a single poster believes this guy isn't guilty as hell and if he unlocked the drive he would spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. A very short life. Leaving it locked the court system will eventually get tired and offer a plea deal, he will take it and do a few years.
> What would "enforcing" such an order consist of? Torture. That's WHY it's prohibited.
Don't be an idiot. Enforcing would be done exactly as it is done in any other case of someone refusing to comply with an order issued by a court. You hold them in contempt of court and lock em up until they obey or they can get a higher court to reverse. No rubber hoses required.
> It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence. > It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.
Correct. The defense isn't required to put up any witnesses or even make a closing statement. But since the testimony of two sworn peace officers will almost certainly convict beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of any defense, going that route is a sure fire path to a "pound me in the ass" federal prison.
Basically this guy is saying "That laptop over there doesn't have anything illegal on it. Those pigs are just lying ignorant bastards who wouldn't know a playboy bunny shot from japanese tentacle porn. But you guys on the jury are just going to have to trust me on that because I damned sure ain't going to let ANYBODY see my porn stash." That just doesn't sound like the sort of thing a jury is going to buy. I damned sure wouldn't. Those officers apparently had access to the machine for more than a few minutes. I'd believe them unless he produced some evidence, namely the files on the seized laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
> I am almost positive that there are no state/province governments that rely strictly on Open Source software because at
> least some of their systems are are Windows.
Actually, in the backend of the school board here there is only a single Windows machine, it obtains the AV signatures for the workstations. But to distribute those files that one Windows machine pushes the stuff to a Samba share which gets rsynced out to the school sites and made available locally via http (apache). The school automation (gradebook, etc) is a closed app of course, but it is hosted on Linux. The file servers are old Novell Netware and I'm still hopeful that when their time comes I can convince them to go with Samba servers.
So no, the backend is close enough to being Windows Free as you could ask for. The desktops are a lost cause for now. I can't even get em to use OO.o.
> I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution
> to a large government's IT infrastructure.
And you would be wrong. In 2000 I was the lone wolf howling in the wilderness. Today there probably isn't an agency in our state's government that doesn't have a Linux box here or there. The main state webserver is now running it, the state library has been there for years. The school board in my parish is totally penetrated in the backend as is the parish to the north. I contract for our parish and know one of the IT guys to the north so I can speak first hand about those.... but we aren't alone.
That said, the desktop is a case of fighting the FUD amongst the teachers. I really don't think students would care, but most people don't realize that the government schools are designed for and run for the sole benefit of the teachers. Students are just there to justify the whole game. So until we find a way to get the teachers to buy in the desktop belongs to Microsoft forever, and teachers (as a group) don't DO anything unless they have absolutely no option. So unless we hit a budget crunch so hard it becomes a case of Windows or RIFs that bite deeply enough to get teachers they will veto anything that would require even an hour of retraining. And again, for those who don't know better, that isn't possible because teachers are the absolute last place cuts are made. They would discontinue the use of computers in schools entirely, RIF the whole IT budget, eliminate building maintaince and stop buying textbooks before they allowed one teacher to lose out on their annual cost of living increase.
> Once you can store a bit-stream, the other fundamental problem is what format to use.
Jeeze, this isn't the 80's where most files were stored in oddball formats understood only by the one package that wrote it and perhaps poorly importable into one or two competing packages. It's called standards and it isn't brain surgery.
First off this is put some digital photos into a 25 year time capsule problem, not how to archive the sum total of human knowledge for the ages or a 'how to rebuild civilization after doomsday.' question. So unless you think computers of the future will discard every vestige of POSIX support, to the point where bog standard pure CLI C code won't build you can just include a copy of the source for libjpeg on the media and consider the format documented. But even that isn't needed because millions of people will still have Sagan's of digital photographs shot by digital cameras & cellphones currently in use, fairly safe bet any serious photo manipulation software of the future will support those .jpeg files. Not to mention the jillions of current .jpegs that will still be sloshing around the Internet's porn underground and sitting in perv's stashes.
> and I know for a fact that CDRs deteriorate after about 10 years.
Some archival media is rated for 100 years. But forget that, just make a gold master and send it out to be commercially duplicated. It isn't THAT exensive, so have a small run of 100 copies made. Sell 90 of them in a fundraiser to recoup the expense of duplication and stick the other ten into a small stainless steel airtight container with an inert gas. Wrap that in some quality insulation to protect it againt the heat when the main capsule gets welded shut. I have heard lots of 25 year old audio compact discs and they sound just fine. But if there is enough bit rot to make recovering data dodgy, well you have nine more still shrinkwrapped copies to try reading any bad blocks from.
The only remaining question is whether equipment to read a Compact Disc will still be available in twenty five years. And the answer is almost certainly. It probably won't be nearly as popular as it is today but the LP is ten years in the grave and you can still buy a new turntable at Sears.
A pressed DVD might be even better because the recorded media is safely between two layers of substrate instead of only protected by the screenprinted label on the top. On the other hand we have enough history with the CD to know beyond any doubt that they survive in readable condition for the required time, even under typical consumer storage conditions.
> The only reason the terms of the GPL are binding to distribution via pre-installation is because you need a license, and the GPL
> is the license that allows for this.
Actually, you are wrong. If you bought 100 copies of Ubuntu and preloaded them onto machines you could legally sell them... so long as you included one set of official Ubuntu media with each one. The end user would either have the source on the media (DVD) or have the right to obtain source (CD) from Ubuntu... the right you had when you bought the media and then transferred along with 'all rights' when you sold the copy. Same as when you used to buy a CD from Walnut Creek, they didn't have to supply source but they had to allow you to obtain it for a reasonable charge. The GPL only needs to be considered when you engage in acts not otherwise permitted by copyright law. Reselling, preloads, etc. are all legal activities in the absence of the GPL. I sold a crapload of Dos6.x/WfW3.11 machines preloaded back when I worked for a hole in the wall screwdriver shop and we never had any sort of permission. But each machine went out the door with OEM copies of DOS/Windows. I never asked about the authenticity though... some of those DOS manuals were a bit blurry.... :) Downloading one master disc, loading a hundred machines from it and selling them is illegal in the absence of a license to reproduce a copyrighted work, thus one would need to agree to the GPL or have some other legal arrangement (Site License, etc) before making copies, whether modified or not.
I think where you are losing it is in thinking preinstallation is making an illegal copy. Think of it instead as selling a machine, a set of OS media and the SERVICE of installing the OS. Just like the law allows YOU to install legally owned software on your own computer, it is equally legal for you to pay ME to install it for you, like when you are buying a new computer and software.
> ..it is an adaptation, and that section is quite clear that transferring adaptations
> authorized by 17 USC 117(a) requires consent of the copyright holder.
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such. But just taking the defaults in the installer doesn't count. Now if they added stuff they would be in very grey territory depending on what they added. Purely functional changes to get the software properly running on the platform would probably be ok but changing the look and feel of the default install would be much more likely to be ruled as interferring with Apple's right to have a product that says OS X actually behave like their trademarked product.
But since the poiht of a general purpose computer is to run programs, could an OEM add whole seperate apps? It is standard practice in every other OEM situation,but most involve having a deal with the various software vendors. But the VAR market often doesn't have signed deals and they routinely do it, including with Apple hardware. You can buy a Mac pre configured as a video editing workstation with all of the software bindled in and preloaded and fully integrated, just power it on and go. Would a court want to get into the middle of that much long established industry practice? Interesting questions.
> Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store.
That would reduce the clones, not eliminate them.
Consider: There is a huge hole in Apple's product line between the Mini and the overspecced Xeons they sell as desktops. What if I bought a stack of Mini's and put a bullet through the hard drive and motherboard of each one, then sold that bundled with a midrange workstation loaded with that Mini's copy of OS X? The insane part is that between Apple's margins and the size of the hole in their line there is probably a window where that would actually be profitable. Care to give ANY moral justification for my plan to be 'wrong?'
> ..we have this construct called intellectual property..
Never use that phrase around here, we know better. Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks exist. None of those permit a EULA and with out the Apple EULA being an enforcable contract there is no grounds to stop what Pystar is doing.
> copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make
Correct. But Pystar is buying retail boxed copies of OS X. Were they making illegal copies the case would have been over before it started with everyone involved snatched up in an FBI raid.
> In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies.
Of course they do. One is free to resell an item they bought legally.
> The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple
> branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same
> case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
First off the acronym itself gives the game away. An "End User License Agreement", even if they were legal, would only be binding on the end user. Pystar isn't.
As for your stupid (sorry, this one gets batted down weekly, use Google before opening your piehole on a GPL FAQ issue) argument trying to make an equivelence with the GPL it just doesn't track. The GPL is a grant of rights above and beyond what normal copyright grants while a EULA is a subtraction without any consideration. So I can toss Apple's EULA into the nearest bin and still have all of the rights under law I had before. I have the right to own the copy I bought, use it, etc. I don't have the right to reproduce it (outside of working copies made as typical use of the material) or publicaly perform it (not very applicable to most software) but there is no legal question whether I lawfully own a copy.
Now consider your hypothetical. If I give you a copy of Linux you lawfully posses that copy of Linux in exactly the same way I would own my copy of OS X sans EULA. You could do anything copyright law permitted, including sell it. You could sell/give away the ONE copy I gave to you. To do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now? Read the GPL.
> ..which gets into the issues with peak oil and its effects on society.
Peak oil will being a few changes, but not be the cause of the far ranging changes the fear mongers bleat on about. As oil becomes more expensive (as a function of supply and demand) other sources of energy will become practical. This process would be greatly aided if we had the vision to build lots of nuke plants to lower demand for oil (buying more time for R&D) and to make electricity cheap and plentiful enough to spur plug in cars. But even if we must suffer idiots like Obama and McCain the invisible hand will end up solving the problem, just a matter of how much pain we go through in the process. Surburbs won't be vanishing anytime soon.
> Firefox gained visibility and market share after being ported to Windows and not before.
You have that backwards. Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox is a Windows app. Most of the developers check in patches from Windows development machines, features are planned based on a Windows target, etc. Linux/Unix/Mac are the ports.
It is fairly obvious for us old timers. Back in the Netscape days the ports would sometimes trail the Windows releases, never the other way around. We lived in fear that Netscape would either be paid off to abandon the Linux port or decide they weren't worth the developer time; which would have pretty much ended our favorite upstart OS in the cradle since it was the only usable browser.
And more on topic, who gives a crap if the DNC sold out? Of course they did! Bet the Republicans run Silverlight too, and for the same reason. Campaign contributions. They are politicans, remember? Oh, I'm sorry. You Democrats were Hoping for Change. Ha! Welcome to the real world.
But it isn't like there aren't plenty of news organizations you can't get video from. Although MSNBC is probably right out....
> What is your purpose in making up statistics like that?
Making up? Hardly. Both of us have a /. UID low enough to know what the average slashdot opinion on nukes and such are. Do you dispute the approx 50-50 split I have observed? As for the greater green movement being pretty much 100% in agreement that nuke == bad, if you don't know that you really need to get out more. They wrote the founder of Greenpeace out of the environmental movement for the sin of concluding nukes needed to be on the table when trying to 'save the world.'
> Compared to many states in the region, it's citizens have a great deal of freedom.
Saying one is more free than the rest of the one party states/kingdoms that infest that region is like saying one particular French diplomat is less arrogant than most. Or that one Playboy Bunny is hotter than most. All objects in the sets are so much more similar than they differ the point kinda gets lost.
> The blurb is certainly buzzword compliant, but where are the specs and data?
Yea, but utter BS. Which greens eat up without question, notice the Slashdot editors did.
Carbon neutral my ass. That sucker is going to need either a huge electric feedline or an internal nuke plant and since it is a 'green' project nukes are out of the question. (Half of a tech site such as this are dead set against anything with the N word attached, in the general green crowd it approaches 100% enough to egnore the outriders.) Then it will need a major railhead to bring in the food.
This isn't hard people, even with efficient solar power the population is a 3d volume powered from a 2D surface. And if you cover the whole surface with photovoltiac collectors where to you get the sunlight for a food source?
But as for getting people into it were it to actually be built, this is Dubai we are talking about; the government tells people to live in it they will live in it. Actually I'd like a few built here.... solve the low income housing problem overnight. Just tell people their choice is to get off their ass and fend for themselves or accept the 'free' government (ware)housing. I suspect most would be horrified enough at the concept of being forced to live in such conditions they would find the motivation to get their life into order. Be a great boost to the economy. And ones who did go in, well out of sight out of mind.
> Which is ridiculous for the simple reason I point out: "the (current) Bush Administration doesn't have people smart enough to pull a stunt like that.
It isn't a matter of smart. You can't keep a secret of that magnitude in our current society, period. The Soviets or Chinese might, because they can make credible threats against leakers (yer head will come right fscking off!) but we don't have anything sufficient to keep that many mouths closed. Just this weekend is a good example in microcosm. Obama has good loyal people around him and couldn't keep the veep announcement out of the MSM before that famous text message went out. Every network had "highly placed but unnamed sources" talking their heads off the second it looked like SOMEONE was going to talk and they didn't want to be left out. It is a side effect of the sort of ego needed to work a 'high placed' sort of job. The same thing would happen (and probably will Thursday evening) to McCain in a similar situation, I'm not making any sort of partisan political point here.
All these Bush did 9/11 theories would need tens of civilian types in on it and at least that many intel/military field agents, not ONE of which has talked to the NYT off the record.
> I'd bet good money Firefox doesn't even use it in dialogs it KNOWS are asking for a password.
Replying to myself.... Doh, I could have checked it myself so I just did and nope, Firefox doesn't lock the keyboard. Even when it pops up a specific box asking for a username/password pair. Of course if you allow FF to autofill passwords it is a moot point anyway since any process that can run as you can read the obfuscated passwords.
> A keylogger wouldn't need root access.
Amazingly enough the designers of X back in the Elder Days thought of that possibility and took steps. X has the ability to stop keyloggers from getting things like passwords (barring root, then all bets are off) by including the exclusive keyboard grab. Of course since Moz Corp basically just ports from Windows and Windows doesn't have anything of the sort I'd bet good money Firefox doesn't even use it in dialogs it KNOWS are asking for a password.
It would be an instructive exercise to look at the various places where passwords are requested and see if any of them use it. Does the new GNOME root protection wrappers use it? Does KDE, or any of the distro specific tools? Security is a process, drop the ball at any step and the bad guys win. X did it's bit, did anyone else follow through?
For example xterm does support Secure Keyboard while gnome-terminal doesn't. That said, how many of us have actually USED the secure keyboard feature?
> Mounting /home with noexec
Which is just great if all of your users are Windows/Mac users who click on the pretty icons and wipe the drool from their chins every couple of minutes. If you have any UNIX folk using the system they will hoist yer ass on a rope minutes after you kill all those scripts and such in their ~/bin directory. And some of us have a ~/src or an ~/rpmbuild tree in our $HOME as well.
I guess if are to ever achieve "World Domination" we need to accept most users will probably be "displaced Windows users" who will keep their same end user habits because the Unix Way isn't for the masses. But jeeze, barring them from ever trying to write/download so much as a bash script is one way to make that a self fulfilling prophesy.
> If you're so dumb, you DESERVE to be ripped off.
We must make stupidity more painful.
I know that goes against everything the Democrats who run the government schools who trained you shoveled into your young skull full of mush, but it's the only way... for them and us. Understanding the wisdom in that one line will set you on the road to freeing your mind so please turn off the computer for a few minutes, put whatever music you do your best thinking to on the iPod and ponder it a few meinutes.
> Typically the victims of this scam agree to break the law in some way,
Exactly right. Bust em all for attempted wire fraud to start with and go from there. You have to work both ends of the supply and demand on these things, especially since on end is typically in lawless parts of the world like Nigeria but one end is typically in a country where people have enough cash to be worth trying to rip off.
Way too many stupid people think they can try to work those deals, in the belief that they can prevent being ripped off if it is a scam and in the hope they might just hit the one that is 'legit.' These idiots don't understand what is actually happening, that it is usually an identity theft happening. Put the threat of jail time for even TRYING to hook up with the "Nigerean minister of finance" and we might take a bite outta crime. Same for all the other spam scams involving illegal acts. We have to get serious about stopping this crap.
> Sounds like thing are pretty much consistent with the currently accepted climate models,
> at least for the time being.
To borrow a phrase I have grown to hate.... citation needed.
Show me one warmer's scare charts that predicted we would COOL DOWN for a decade. Every chart I have ever seen showed ever increasing temps until we all DIE.
And even when the MSM report stories like this one, about a cooling trend, they have to get the "but we are still gonna f**king DIE!" into the second paragraph.
> I don't see why nVidia would have it any different or wouldn't be able to do the same.
There are already a crapload of people who are now or have in the past sold x86 compatible chips. You generally can't claim an exclusive on the public interfaces like the instruction set. Patents on various sub systems are a problem for anyone doing anything these days, but new products somehow manage to get to market.
Cyrix->Via didn't have a cross license deal. Don't think Transmeta did either. I even remember 8086 compatible chips with NEC's stamp on the package. And there are a couple more I remember existed but can't pull the name from memory. The skills to make an x86 compatible processor from scratch is getting pretty widespread, making and selling one competitive with Intel and AMD is a different kettle of fish as so many others have found to this dismay.
> But a standalone fact
> is that racism is indeed
> terrorism.
No. Some skinhead pansy prancing around is an idiot. Not enough of a threat to waste the word terrorist on. Some hillbilly who still uses the N word in public is not a terrorist. Bigot? Yes. Terrorist? No.
The Klan burning a cross in somebody's front yard? Terrorist. Burning one at a Klan rally? Stupid but not terrorist.
To qualify for terrorist there needs to be violence or the direct threat of violence.
Of course lesser evil still needs to be defeated, not just terrorists. I'm just objecting to throwing that word around so much it becomes meaningless. And stupid is sometimes just ignorant. Ignorant can be cured.... sometimes.
> at least acknowledge that cryptography provides a unique characteristic to the requested
> information: it is verifiable.
Not really. Forget all this technowanking and keep focused on what is happening. If a court can't order somebody to turn over files from a computer because of encryption then the whole justice system is dead, it's every man for himself and we all better be stocking up on ammo and food because civilization won't last much longer because if "encryption" is the magic word stops any investigation then you won't believe how fast EVERY criminal will adopt it.
It's time for you kids to get a grip. When a judge signs an order for somebody to turn over documents you have to fork em over. Imagine if Microsoft had tried this guy's stunt. "Nope, we all put our emails on encrypted volumes. So we are taking the 5th and thus don't have to give you guys anything." After the judge stopped laughing his ass off he would toss their butts in the pokey. The courts don't and shouldn't care about the tech details; they order you to produce documents/files/physical evidence and you comply, if they happen to be on an encrypted volume you unlock it and dump the goddamned files out as ordered. If they are in a safe you open it. And if they are in a rented storage in another state you drive over there and get them because telling a judge anything other than "Yes your Honor." makes judges cranky.
Encryption stops people from snooping on your files, it doesn't stop a properly issued warrant. Just because one judge got it wrong doesn't mean it won't get sorted out higher up.
> So why present this in a cumbersome video format?
Welcome to the 21st Century. Text is dead, video is everything.
Litteracy in written English will be as common as basic arithmetic skills are now in another generation or so. The pocket calculator did in math, the mouse and cameras on everything will do in writing.
> As someone above points out, "It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence.
> It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt."
Ok, last attempt to drive this through you folks's thick skulls. On one side you have the eye witness testimony of two officers. On the other you have a guy saying "But I didn't do it. And no I won't allow anyone to see the evidence which I swear would clear me." So the score for those following along is two eyewitnesses to "I didn't do it." If two eyewitnesses, sworn officers no less, who apparently had ample time to look at the evidence before somebody shut the machine down, aren't enough to get 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then we better fucking empty the prisons. If this guy wants to beat the rap he needs to put on a defense and the only realistic one available is to unlock that laptop and show a jury that he just has normal porn on it. Of course this is all just wanking because I don't think a single poster believes this guy isn't guilty as hell and if he unlocked the drive he would spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. A very short life. Leaving it locked the court system will eventually get tired and offer a plea deal, he will take it and do a few years.
> What would "enforcing" such an order consist of? Torture. That's WHY it's prohibited.
Don't be an idiot. Enforcing would be done exactly as it is done in any other case of someone refusing to comply with an order issued by a court. You hold them in contempt of court and lock em up until they obey or they can get a higher court to reverse. No rubber hoses required.
> It's not up to the defendant in a criminal case to prove his innocence.
> It's up to the prosecution to prove his guilt.
Correct. The defense isn't required to put up any witnesses or even make a closing statement. But since the testimony of two sworn peace officers will almost certainly convict beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of any defense, going that route is a sure fire path to a "pound me in the ass" federal prison.
Basically this guy is saying "That laptop over there doesn't have anything illegal on it. Those pigs are just lying ignorant bastards who wouldn't know a playboy bunny shot from japanese tentacle porn. But you guys on the jury are just going to have to trust me on that because I damned sure ain't going to let ANYBODY see my porn stash." That just doesn't sound like the sort of thing a jury is going to buy. I damned sure wouldn't. Those officers apparently had access to the machine for more than a few minutes. I'd believe them unless he produced some evidence, namely the files on the seized laptop.