You cant be serious? What you call "broadband" I call a poor quality, overpriced, asymmetric leecher link. The telecom monopolies have been trying to prevent broadband adoption inasmuch as they are averse to change of any kind.
Fiber to the curb should be here, and it should be cheap. I dont know why so many are happy to be bent over a barrel for a pittance in bandwidth. The network grows in value for each user online, and not the other way around.
The ISP could route to their internal network, no problem, making connections to whatever they want.
Care to justify that? If you control your NAT router, there is no way the ISP can initiate inbound TCP connections to arbitrary machines behind your NAT box.
I do agree that NAT isnt really security, just a very easy to setup a firewall that allows outgoing connection initiation only by default.
Its just fine and dandy because the intent is good right? What? Road to hell? What? Paved with good intentions?
Explain to me how this is the road to hell if the end result is a house that cannot be broken into? (Aside from the fact that the whole house analogy was already broken)
If "hackers" werent punished for their non crimes, neglectful companies could instead FIX THE PROBLEM instead of merely FIXING THE BLAME.
True, no amount of flimsy dress will excuse a rape, nor reduce the culpability of the perpetrator.
However, a woman can with her actions aggravate rape upon herself though, possibly even to the extent that the crime might not have ever occured had she not solicited it.
In a world where every computer system was locked down so that no viruses or worms could do any significant harm, how many people could be arrested for virus authorship? My guess is not many.
Ask yourself which is a better society: one where all virus writers are incarcerated quickly and systems are fairly insecure, or one where systems are quite secure and virus writing is highly impractical.
Yes, but contrary to your statement it IS a choice.
What??? A less free choice contributes to being freer you say? Have you lost the thread?
Remember "the price of freedom"? It's "Eternal vigilance!" Not "using a specific licence."
Vigilance? Its fairly common for those who are violating the gpl to be outed and choose to come back into the fold.
And the GPL is more than a license, it has a whole philosophy behind it. The license is just an aspect of that vigilance.
If you want your source code, you need to keep it available. You can't force other people to keep it available for you. If you want someone else's source code -- well, ask them. Otherwise, too bad.
On the other hand, if you want your project to take a life of its own and not fall into a morass, you choose a system wherin all may partake equally who agree to return contributions they distribute.
If you dont beleive me, there are others who agree. In a recent interview Linus was asked why he did not choose the BSD license, and he said "because it is a dead-end for any serious project".
Anyway, the point is BSD doesnt preserve freedom, and hence is less free, not more free. Being free to be not free is a phyrric freedom.
You could say its more "proprietary-developer-free", but not more free in general.
Daddy can't look out for my rights. Only I can.
So you are your own military, police force, and justice system, or do you depend on others for certains aspects of that vaunted freedom?
But it IS true. The end users have more choices than they had if the original code had been under GPL: they could choose the original, any open forks off of it, AND the proprietary fork.
What? How is the proprietary fork a choice? You cant just look at the source to bugfix it, and you cant call it free.
If the project HAD been GPL, the user WOULD have the choice to use the commercial fork, because they would get source code with it and be able to bugfix/maintain and even learn from it.
the proprietized version is NOT a "Free" choice.
Most people get stuck with proprietized version of BSD code because they dont know any better. the GPL looks out for them, so when they or their descendants need the source, itll be there for them.
BSD is less Free empirically. The GPL protects even clueless end users who dont know what the value of source is yet, the BSD does not. The BSD protects old-model "software as a product" developers, and the GPL does not. There are more of the former than the latter.
Anyone who was pissed off would probably be so because you substituted a less freely usable license for a more free one.
A BSD licensed piece of code is only more freely usable from one persons point of view: the next developer.
Once he commercializes it, it will certainly become less freely usable to the end users who ultimately receive it.
So in the balance, BSD code is LESS freely usable than GPL. The GPL is the same free to everyone. There are tons of BSD bits that are free to almost nobody.
Its your prerogative to license things as you like, but dont say its "freer as BSD" because its just not true, unless you dont care one whit for the end users of a commercialized version.
Stan Lee was supposed to get 10% so with a gross of over $400 million, that should be a nice chunk of change right, $40 million. But Sony (shrewdly enough, that's their right) made the contract 10% of net and through their bookkeeping methods show they movie hadn't made a profit
Any idiot who signs a contract giving them a percentage of net profits is an idiot and deserves what they get.
Just like when Spyglass signed for a percentange of the sale of the IE when they gave their software to microsoft: it had no stipulation that there be any price for it whatsover! (the real price is hidden in the OS, so its a scam)
The only valid way to sign contracts these days is for a fixed price or a percentange of gross for any form of sale or bundling and with a minimum unit price.
Spoofed source addresses do not beget security nor anonymity, especially now that ISP's are required to "cooperate". Properly configured routers will put a dead stop to the practice, and even without that its still trivial for a big organization to backtrace you.
If you want real anonymity you need something called "plausible deniability" which you can get only from projects such as freenet.
Assuming that there is no economy of scale whatsoever, theyd have to have 6000 times as many employees (60 million) to justify your cost/employee ratio.
I highly doubt that they employ nearly that many people, so that is probably a very high number even by your standards.
It doesnt force microsoft to do anything. Its just a tax on users of most closed software: those applications that use proprietary data formats in particular.
It doesnt necessarily impose any cost on microsoft itself. Those customers who couldnt afford the extra 10% probably arent paying for their software at all.
What it does do is send a message to the businesses of the county that proprietary data formats are frowned upon.
>>So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you >>still have all the choices that matter.
>What the fuck does that have to do with software licenses?
Everything.
Patent's, Copyright, et. al. are tools of mental slavery. Noone can create in a cultural vacuum. Taking things out of the public domain is, to borrow their term, "stealing" from society.
All ideas are derivative ideas. Once we realize this, then we realize that copyrights and patents are immoral, and a detriment to progress in art and science.
The execute permission doesnt affect your ability to run scripts.
A buffer overflow in a stack smash attack can still fork a shell, the no-execute mount of the filesystem is just a PITA for the users, not the attackers.
Very few local->root exploits rely upon the ability to create exec'able files.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the non-technical people I know refer to their monitors as their "computer". (The box itself is of course just the CPU)
I wonder, if common usage forces "hacker "to mean "computer criminal", will it force "computer" to mean "monitor".
You cant be serious?
What you call "broadband" I call a poor quality, overpriced, asymmetric leecher link. The telecom monopolies have been trying to prevent broadband adoption inasmuch as they are averse to change of any kind.
Fiber to the curb should be here, and it should be cheap. I dont know why so many are happy to be bent over a barrel for a pittance in bandwidth. The network grows in value for each user online, and not the other way around.
The ISP could route to their internal network, no problem, making connections to whatever they want.
Care to justify that?
If you control your NAT router, there is no way the ISP can initiate inbound TCP connections to arbitrary machines behind your NAT box.
I do agree that NAT isnt really security, just a very easy to setup a firewall that allows outgoing connection initiation only by default.
Its just fine and dandy because the intent is good right? What? Road to hell? What? Paved with good intentions?
Explain to me how this is the road to hell if the end result is a house that cannot be broken into? (Aside from the fact that the whole house analogy was already broken)
If "hackers" werent punished for their non crimes, neglectful companies could instead FIX THE PROBLEM instead of merely FIXING THE BLAME.
try im-ja, its a gtk+ input method for Japanese. I thinks its alot better than the XIM stuff..
True, no amount of flimsy dress will excuse a rape, nor reduce the culpability of the perpetrator.
However, a woman can with her actions aggravate rape upon herself though, possibly even to the extent that the crime might not have ever occured had she not solicited it.
In a world where every computer system was locked down so that no viruses or worms could do any significant harm, how many people could be arrested for virus authorship? My guess is not many.
Ask yourself which is a better society: one where all virus writers are incarcerated quickly and systems are fairly insecure, or one where systems are quite secure and virus writing is highly impractical.
>or Nucular as W. says
I thought he spelled it "Nuke-you-ler"
> I'd much rather get executed than imprisoned for life.
>Life imprisonment, not execution, is cruel and unusual.
So when new evidence shows up that proves your innocence, you would prefer to be released from the morgue?
Yes, but contrary to your statement it IS a choice.
What??? A less free choice contributes to being freer you say? Have you lost the thread?
Remember "the price of freedom"? It's "Eternal vigilance!" Not "using a specific licence."
Vigilance? Its fairly common for those who are violating the gpl to be outed and choose to come back into the fold.
And the GPL is more than a license, it has a whole philosophy behind it. The license is just an aspect of that vigilance.
If you want your source code, you need to keep it available. You can't force other people to keep it available for you. If you want someone else's source code -- well, ask them. Otherwise, too bad.
On the other hand, if you want your project to take a life of its own and not fall into a morass, you choose a system wherin all may partake equally who agree to return contributions they distribute.
If you dont beleive me, there are others who agree. In a recent interview Linus was asked why he did not choose the BSD license, and he said "because it is a dead-end for any serious project".
Anyway, the point is BSD doesnt preserve freedom, and hence is less free, not more free. Being free to be not free is a phyrric freedom.
You could say its more "proprietary-developer-free", but not more free in general.
Daddy can't look out for my rights. Only I can.
So you are your own military, police force, and justice system, or do you depend on others for certains aspects of that vaunted freedom?
But it IS true. The end users have more choices than they had if the original code had been under GPL: they could choose the original, any open forks off of it, AND the proprietary fork.
What? How is the proprietary fork a choice? You cant just look at the source to bugfix it, and you cant call it free.
If the project HAD been GPL, the user WOULD have the choice to use the commercial fork, because they would get source code with it and be able to bugfix/maintain and even learn from it.
the proprietized version is NOT a "Free" choice.
Most people get stuck with proprietized version of BSD code because they dont know any better. the GPL looks out for them, so when they or their descendants need the source, itll be there for them.
BSD is less Free empirically. The GPL protects even clueless end users who dont know what the value of source is yet, the BSD does not. The BSD protects old-model "software as a product" developers, and the GPL does not. There are more of the former than the latter.
Anyone who was pissed off would probably be so because you substituted a less freely usable license for a more free one.
A BSD licensed piece of code is only more freely usable from one persons point of view: the next developer.
Once he commercializes it, it will certainly become less freely usable to the end users who ultimately receive it.
So in the balance, BSD code is LESS freely usable than GPL. The GPL is the same free to everyone. There are tons of BSD bits that are free to almost nobody.
Its your prerogative to license things as you like, but dont say its "freer as BSD" because its just not true, unless you dont care one whit for the end users of a commercialized version.
Stan Lee was supposed to get 10% so with a gross of over $400 million, that should be a nice chunk of change right, $40 million. But Sony (shrewdly enough, that's their right) made the contract 10% of net and through their bookkeeping methods show they movie hadn't made a profit
Any idiot who signs a contract giving them a percentage of net profits is an idiot and deserves what they get.
Just like when Spyglass signed for a percentange of the sale of the IE when they gave their software to microsoft: it had no stipulation that there be any price for it whatsover! (the real price is hidden in the OS, so its a scam)
The only valid way to sign contracts these days is for a fixed price or a percentange of gross for any form of sale or bundling and with a minimum unit price.
Downloading an OCR'd copy over a p2p network is the proper way to pay homage :)
The fundamental premise of udpp2p is broken.
Spoofed source addresses do not beget security nor anonymity, especially now that ISP's are required to "cooperate". Properly configured routers will put a dead stop to the practice, and even without that its still trivial for a big organization to backtrace you.
If you want real anonymity you need something called "plausible deniability" which you can get only from projects such as freenet.
Assuming that there is no economy of scale whatsoever, theyd have to have 6000 times
as many employees (60 million) to justify your cost/employee ratio.
I highly doubt that they employ nearly that many people, so that is probably a very high number even by your standards.
Linus Torvalds said BSD is a dead end, so thats why noone will use it :P
I think he may have inadvertently legitimized the "BSD/dying" meme.
*SLASH* Humiliation!
Legal[IBM] is GODLIKE
So how well do those work without gcc and glibc?
It doesnt force microsoft to do anything. Its just a tax on users of most closed software: those applications that use proprietary data formats in particular.
It doesnt necessarily impose any cost on microsoft itself. Those customers who couldnt afford the extra 10% probably arent paying for their software at all.
What it does do is send a message to the businesses of the county that proprietary data formats are frowned upon.
>It's really futile to argue with little marxist college boys.
Hardly, I'm very much a capitalist. I certainly believe in private property.
I just dont think that ideas are property, nor should they be legally treated as such.
>>So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you >>still have all the choices that matter.
>What the fuck does that have to do with software licenses?
Everything.
Patent's, Copyright, et. al. are tools of mental slavery. Noone can create in a cultural vacuum. Taking things out of the public domain is, to borrow their term, "stealing" from society.
All ideas are derivative ideas. Once we realize this, then we realize that copyrights and patents are immoral, and a detriment to progress in art and science.
I dont recall ever hearing some consensus that Open Source stands for choice.
Free Software stands for SHARING SOURCE CODE. In fact, going by the GPL, you dont even get a choice about sharing it either.
So stop promulgating that stupid sentiment. I for one have no problem with mandatory open source.
So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you still have all the choices that matter.
However the NRA are happy to state that gun ownership is higher now then in the 1700's despite the increase in police numbers.
Naturally.
The police protect you from criminals.
Guns protect you from the police.
The execute permission doesnt affect your ability to run scripts.
A buffer overflow in a stack smash attack can still fork a shell, the no-execute mount of the filesystem is just a PITA for the users, not the attackers.
Very few local->root exploits rely upon the ability to create exec'able files.
Jeez, does IBM have so many lawyers that they have to catapult them in?
You didnt know that laywers have wings?