Reading the article helps - there is only one server: my-web-way.com , which is supposedly controlled by the attackers. The whois entry reveals, that it is registered in Moskow, Russia...
In America, server gets infected, but in Soviet Russia, infections get served!
Please stick to arguments that will actually hold water
Sorry, but I disagree 100%. The RIAA is notorious for throwing absolutely anything on the wall and seeing if it will stick. The hope is that if you swing a bat enough times, eventually you are going to hit a ball. To me, it seems foolish/naive to argue logic and apply fairness principles in a situation like this. Every small little annoying detail should be argued to the stupidest degree. That is how the RIAA has been playing it, and I don't think it's a good idea to play chess, when your opponent is playing checkers.
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
So what you are saying is that Flash will be relegated to pointless crap, and HTML 5, though less commonly used, will be less crap and more useful? I'm ok with that. I'm not interested in seeing HTML 5 crap. More interested in seeing HTML useful stuff.
I think the underlying concept is that Lotus is attempting to fix the problem of incompatibility, so it's not rigging the tests, just showing where the work is headed. Is there any evidence that Microsoft office is attempting to become more compatible? Before anyone starts arguing the MS shouldn't have to become compatible, or whatever, please don't change the topic here.
If I can read the GP's mind, I think the scary part is the fact that the Founders were debating what rights the government should or should not have (yes, oversimplification). If they took some rights away from the government, then boo hoo. Now they are talking about what rights government and corporations should give to citizens. If they take some rights away from the citizens, then boo hoo. THAT is the scary part.
Unfortunately, you and I are so 18th century. Back then, if not otherwise specified, the government had no rights. But now, it has been successfully turned around. Unless otherwise specified by the government, the people have no rights. Like it or not, I think most Americans see it that way, and not just Democrats. Damn shame.
As somebody who currently keeps the paychecks coming by being there when the software that my employer "bought once and for all" breaks in various horrible ways; I can tell you that "the cost that we tell you" is very much not the "total cost of ownership".
What he MEANT was that in Africa, you don't have the BSA, so you don't have to worry about surprise audits, keeping track of licensing, and fees for not doing so.
See, he wasn't lying!
I think the major problem is that of extremes. Many people argue that patents themselves are not bad, but when taken to the extreme that you can patent anything, and shut down a business for the smallest patent, and the fact that there are so many out there, many of which are conflicting, and redundant, that it is not reasonable to really understand what is patented and what is not, THAT is the bad thing.
I'm not sure if this teaches us anything, other than that we didn't have the extremes back then, but now we do. It sounded like a mess then, and now it's a really big mess. Sort of like comparing 1 apple to 50,000 apples.
GPL is the copyright part. Patent is the "invention" part. You can very easily copyright the code, and patent the implementation/idea/whatever. That is why GPL code is vulnerable to patent trolls.
If you are asking how this can make any sense, then my answer is "I don't know, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me either."
Valid point, but remember that all Red Hat code is open source with almost all gpl. You cannot sue some one offensively(can you defensively?) for patents and be consistent with the gpl. I don't trust any company either, but at least there is some comfort here.
>and yet, if I pay NOW, it costs more! I tell you doctors are pretty stupid when it comes to business!
I do not think anyone would disagree with you on this one, but think about why it does cost more to pay cash. I'll give you a hint: many insurances still pay a percentage of billed charges, and any drop in billed charges = a drop in collected charges.
>I'm not suggesting a Soylent Green scenario...
I think the problem is that, as a society, we have not decided who gets to live and who does not. Life is about probability, and medicine is no different. The real issue is value for the risk. In other words, if my probability of living 3 more days is one out of a million, but it costs me $0, them why not risk everything? Not my money! But what if living another 6 months, cost me $10 million? Is it worth putting several generations of my descendants out on the streets? Maybe, maybe not. Now the next question would be, what is the magic number where value and probability intersect? Once we decide that, as a society, I think we have our answer. No, we will never get the answer, and that is why we are in the mess we are in.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the article helps - there is only one server: my-web-way.com , which is supposedly controlled by the attackers. The whois entry reveals, that it is registered in Moskow, Russia.. .
In America, server gets infected, but in Soviet Russia, infections get served!
Please tell me that they have a PhD program in this. I will be the bestest student ever.
It's in the Astronomy class. Look under the topic of Uranus.
I always wanted to study abroad, but now he gets paid for it? Neat!
Please stick to arguments that will actually hold water
Sorry, but I disagree 100%. The RIAA is notorious for throwing absolutely anything on the wall and seeing if it will stick. The hope is that if you swing a bat enough times, eventually you are going to hit a ball. To me, it seems foolish/naive to argue logic and apply fairness principles in a situation like this. Every small little annoying detail should be argued to the stupidest degree. That is how the RIAA has been playing it, and I don't think it's a good idea to play chess, when your opponent is playing checkers.
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
So what you are saying is that Flash will be relegated to pointless crap, and HTML 5, though less commonly used, will be less crap and more useful? I'm ok with that. I'm not interested in seeing HTML 5 crap. More interested in seeing HTML useful stuff.
Robert Hansen is a MAN, not a horse. Get your facts straight!
I think the underlying concept is that Lotus is attempting to fix the problem of incompatibility, so it's not rigging the tests, just showing where the work is headed. Is there any evidence that Microsoft office is attempting to become more compatible? Before anyone starts arguing the MS shouldn't have to become compatible, or whatever, please don't change the topic here.
In our last vacation, my four-year old spent at least 30 minutes staring up to the night sky with his mouth open...
Did he see Uranus?
If I can read the GP's mind, I think the scary part is the fact that the Founders were debating what rights the government should or should not have (yes, oversimplification). If they took some rights away from the government, then boo hoo. Now they are talking about what rights government and corporations should give to citizens. If they take some rights away from the citizens, then boo hoo. THAT is the scary part.
Unfortunately, you and I are so 18th century. Back then, if not otherwise specified, the government had no rights. But now, it has been successfully turned around. Unless otherwise specified by the government, the people have no rights. Like it or not, I think most Americans see it that way, and not just Democrats. Damn shame.
As somebody who currently keeps the paychecks coming by being there when the software that my employer "bought once and for all" breaks in various horrible ways; I can tell you that "the cost that we tell you" is very much not the "total cost of ownership".
What he MEANT was that in Africa, you don't have the BSA, so you don't have to worry about surprise audits, keeping track of licensing, and fees for not doing so. See, he wasn't lying!
I think the major problem is that of extremes. Many people argue that patents themselves are not bad, but when taken to the extreme that you can patent anything, and shut down a business for the smallest patent, and the fact that there are so many out there, many of which are conflicting, and redundant, that it is not reasonable to really understand what is patented and what is not, THAT is the bad thing. I'm not sure if this teaches us anything, other than that we didn't have the extremes back then, but now we do. It sounded like a mess then, and now it's a really big mess. Sort of like comparing 1 apple to 50,000 apples.
I must be old, because I didn't think anything but "oh, a Skynet joke".
I guess I don't feel so old anymore. I was thinking it should be named John Henry.
What, haven't you people heard of Access??
No. At my company, we use Excel.
I swear officer, I only paid that prostitute for her to spend time with me in a hotel room. You cant prove we actually had sex.
No, but the gonorrhea had to come from somewhere.
All your post proves is that that you really don't know all that much about ./ers
How could it be GPL AND Patented?
GPL is the copyright part. Patent is the "invention" part. You can very easily copyright the code, and patent the implementation/idea/whatever. That is why GPL code is vulnerable to patent trolls. If you are asking how this can make any sense, then my answer is "I don't know, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me either."
Valid point, but remember that all Red Hat code is open source with almost all gpl. You cannot sue some one offensively(can you defensively?) for patents and be consistent with the gpl. I don't trust any company either, but at least there is some comfort here.
>and yet, if I pay NOW, it costs more! I tell you doctors are pretty stupid when it comes to business!
I do not think anyone would disagree with you on this one, but think about why it does cost more to pay cash. I'll give you a hint: many insurances still pay a percentage of billed charges, and any drop in billed charges = a drop in collected charges.
>I'm not suggesting a Soylent Green scenario ...
I think the problem is that, as a society, we have not decided who gets to live and who does not. Life is about probability, and medicine is no different. The real issue is value for the risk. In other words, if my probability of living 3 more days is one out of a million, but it costs me $0, them why not risk everything? Not my money! But what if living another 6 months, cost me $10 million? Is it worth putting several generations of my descendants out on the streets? Maybe, maybe not. Now the next question would be, what is the magic number where value and probability intersect? Once we decide that, as a society, I think we have our answer. No, we will never get the answer, and that is why we are in the mess we are in.