People still believe CP is a lucrative business? Really? Let me guess... it's a $800 trillion a year business ZOMG!
Wikipedia: "Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the internet.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]". Why don't you check out the six references at the article and explain to me why they're full of shit?
But none of these crimes is committed by the viewer of the photos
This tired old argument really needs to die. These crimes are committed because there is an audience for the photos. This is a very lucrative business. The consumption of child porn condones and sustains the market for horrific torture of small children. Ergo, deliberately accessing child porn is committing child rape by proxy. That is why possession needs to be prosecuted.
who - in the age of Photoshop, CGI etc. - does not necessarily have to be aware of how the photos were created in the first place.
Yeah, cause child pornographers have a budget the size of Avatar's to make photorealistic CGI. Give me a break.
It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide."
No, it doesn't. Because it specifically deals with a case where someone does have something to hide.
Parent comment is disingenuous. When people say "I don't have anything to hide", they mean that if you don't do anything wrong you have no need for privacy, because you would only want to hide things that are illegal or otherwise wrong. Grandparent comment is exactly correct in pointing out the error of this all-too-common reasoning.
These days I spend hours playing with Udev, HAL, PolicyKit, and GNOME, often feeling more like I'm fighting a Windows machine with its typical determination to hide all interfaces but the desktop interface from me and prevent me from controlling my own system in the way that I see fit.
This is why I stick with Slackware, which has none of that nonsense, lets you control everything manually, and behaves in a consistent and well-defined manner.
Justice would mean him being tried in the UK, just like any other UK citizen. Now he is going to get 60 years in the for-profit American prison industry for guessing a few passwords. For an example of how people with Asperger's are treated there, see the Billy Cotrell case.
The US would sooner start a war than extradite one of their own to another country, even for war crimes. One-sided extradition treaties give the US legal jurisdiction over Europe but not vice versa. We Europeans are pussies. We've truly let ourselves become satellite states of the Empire of the United States of America.
It's about consent, not about content. Spam, by definition, is unsolicited bulk e-mail. The type of content doesn't enter into it, so any concerns about censorship are misplaced.
Your car analogy breaks for the simple reason that only people with a license are allowed to drive cars. You have to pass both a theory and a practical test to obtain such a license, which constitutes a major investment in effort, time and money. Not caring is not an option. If similar requirements were imposed for letting people on the Internet, we would be having none of these problems.
And before someone argues that unqualified Internet users don't kill people and are therefore harmless: in fact, the malware their computers inevitably contract and disseminate regularly ruins lives in various ways, either their own or others'.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
Of course, in the parent post, "In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the former" should read: "In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the latter". Sorry about that.
Let's be clear - under-the-hood, *nix does not have any standardized way of tracking file types. Unlike MacOS/OSX, there's no type metadata stored with the file.
That is correct, but there is a standard way of determining the type of a file without tracking it: the 'file' command (which uses metadata stored in/etc/file/magic). For most applications this would be perfectly practical.
However, there are many *nix applications which use file extensions. Apache, for example, uses extensions to map to MIME types. Is this because the authors of Apache were enamored with CP/M? Or because there's no other practical way to handle it in standard unix?
In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the former. Using/etc/file/magic would probably be an unacceptable performance hit for a webserver. At least, it would have been when the web started.
However, for most other applications, I think it's because people think of the DOS/Windows way as the "only" way. It's unfortunate. Extensions are unreliable; it's easy for a file to have an extension that doesn't correspond with its format. Also, they can easily be exploited by malware (like file.jpg.exe, which will hide the.exe). Actually inspecting the file itself to determine its format, like the 'file' command does, is safer and more reliable.
Of course that still wouldn't give us classic Mac-like functionality, in which not only the file format but also the application that created the file was tracked.
File name extensions are definitely not the UNIX way. They are the CP/M way, copied later by DOS, then by Windows, then by UNIX graphical environments such as KDE, GNOME, and Mac OS X -- but still not by the under-the-hood UN*X running any of them; to UN*X, it's just an indiscriminate part of the filename.
It's very, very unfortunate that Mac OS X is now reverting to the primitive CP/M way. It causes a loss of essential functionality that Mac power users have always depended on: to know that a document will always be opened in the application with which you've created it.
For me, there is less and less reason to use a Mac as Apple keeps progressively emulating Microsoft. This is yet another nail in the coffin.
The Hyper-V patch doesn't affect that; if they could claim patent infringements in other parts of the kernel now, they could do it before too.
Exactly. So there is nothing at all about their contribution that would prevent an embrace-extend-extinguish strategy.
Contributing is the embrace step. More people will use Linux when it's progressively made compatible with Microsoft technologies: extend. Then they can go all SCO and sue the pants off of some strategically selected parties that use it: extinguish. End result: Microsoft owns Linux.
The original question was: how could Microsoft still employ its usual embrace-extend-extinguish strategy while contributing to the Linux kernel? The answer is that it's very simple because there is nothing stopping them. They could do it if they wanted to. And given their track record, it would be silly to trust them not to.
Funny how my first post in this thread is now at -1, Flamebait for accurately answering a question.
So basically, if MS holds patents on the code they are contributing, my reading of the GPL says they can't contribute it (or can't enforce said patents).
Who says it has to be about the code they are contributing? There is plenty of other code in the Linux kernel that they could base a strategic lawsuit on. It's not like they haven't done that before.
In the case of computer configurations, the expectation is regarding the options the user can customize.
There is no expectation that users change the default; it's an option. The expectation is that most users won't. Even if we accept that "default" in its original meaning never implied an unsatisfied obligation, there is still a semantic shift.
Actually, the term has exactly the same meaning when talking about computers, you just need to put it in context and use it correctly. "Default" means "failure to act", so a loan "default" means you failed to make payments. When talking about computers, the proper term is "default configuration", which means you have not changed it (or failed to change it) from its factory settings.
"Have not changed it" and "failed to changed it" are totally different in meaning. The difference is in the existence of an obligation not satisfied. There is no obligation to change default configurations; in fact, pretty much the opposite is true, as it's widely expected most users will stick to the default configurations which are expected to be sane and functional. So, with the "fault" taken out of the "default", there has definitely been a fundamental semantic shift in this word.
No, you misunderstand. Google Groups is a major source of spam, i.e. most spam on Usenet nowadays is posted through Google Groups. Google completely refuses to deal with the problem and has for years.
Slashdot Mirror
People still believe CP is a lucrative business? Really? Let me guess... it's a $800 trillion a year business ZOMG!
Wikipedia: "Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the internet.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]". Why don't you check out the six references at the article and explain to me why they're full of shit?
But none of these crimes is committed by the viewer of the photos
This tired old argument really needs to die. These crimes are committed because there is an audience for the photos. This is a very lucrative business. The consumption of child porn condones and sustains the market for horrific torture of small children. Ergo, deliberately accessing child porn is committing child rape by proxy. That is why possession needs to be prosecuted.
who - in the age of Photoshop, CGI etc. - does not necessarily have to be aware of how the photos were created in the first place.
Yeah, cause child pornographers have a budget the size of Avatar's to make photorealistic CGI. Give me a break.
I have been using Comod Internet Security. It does the Job. http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php
I can second that, it seems to work well. And it's the only one I've found that is free even for commercial use.
Genius is not necessarily in contradiction with being arrogant. What is your point ?
I think his point is that being arrogant is not necessarily in contradiction with legitimately being considered a legend.
It shows more eloquently than any privacy advocate ever could why privacy is so important when "you don't have anything to hide."
No, it doesn't. Because it specifically deals with a case where someone does have something to hide.
Parent comment is disingenuous. When people say "I don't have anything to hide", they mean that if you don't do anything wrong you have no need for privacy, because you would only want to hide things that are illegal or otherwise wrong. Grandparent comment is exactly correct in pointing out the error of this all-too-common reasoning.
A-fucking-men. Mod parent up.
This is why I stick with Slackware, which has none of that nonsense, lets you control everything manually, and behaves in a consistent and well-defined manner.
Justice would mean him being tried in the UK, just like any other UK citizen. Now he is going to get 60 years in the for-profit American prison industry for guessing a few passwords. For an example of how people with Asperger's are treated there, see the Billy Cotrell case.
The US would sooner start a war than extradite one of their own to another country, even for war crimes. One-sided extradition treaties give the US legal jurisdiction over Europe but not vice versa. We Europeans are pussies. We've truly let ourselves become satellite states of the Empire of the United States of America.
It's about consent, not about content. Spam, by definition, is unsolicited bulk e-mail. The type of content doesn't enter into it, so any concerns about censorship are misplaced.
Your car analogy breaks for the simple reason that only people with a license are allowed to drive cars. You have to pass both a theory and a practical test to obtain such a license, which constitutes a major investment in effort, time and money. Not caring is not an option. If similar requirements were imposed for letting people on the Internet, we would be having none of these problems.
And before someone argues that unqualified Internet users don't kill people and are therefore harmless: in fact, the malware their computers inevitably contract and disseminate regularly ruins lives in various ways, either their own or others'.
BBC: Barack Obama says he is "humbled" to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Sounds like he intends to accept it, to me.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
That is the weirdest mix of sh and csh syntax I've ever seen.
Of course, in the parent post, "In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the former" should read: "In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the latter". Sorry about that.
That is correct, but there is a standard way of determining the type of a file without tracking it: the 'file' command (which uses metadata stored in /etc/file/magic). For most applications this would be perfectly practical.
In Apache's case I'm actually inclined to the former. Using /etc/file/magic would probably be an unacceptable performance hit for a webserver. At least, it would have been when the web started.
However, for most other applications, I think it's because people think of the DOS/Windows way as the "only" way. It's unfortunate. Extensions are unreliable; it's easy for a file to have an extension that doesn't correspond with its format. Also, they can easily be exploited by malware (like file.jpg.exe, which will hide the .exe). Actually inspecting the file itself to determine its format, like the 'file' command does, is safer and more reliable.
Of course that still wouldn't give us classic Mac-like functionality, in which not only the file format but also the application that created the file was tracked.
File name extensions are definitely not the UNIX way. They are the CP/M way, copied later by DOS, then by Windows, then by UNIX graphical environments such as KDE, GNOME, and Mac OS X -- but still not by the under-the-hood UN*X running any of them; to UN*X, it's just an indiscriminate part of the filename.
It's very, very unfortunate that Mac OS X is now reverting to the primitive CP/M way. It causes a loss of essential functionality that Mac power users have always depended on: to know that a document will always be opened in the application with which you've created it.
For me, there is less and less reason to use a Mac as Apple keeps progressively emulating Microsoft. This is yet another nail in the coffin.
The Hyper-V patch doesn't affect that; if they could claim patent infringements in other parts of the kernel now, they could do it before too.
Exactly. So there is nothing at all about their contribution that would prevent an embrace-extend-extinguish strategy.
Contributing is the embrace step. More people will use Linux when it's progressively made compatible with Microsoft technologies: extend. Then they can go all SCO and sue the pants off of some strategically selected parties that use it: extinguish. End result: Microsoft owns Linux.
The original question was: how could Microsoft still employ its usual embrace-extend-extinguish strategy while contributing to the Linux kernel? The answer is that it's very simple because there is nothing stopping them. They could do it if they wanted to. And given their track record, it would be silly to trust them not to.
Funny how my first post in this thread is now at -1, Flamebait for accurately answering a question.
So basically, if MS holds patents on the code they are contributing, my reading of the GPL says they can't contribute it (or can't enforce said patents).
Who says it has to be about the code they are contributing? There is plenty of other code in the Linux kernel that they could base a strategic lawsuit on. It's not like they haven't done that before.
Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL?
They can sue for infringement of software patents.
Any remaining Tiger users needn't bother. As of this version, VLC requires Mac OS X 10.5. This is not obvious from the website.
Thank you!
Wrong again.
"Again"? What's that supposed to mean?
The word implies an expectation, not an obligation, to act.
Various dictionaries disagree with you.
In the case of computer configurations, the expectation is regarding the options the user can customize.
There is no expectation that users change the default; it's an option. The expectation is that most users won't. Even if we accept that "default" in its original meaning never implied an unsatisfied obligation, there is still a semantic shift.
Actually, the term has exactly the same meaning when talking about computers, you just need to put it in context and use it correctly. "Default" means "failure to act", so a loan "default" means you failed to make payments. When talking about computers, the proper term is "default configuration", which means you have not changed it (or failed to change it) from its factory settings.
"Have not changed it" and "failed to changed it" are totally different in meaning. The difference is in the existence of an obligation not satisfied. There is no obligation to change default configurations; in fact, pretty much the opposite is true, as it's widely expected most users will stick to the default configurations which are expected to be sane and functional. So, with the "fault" taken out of the "default", there has definitely been a fundamental semantic shift in this word.
Sure, there are enough newsreaders supporting Bayesian filtering, just google for them.
No, you misunderstand. Google Groups is a major source of spam, i.e. most spam on Usenet nowadays is posted through Google Groups. Google completely refuses to deal with the problem and has for years.