We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.
What right do you have to claim ownership of my thoughts? Because that's what you're doing, when you tell me that you own what I create.
It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.
The costs and difficulty of copying and publishing content have been greatly reduced, but the risks have not. Now that there is effectively no cost or effort barrier to copying (digital) content, anyone can do it, and so the risk is at least the same if not increased. I'm not arguing for extending copyright terms - anything but - but in a world where anyone can copy content, the risks for content publishers are higher than if no-one but they could copy it.
That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that OO.o is not available only for Linux, or even mainly for Linux. Unless v2 is only currently available for Linux, it's in the wrong section.
It's funny, seeing a comment complaining that WMP is too big, and that iTunes gets it right. I've always found exactly the opposite to be the case. But then, I use the WMP toolbar and keep it minimised almost all the time, so all I ever see of WMP is the controls down on the task bar.
In contrast, the last time I used iTunes I couldn't find any way of making it want to take up less than almost all of my avialable screen real estate. That's a pain in the arse when I'm trying to actually do something with my PC whilst listening to music (as I do nearly all day every day at work). Sure, I can alt-tab between it and my other app(s) as necessary, but why bother when I don't have to?
Most mobile phones I've owned have had the ability to set a PIN that must be entered either at phone startup or when unlocking the key pad. Given all the ways in which facial recognition can fail (and I've had a couple of friends in accidents and fights that have left them so brused and swollen *I* had trouble recognising them), what possible advantage is there other than the "wow, cool!" factor?
Why not? Or do you believe in the FUD that closed software is inherently more secure?
Every single security consultant I've ever worked with has taken the view that secure or not, giving potential attackers any information whatsoever is a bad idea. The less they have to work with the harder it is for them.
I appreciate and understand the arguments that many eyes make shallow bugs and that an algorithm that's been peer reviewed is inherently more trustworthy than one that hasn't. I understand that if written correctly, knowledge of the source of an application or algorithm is of little or no use to a potential attacker. However, I'd feel uncomfortable with the source for critical, sensitive applications being made public and I know that no security consultant worth their salt would agree to it.
It is FUD, in that it's born of fear, uncertainty and doubt, but it has nothing to do with closed source being inherently more secure than open source. It has to do with the fact that writing secure code is hard, and that while security through obscurity is not sufficient, security and obscurity is better than security alone. Assume that your secrets will be made public and plan for it, but do your best to prevent it from happening.
When can we look forward to IE being moved to user space? Never?
IE has never been anywhere but in user space. "Integrated into the OS" doesn't mean "runs in kernel space".
When can we look forward to an O/S that doesn't have a re-ocurring fee every three years?
Woah, thanks for letting me know - I'm well overdue on my payment!
Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean? MS generally supports its OSes for about 10 years, which is a damn sight longer than any of the Linux distributions. It's also been longer than three years since XP was released. Finally, just because the OS is no longer supported doesn't mean that it spontaneously stops working. Sure, there are no more security patches for it, but you can still use it, if you feel you're sufficiently secure. A well-controlled PC or network behind a firewall used by savvy people is at almost no risk of being owned.
Why do I have to agree to license a patch (MS05-51) for software I bought that was defective in the first place?
The same reason you have to agree to a licence to use the original software - because of the fiction that you need permission to install the software and load it into RAM, as that constitutes copying. In order to maintain the fiction, MS has to licence its patches, too. (In fact, I can't remember the last (commercial) patch that didn't require a licence click-through)
For that matter, I installed some GPLed software yesterday (Squirrel SQL client) and it required me to agree to the LGPL on installation. MS aren't the only ones with crazy licence agreement requirements...
Unless Vista Windows and Vista Blinds are in the business of selling PC software (and specifically PC operating systems), then I fail to see how there is any trademark conflict or any likelihood of people being confused.
Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".
People feel like they own or are a part of Slashdot.
And with damn good reason, too. We submit the stories. We submit the comments. We pay for (a large proportion of) the running of the site, in subscriptions and ad revenue.
Without the readership, slashdot would be nothing. Yes, I'm sure it takes a lot of hard work to keep it running, but without us there would be no point.
It's a hell of a lot more likely that what's been happening recently is that rather than being hacked, the maintainers of the linked-to sites have simply put a (referer-based?) redirect in place to mitigate the slashdot effect.
Actually, a lot of recipes are protected. When was the last time you cooked up some KFC or made some Coca Cola?
There are a great many ways of making "southern-fried chicken", and you're welcome to follow any recipe you like. You can't make Kentucky Fried Chicken(tm) unless you're KFC. The situation is just the same for software - you're free to write your own word processor, you just can't write Microsoft Word.
According to copyright office, *copying* DVDs for personal use does not fall under the DMCA circumvention provision.
Surely you can perform a bit-wise copy of the disc, thus avoiding circumventing CSS in the first place? No good if you want to rip the movie to Divx to put on a CD or p2p network, etc, but fine for copying for personal use.
You can, you just plead not guilty (or no contest, as another respondent pointed out).
Plenty of people are convicted of crimes without ever admiting their guilt; people spend long times in jail or are even executed, protesting their innocence all the way. In fact, it's rare that someone will plead not guilty, fight the case, lose, then confess and say "Yeah, sorry, I *did* do it".
I don't really see your point; Samsung acted illegally, and now they've been fined for it. What more can be done? You can't destroy the corporation, as you'd be putting a large number of innocent people out of work, creating knock-on effects on suppliers, etc.
Who's responsible, the developers or the managers?
There are two answers to that:
a) the team lead
b) both sets of developers
a) for not mandating at which level the input should be checked, and for not confirming that it was done as specified. b) for not testing it properly, and for not handling the data correctly.
As for where it should be handled, my very strong preference is for it to be handled in both places. The reasons are:
a) never trust your input b) never pass on crap output
What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place?
Same thing that means that I'm not a journalist just for telling my daughter not to cross the road because there's a car coming.
The Cambridge Dictionaries Online website defines journaism as "the work of collecting, writing and publishing news stories and articles in newspapers and magazines or broadcasting them on the radio and television".
Granted, it should be updated to reflect the rise of online reporting, but I don't think many people would seriously suggest that my telling you that definition counts as journalism, any more than your example qualifies your boss as a journalist.
I don't understand. The bill covers "any entity that disseminates information by... electronic, or other means and that publishes a... periodical in print or electronic form"
An entity is something that has its own independent existence. That covers people as well as companies, and would certainly cover even a loosely organised group of people. An electronically published periodical would seem to me to include a blog, as well as news sites and other more traditional information sources.
Unless the terms have some specific legal meaning that I'm unaware of, what exactly is the problem?
What did you expect? You were critical of the slashdot readership and weren't critical of MS, of course you were modded down.
Slashdot is not about reasoned debate, it's about OSS. Hell, it's not even really about new technology - an awful lot of stories about new tech are full of comments deriding it, often for no real reason other than that it's new and different and so not the commenter's personal preference.
Actually, this will lower prices for anyone it affects. Currently, if you have a four processor box running (e.g.) VMWare, and partition it into four virtual machines, one of which is running SQL Server, you need a four-processor SQL Server licence. Under the change in terms, you'll only need a single-processor licence.
Slashdot Mirror
We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.
What right do you have to claim ownership of my thoughts? Because that's what you're doing, when you tell me that you own what I create.
It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.
The costs and difficulty of copying and publishing content have been greatly reduced, but the risks have not. Now that there is effectively no cost or effort barrier to copying (digital) content, anyone can do it, and so the risk is at least the same if not increased. I'm not arguing for extending copyright terms - anything but - but in a world where anyone can copy content, the risks for content publishers are higher than if no-one but they could copy it.
I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."
What about the innocent artists, most of who are just trying to make enough money to live on by selling their music?
That may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that OO.o is not available only for Linux, or even mainly for Linux. Unless v2 is only currently available for Linux, it's in the wrong section.
It's funny, seeing a comment complaining that WMP is too big, and that iTunes gets it right. I've always found exactly the opposite to be the case. But then, I use the WMP toolbar and keep it minimised almost all the time, so all I ever see of WMP is the controls down on the task bar.
In contrast, the last time I used iTunes I couldn't find any way of making it want to take up less than almost all of my avialable screen real estate. That's a pain in the arse when I'm trying to actually do something with my PC whilst listening to music (as I do nearly all day every day at work). Sure, I can alt-tab between it and my other app(s) as necessary, but why bother when I don't have to?
Most mobile phones I've owned have had the ability to set a PIN that must be entered either at phone startup or when unlocking the key pad. Given all the ways in which facial recognition can fail (and I've had a couple of friends in accidents and fights that have left them so brused and swollen *I* had trouble recognising them), what possible advantage is there other than the "wow, cool!" factor?
Why not? Or do you believe in the FUD that closed software is inherently more secure?
Every single security consultant I've ever worked with has taken the view that secure or not, giving potential attackers any information whatsoever is a bad idea. The less they have to work with the harder it is for them.
I appreciate and understand the arguments that many eyes make shallow bugs and that an algorithm that's been peer reviewed is inherently more trustworthy than one that hasn't. I understand that if written correctly, knowledge of the source of an application or algorithm is of little or no use to a potential attacker. However, I'd feel uncomfortable with the source for critical, sensitive applications being made public and I know that no security consultant worth their salt would agree to it.
It is FUD, in that it's born of fear, uncertainty and doubt, but it has nothing to do with closed source being inherently more secure than open source. It has to do with the fact that writing secure code is hard, and that while security through obscurity is not sufficient, security and obscurity is better than security alone. Assume that your secrets will be made public and plan for it, but do your best to prevent it from happening.
When can we look forward to IE being moved to user space? Never?
IE has never been anywhere but in user space. "Integrated into the OS" doesn't mean "runs in kernel space".
When can we look forward to an O/S that doesn't have a re-ocurring fee every three years?
Woah, thanks for letting me know - I'm well overdue on my payment!
Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean? MS generally supports its OSes for about 10 years, which is a damn sight longer than any of the Linux distributions. It's also been longer than three years since XP was released. Finally, just because the OS is no longer supported doesn't mean that it spontaneously stops working. Sure, there are no more security patches for it, but you can still use it, if you feel you're sufficiently secure. A well-controlled PC or network behind a firewall used by savvy people is at almost no risk of being owned.
Why do I have to agree to license a patch (MS05-51) for software I bought that was defective in the first place?
The same reason you have to agree to a licence to use the original software - because of the fiction that you need permission to install the software and load it into RAM, as that constitutes copying. In order to maintain the fiction, MS has to licence its patches, too. (In fact, I can't remember the last (commercial) patch that didn't require a licence click-through)
For that matter, I installed some GPLed software yesterday (Squirrel SQL client) and it required me to agree to the LGPL on installation. MS aren't the only ones with crazy licence agreement requirements...
Unless Vista Windows and Vista Blinds are in the business of selling PC software (and specifically PC operating systems), then I fail to see how there is any trademark conflict or any likelihood of people being confused.
Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".
People feel like they own or are a part of Slashdot.
And with damn good reason, too. We submit the stories. We submit the comments. We pay for (a large proportion of) the running of the site, in subscriptions and ad revenue.
Without the readership, slashdot would be nothing. Yes, I'm sure it takes a lot of hard work to keep it running, but without us there would be no point.
That's a ridiculous comparison even for slashdot.
but if you make modifications, you are volutarely working for Microsoft
Surely that's a good thing, if it results in more MS software being released under more open-source friendly licences?
(It's also no different to any open source project - contribute fixes/features to red hat packages and you're voluntarily working for RH, etc)
So what? As long as it's not patented, how does that prevent a clean-room implementation for Linux?
It's a hell of a lot more likely that what's been happening recently is that rather than being hacked, the maintainers of the linked-to sites have simply put a (referer-based?) redirect in place to mitigate the slashdot effect.
How does copyright threaten Wikipedia or GPLed projects?
Actually, a lot of recipes are protected. When was the last time you cooked up some KFC or made some Coca Cola?
There are a great many ways of making "southern-fried chicken", and you're welcome to follow any recipe you like. You can't make Kentucky Fried Chicken(tm) unless you're KFC. The situation is just the same for software - you're free to write your own word processor, you just can't write Microsoft Word.
According to copyright office, *copying* DVDs for personal use does not fall under the DMCA circumvention provision.
Surely you can perform a bit-wise copy of the disc, thus avoiding circumventing CSS in the first place? No good if you want to rip the movie to Divx to put on a CD or p2p network, etc, but fine for copying for personal use.
Does anyone know why this guy seems to think completely backwards?
He works for the company that will be selling the screens, and you're wondering why he wants to sell as many as possible?
I wish I could break laws and not admit guilt.
You can, you just plead not guilty (or no contest, as another respondent pointed out).
Plenty of people are convicted of crimes without ever admiting their guilt; people spend long times in jail or are even executed, protesting their innocence all the way. In fact, it's rare that someone will plead not guilty, fight the case, lose, then confess and say "Yeah, sorry, I *did* do it".
I don't really see your point; Samsung acted illegally, and now they've been fined for it. What more can be done? You can't destroy the corporation, as you'd be putting a large number of innocent people out of work, creating knock-on effects on suppliers, etc.
Who's responsible, the developers or the managers?
There are two answers to that:
a) the team lead
b) both sets of developers
a) for not mandating at which level the input should be checked, and for not confirming that it was done as specified. b) for not testing it properly, and for not handling the data correctly.
As for where it should be handled, my very strong preference is for it to be handled in both places. The reasons are:
a) never trust your input
b) never pass on crap output
What dismisses my boss from being a journalist, when he tells me that production is ramping up, and I should hurry to get the new systems in place?
Same thing that means that I'm not a journalist just for telling my daughter not to cross the road because there's a car coming.
The Cambridge Dictionaries Online website defines journaism as "the work of collecting, writing and publishing news stories and articles in newspapers and magazines or broadcasting them on the radio and television".
Granted, it should be updated to reflect the rise of online reporting, but I don't think many people would seriously suggest that my telling you that definition counts as journalism, any more than your example qualifies your boss as a journalist.
I don't understand. The bill covers "any entity that disseminates information by... electronic, or other means and that publishes a... periodical in print or electronic form"
An entity is something that has its own independent existence. That covers people as well as companies, and would certainly cover even a loosely organised group of people. An electronically published periodical would seem to me to include a blog, as well as news sites and other more traditional information sources.
Unless the terms have some specific legal meaning that I'm unaware of, what exactly is the problem?
What did you expect? You were critical of the slashdot readership and weren't critical of MS, of course you were modded down.
Slashdot is not about reasoned debate, it's about OSS. Hell, it's not even really about new technology - an awful lot of stories about new tech are full of comments deriding it, often for no real reason other than that it's new and different and so not the commenter's personal preference.
To effect is to bring about; therefore you can say "I effected a change" or similar.
Other that that you're right though, in this context, the word should have been "affected".
Higher prices 'benefit' consumers.
Actually, this will lower prices for anyone it affects. Currently, if you have a four processor box running (e.g.) VMWare, and partition it into four virtual machines, one of which is running SQL Server, you need a four-processor SQL Server licence. Under the change in terms, you'll only need a single-processor licence.
Congrats on getting your "+5, Bashes MS" though.