(My apologies if this has already been covered in another thread, I did have a look, but couldn't see any discussion on the matter...)
Everytime this sort of scheme/site is announced and commented on, there are always a few people who say something like "It'll never work, Open Source software is free by definition, so you can't charge people for it!"
Now, I admit that I haven't read the whole of the GPL, but right near the start is this paragraph:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
(Emphasis added)
Now, that seems pretty clear to me - you can charge for OS software if so you wish, you just have to make the source code available (hence Open Source). Now, whether or not the GPL allows you to prevent others from doing the same, I don't know (and as I'm at work, I don't have the time to read it in its entirity to try and find out:-) ).
Whether you could make enough money for it to be a means of supporting yourself is another matter, but that aside, you quite clearly can sell it according to the terms of the GPL. Open Source does not mean "Free as in Beer" by definition, contrary to what certain people seem to think.
I work for a web hosting/design agency here in the UK, and a site I recently did some of the coding for has, in its terms and conditions, a section that specifically forbids the caching of pages by proxy servers.
Now I very much doubt that they could make it stick in a court, but if nothing else, it shows you the sort of mentality some people coming to the web have these days (not to mentoin showing you the sort of people I have to deal with sometimes:-( )
You prepare fo a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
...and France, and America, and England...:-)
</devil's advocate>
(Okay, so the French Revolution was pretty bad news for all the aristocrats, but IIRC the people were "just" giving as good as they had been getting...)
Statements of opinion, such as "Laurence Godfrey is a litigious twit"
Strictly speaking, that is not a statement of opinion. "I think that Laurence Godfrey is a litigious twit" (which I do, as it happens:-) ) is a statement of opinion. What you said reads (to me at least) as a statement of fact, and could (IMO) be portrayed as such in court...
I completely agree, it is blatently(sp?) obvious that the post reffered to was not a troll.
It was flamebait, and should have been moderated down accordingly.
(why does the free speech movement always pick cases to defend where the one thing you want the defendants to do is shut the fuck up?)
Well, speaking as someone who regards the right to free speech as a very important thing indeed, I have absolutely no desire for either party involved to "shut the fuck up". I'd be quite keen to see people moaning about perceieved moderation abuses to shut up though, although if that's the sort of thing you like spending your time doing, I'm not going to try to stop you.:-)
No, there was no decision, but there was a clear message sent by the settlement - suing ISPs for libel (or threatening to) in the UK is worth it. Demon is one of our biggest, and they folded. There are lots of much smaller ISPs here; how many of them are going to stand up against this sort of thing?
People now know that all they have to do is threaten to sue for libel against a UK ISP, and the ISP is more likely than not to just give in quietly and comply with their demands. We are going to see a lot more cases like this until the government wakes up and realises that they have a choice - put a stop to it, or give up on their idea of Britain becoming "a leading player in the field of e-commerce".
You used the word "customers" 4 times; that's kind of odd, considering that we're not customers.
True, the people behind Slashdot get paid, and true, our hits contribute to the site's advertising revenue (well, those of you that don't use junkbuster or similar...), but unless the bill hasn't reached me yet, I haven't paid them anything for reading this site.
Perhaps we should turn your argument around - don't the staff deserve to be treated properly by their "customers"?
Just because they're getting paid to do what they do does not give people the right to flame them because their story didn't get submitted. I work at a web agency; we do web site design, coding and hosting. Without clients, we wouldn't exist. And do you know what? If one of our customers starts behaving unreasonably, and insulting the staff, we get rid of them.
"The customer is always right" does not apply to abusive ones.
Really? So how come PGP works? Last time I saw (about 30 seconds ago:-) ), you could get the source to compile it yourself (it is, in fact, the prefered method of distribution).
You know exactly what it does, but it's secure, because the algorithm is good.
"Security through obscurity is no security at all."
I always think of a line from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest whenever I hear a "but what good will it do?" type answer/argument;
"At least I tried, dammit, at least I tried."
Roblimo is right - if people don't fight now, then they have little right to complain later if/when they get bitten by it.
Also, don't forget that the rest of the world's software associations are more than likely going to be watching this with a great deal of interest. If it is widely adopted in the US, then the rest of the world's governments may well come under heavy pressure to follow suit. It may not just be your freedom that you fight for...
The credit card laws for fraud in the UK are slightly different than in the US. In as much as you can be liable for all of the bill before you cancelled the card.
As I understand it, this is not the case. Under UK law, if you contest charges made to your credit card account, then it is up to the credit card company to prove that you did make the purchase, not the other way round. True, there is generally an excess (you usually have to pay the first £50), but this is usually waived, and there are credit cards appearing now that do not have such an excess.
I could be wrong, but I thought that that was the whole point to having a credit card (the "pay it off a bit at a time" option isn't that attractive with some APRs being up aroun 20%...).
I think the point was that yes, you could encrypt the key before surrendering it, but you would then be required to hand over the key to decrypt the encrypted key that you just gave them...
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Where to start reading...
on
The Truth
·
· Score: 1
And I'm still waiting for "The Fifth Element" to hit paperback...
That'll be "The Fifth Elephant":-)
Incidently, I don't know if we get them first "over here" or something, but it's been out in paperback in the UK for a while; good book too.
I know they're not popular around these parts, but ever thought of trying amazon.co.uk?
A black hole (in the sense of a gravitational black hole) actually destroys the photons etc.
No, that is not possible; conservation of energy expressly forbids such a thing from happening. In this case, as in all others, the energy is simply converted to some other form.
As for a brick being the same thing, that is also incorrect. The difference is that even the brick reflects light, otherwise you would be unable to see it. A black hole, however, not only does not reflect any light at all, it actually "sucks in" light that strays too close. In the case of the "fluidic black hole", presumably any light that strays too close to the vortex will similarly be sucked in.
...unless, of course (as it states in the article), the dielectric constant of the fluid is sufficiently high. In that case you need only accelerate the fluid to a relatively low speed to achieve the same effect.
As for the comment about centrifugal force, if the fluid were (say) contained inside a closed cylinder, which it nearly filled, it would have nowhere to go, and so, no way to break up. (Although that may not be a problem anyway, if the dielectric constant is sufficiently high; they mention materials which reduce the speed of light down to a few metres per second...)
(It is in big brother's best interest to perpetuate the species)
True; however, it is not in Big Brother's interest to perpetuate the individual, (ie any one person), especially if said individual is a public opponent.
There is a saying to the effect that "it is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees" (or whatever; the meaning is clear enough).
Me, I'm not so sure about the "better dead than slave" bit ("where there's life, there's hope," and all that), but while I am free, I certainly intend to do my best to see that I remain free.
The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that.
If that really is the problem, then surely the solution is simple? Just charge for LiViD. Yes, that's right, make it a *commercial* piece of software. How does a charge of 1 cent sound?
I read it as "The internet was never conceived as the sole preserve of technologically skilled young white men" with an embarrassing typo in the middle:o)
I work for a web design/hosting company in the UK, and the majority of the sites we host are hosted on Solaris boxes, with the database (if any) being Oracle Enterprise Edition.
Yes, NT is pretty prevalent in the business world, but by no means is it the only server platform used for commercial websites.
The war isn't over yet as we still have that 18-25% that insist on using Netscrape. Why do they continue to use it? I wish I knew. But I'll guarantee that their reasons are political.
Not to mention practical - at home, I mostly (like 99.9% of the time) connect to the internet under Linux (because the only thing I do under Windows is play games). Makes it kind of hard to use IE:o)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were some part of a larger plan to get the backing of the less-computer savvy parts of British society for the proposed bill.
Unless they can swing popular opinion behind it, there is little chance that it will be passed. Why? Those who don't understand it or care about it will do nothing, while those of us that do understand it, and oppose it, will do everything we can to ensure that it never comes into force.
On the other hand, if there are enough high-profile, "your money is in danger, even your most personal details!" kind of stories, Jo Public is going to sit up and take notice, and call for the bill's introduction without ever knowing that there is anything bad about it. The majority will buy the party line that it is necessary for their protection, just like the cameras on our streets and public transoprt are. (Not that I'm totally opposed ot them, but there are an awful lot of them these days...)
From the article: "The group is using very sophisticated techniques and has been exchanging information via e-mail and internet chat," said an investigator.
Well, duh. I bet they've been using 'phones and even meeting face to face, too. Maybe I'm reading far too much into this, and letting my paranoia run away with me, but why was this comment even necessary? They've (allegedly) cracked the compuer systems of 12 multinational companies, of course they were using sophisticated techniques!! (To say otherwise would be to imply that it was easy.) Being computer savvy, and net connected, of course they've been communicating via email and "internet chat".
If this isn't part of some conspiracy to get popular support for one of the most potentially dangerous bills that has ever come to my attention, then someone somewhere is probably unable to believe their luck that such a fine supporting story has been handed to them on a plate.
I've heard it time after time, and I never stop to wonder. Why on earth do people think Linux equals cracking-tool ?
Probably because they've bought ino the popular misonception that hacker = crackr, then hear someone refer to Linux as being "more a hacker's OS". (As opposed to being suitable for someone who thinks that they're using Windows 97, because that's the version of Office they've got installed:o) )
Slashdot Mirror
(My apologies if this has already been covered in another thread, I did have a look, but couldn't see any discussion on the matter...)
:-) ).
Everytime this sort of scheme/site is announced and commented on, there are always a few people who say something like "It'll never work, Open Source software is free by definition, so you can't charge people for it!"
Now, I admit that I haven't read the whole of the GPL, but right near the start is this paragraph:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
(Emphasis added)
Now, that seems pretty clear to me - you can charge for OS software if so you wish, you just have to make the source code available (hence Open Source). Now, whether or not the GPL allows you to prevent others from doing the same, I don't know (and as I'm at work, I don't have the time to read it in its entirity to try and find out
Whether you could make enough money for it to be a means of supporting yourself is another matter, but that aside, you quite clearly can sell it according to the terms of the GPL. Open Source does not mean "Free as in Beer" by definition, contrary to what certain people seem to think.
Cheers,
Tim
Speaking of terms and conditions on sites...
:-( )
I work for a web hosting/design agency here in the UK, and a site I recently did some of the coding for has, in its terms and conditions, a section that specifically forbids the caching of pages by proxy servers.
Now I very much doubt that they could make it stick in a court, but if nothing else, it shows you the sort of mentality some people coming to the web have these days (not to mentoin showing you the sort of people I have to deal with sometimes
Cheers,
Tim
You prepare fo a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
...and France, and America, and England...
</devil's advocate>
(Okay, so the French Revolution was pretty bad news for all the aristocrats, but IIRC the people were "just" giving as good as they had been getting...)
Cheers,
Tim
Statements of opinion, such as "Laurence Godfrey is a litigious twit"
:-) ) is a statement of opinion. What you said reads (to me at least) as a statement of fact, and could (IMO) be portrayed as such in court...
Strictly speaking, that is not a statement of opinion. "I think that Laurence Godfrey is a litigious twit" (which I do, as it happens
Cheers,
Tim
I completely agree, it is blatently(sp?) obvious that the post reffered to was not a troll.
:-)
It was flamebait, and should have been moderated down accordingly.
(why does the free speech movement always pick cases to defend where the one thing you want the defendants to do is shut the fuck up?)
Well, speaking as someone who regards the right to free speech as a very important thing indeed, I have absolutely no desire for either party involved to "shut the fuck up". I'd be quite keen to see people moaning about perceieved moderation abuses to shut up though, although if that's the sort of thing you like spending your time doing, I'm not going to try to stop you.
Cheers,
Tim
Pre-marital sex is a different category; in order for it to be adultery, at least one of the participants must be married.
:-)
Hope that helps
Tim
No, there was no decision, but there was a clear message sent by the settlement - suing ISPs for libel (or threatening to) in the UK is worth it. Demon is one of our biggest, and they folded. There are lots of much smaller ISPs here; how many of them are going to stand up against this sort of thing?
People now know that all they have to do is threaten to sue for libel against a UK ISP, and the ISP is more likely than not to just give in quietly and comply with their demands. We are going to see a lot more cases like this until the government wakes up and realises that they have a choice - put a stop to it, or give up on their idea of Britain becoming "a leading player in the field of e-commerce".
Cheers,
Tim
Erm, this is a preview release, right? That's "preview" as in "beta" as in "don't expect it to be 100% bug free"?
Perhaps we should wait until the official release before criticising it for its bugs...
Cheers,
Tim
You used the word "customers" 4 times; that's kind of odd, considering that we're not customers.
True, the people behind Slashdot get paid, and true, our hits contribute to the site's advertising revenue (well, those of you that don't use junkbuster or similar...), but unless the bill hasn't reached me yet, I haven't paid them anything for reading this site.
Perhaps we should turn your argument around - don't the staff deserve to be treated properly by their "customers"?
Just because they're getting paid to do what they do does not give people the right to flame them because their story didn't get submitted. I work at a web agency; we do web site design, coding and hosting. Without clients, we wouldn't exist. And do you know what? If one of our customers starts behaving unreasonably, and insulting the staff, we get rid of them.
"The customer is always right" does not apply to abusive ones.
Tim
"Oh, and one more thing:
:)
And we don't post any submission that contains the word Linux or Microsoft."
Hhhhmmmm....
It actually says "And we don't post any submission just because it contains the word Linux or Microsoft. " (emphasis added).
Does it make more sense now?
Cheers,
Tim
Really? So how come PGP works? Last time I saw (about 30 seconds ago :-) ), you could get the source to compile it yourself (it is, in fact, the prefered method of distribution).
You know exactly what it does, but it's secure, because the algorithm is good.
"Security through obscurity is no security at all."
Cheers,
Tim
I always think of a line from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest whenever I hear a "but what good will it do?" type answer/argument;
"At least I tried, dammit, at least I tried."
Roblimo is right - if people don't fight now, then they have little right to complain later if/when they get bitten by it.
Also, don't forget that the rest of the world's software associations are more than likely going to be watching this with a great deal of interest. If it is widely adopted in the US, then the rest of the world's governments may well come under heavy pressure to follow suit. It may not just be your freedom that you fight for...
Cheers,
Tim
The credit card laws for fraud in the UK are slightly different than in the US. In as much as you can be liable for all of the bill before you cancelled the card.
As I understand it, this is not the case. Under UK law, if you contest charges made to your credit card account, then it is up to the credit card company to prove that you did make the purchase, not the other way round. True, there is generally an excess (you usually have to pay the first £50), but this is usually waived, and there are credit cards appearing now that do not have such an excess.
I could be wrong, but I thought that that was the whole point to having a credit card (the "pay it off a bit at a time" option isn't that attractive with some APRs being up aroun 20%...).
Cheers,
Tim
I think the point was that yes, you could encrypt the key before surrendering it, but you would then be required to hand over the key to decrypt the encrypted key that you just gave them...
Cheers,
Tim
And I'm still waiting for "The Fifth Element" to hit paperback...
:-)
That'll be "The Fifth Elephant"
Incidently, I don't know if we get them first "over here" or something, but it's been out in paperback in the UK for a while; good book too.
I know they're not popular around these parts, but ever thought of trying amazon.co.uk?
Cheers,
Tim
A black hole (in the sense of a gravitational black hole) actually destroys the photons etc.
No, that is not possible; conservation of energy expressly forbids such a thing from happening. In this case, as in all others, the energy is simply converted to some other form.
As for a brick being the same thing, that is also incorrect. The difference is that even the brick reflects light, otherwise you would be unable to see it. A black hole, however, not only does not reflect any light at all, it actually "sucks in" light that strays too close. In the case of the "fluidic black hole", presumably any light that strays too close to the vortex will similarly be sucked in.
Cheers,
Tim
...unless, of course (as it states in the article), the dielectric constant of the fluid is sufficiently high. In that case you need only accelerate the fluid to a relatively low speed to achieve the same effect.
As for the comment about centrifugal force, if the fluid were (say) contained inside a closed cylinder, which it nearly filled, it would have nowhere to go, and so, no way to break up. (Although that may not be a problem anyway, if the dielectric constant is sufficiently high; they mention materials which reduce the speed of light down to a few metres per second...)
Cheers,
Tim
(It is in big brother's best interest to perpetuate the species)
True; however, it is not in Big Brother's interest to perpetuate the individual, (ie any one person), especially if said individual is a public opponent.
There is a saying to the effect that "it is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees" (or whatever; the meaning is clear enough).
Me, I'm not so sure about the "better dead than slave" bit ("where there's life, there's hope," and all that), but while I am free, I certainly intend to do my best to see that I remain free.
Tim
The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that.
If that really is the problem, then surely the solution is simple? Just charge for LiViD. Yes, that's right, make it a *commercial* piece of software. How does a charge of 1 cent sound?
Just a thought.
Tim
I read it as "The internet was never conceived as the sole preserve of technologically skilled young white men" with an embarrassing typo in the middle :o)
Cheers,
Tim
I work for a web design/hosting company in the UK, and the majority of the sites we host are hosted on Solaris boxes, with the database (if any) being Oracle Enterprise Edition.
Yes, NT is pretty prevalent in the business world, but by no means is it the only server platform used for commercial websites.
Tim
The war isn't over yet as we still have that 18-25% that insist on using Netscrape. Why do they continue to use it? I wish I knew. But I'll guarantee that their reasons are political.
:o)
Not to mention practical - at home, I mostly (like 99.9% of the time) connect to the internet under Linux (because the only thing I do under Windows is play games). Makes it kind of hard to use IE
Tim
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were some part of a larger plan to get the backing of the less-computer savvy parts of British society for the proposed bill.
Unless they can swing popular opinion behind it, there is little chance that it will be passed. Why? Those who don't understand it or care about it will do nothing, while those of us that do understand it, and oppose it, will do everything we can to ensure that it never comes into force.
On the other hand, if there are enough high-profile, "your money is in danger, even your most personal details!" kind of stories, Jo Public is going to sit up and take notice, and call for the bill's introduction without ever knowing that there is anything bad about it. The majority will buy the party line that it is necessary for their protection, just like the cameras on our streets and public transoprt are. (Not that I'm totally opposed ot them, but there are an awful lot of them these days...)
From the article:
"The group is using very sophisticated techniques and has been exchanging information via e-mail and internet chat," said an investigator.
Well, duh. I bet they've been using 'phones and even meeting face to face, too. Maybe I'm reading far too much into this, and letting my paranoia run away with me, but why was this comment even necessary? They've (allegedly) cracked the compuer systems of 12 multinational companies, of course they were using sophisticated techniques!! (To say otherwise would be to imply that it was easy.) Being computer savvy, and net connected, of course they've been communicating via email and "internet chat".
If this isn't part of some conspiracy to get popular support for one of the most potentially dangerous bills that has ever come to my attention, then someone somewhere is probably unable to believe their luck that such a fine supporting story has been handed to them on a plate.
Cheers,
Tim
I've heard it time after time, and I never stop to wonder. Why on earth do people think Linux equals cracking-tool ?
:o) )
Probably because they've bought ino the popular misonception that hacker = crackr, then hear someone refer to Linux as being "more a hacker's OS". (As opposed to being suitable for someone who thinks that they're using Windows 97, because that's the version of Office they've got installed
Just a thought.
Tim
It's an example of one of the horrible multi-functional applications that do many things imperfectly.
:o)
Well, it is meant to be a replacement for MS Office
(Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Tim