I would take serious issue with your suggestion that whether or not Katz's article raises issues that could be thought about or debated rests entirely on the legitimacy of an email from Afganistan!
It's really pretty shallow to suggest that the pervasiveness of technology, and the influence of American culture (in contrast to the influence of American bombs) is not an issue worthy of discussion.
You're really reaching here. Katz's entire article was predicated on the email. If he wanted to provoke discussion on the issues he's referring to, he should have discussed them without basing his article on an email of dubious provenance. As they say in the legal world, his article is fruit of the poisoned tree.
Checking the facts upon which one's articles are based is a basic tenet of journalism, and all the evidence indicates that Katz has violated this. That is the premise upon which I base my assessment of Katz's capabilities as a journalist. The very fact that he posted something so questionable without a clearer explanation of the source or context, even if it is real, is poor journalism.
Certainly, Katz might yet produce evidence backing up his suspicious story. Like others here, I am eager to see that, and will certainly post an apology in the unlikely event that I am wrong.
I was wrong about one thing, though: Katz's latest blunder was clearly not beyond any possibility of defense, since you are defending it. I respect your trusting attitude, but I think you are very likely to be proved wrong. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and everything to do with basic factual contradictions. I think the most likely theory is that Katz simply got carried away and exaggerated something beyond what could be sustained by the facts he had access to.
Remember Young ones. E-mail dosen't require direct internet access. People we exchanging e-mail over fido-net and USENET years before the internet was really accessable.
Could someone point me to the URL for DIVX-over-SMTP???
So how do you explain the bit about downloading movies on a Commodore over a connection of unknown quality & bandwidth, to take just the most glaring problem with the story?
As for the fact that Junis had allegedly emailed Katz before, if Katz wrote about that for Hotwired, perhaps someone trolled him using that knowledge. If so, it would qualify as the best/. troll ever!
Either that, or Katz is exaggerating and adding details to suit his story, or simply completely inventing Junis - which would be even worse than if he was trolled. This is a hole out of which Katz cannot dig himself - he finally seems to have exposed his cluelessness and/or deceitfulness beyond any possibility of a plausible defense.
Too many people want to validate conspiracy theories instead of debating the ideas Katz brings up.
So let me get this straight: we're supposed to debate ideas Katz brings up as a result of being trolled? You claim he's a "respected geek journalist". There's only one problem with that - the article we're responding to has nothing in common with any kind of journalism. It has all the credibility of the original hoax that Katz seems to have fallen for. The only debate here is about what disrepute Katz brings to the term "journalist".
However, in stodgy old binary, the levels are typically something like 0 Volts (i.e. "off") and 5 Volts (or 3.5 Volts). A "typical" ternary system would add a negative voltage, like -5V (or -3.5V), since that's easier to detect reliably than an intermediate positive voltage value.
So to answer your question, yes a "third state of electricity" is used, one which was previously being ignored in binary circuits. Instead of on, off, and dim, think of positive, off, and negative.
According to the XLISP home page, the Bob source code was last updated today (oh, ok, maybe in response to the/. article). But at least the author is out there and paying attention...
The point you miss is that when all the tools support XML, from developer's application-building tools to client tools like browsers, there can be unforeseen "network" benefits to using XML.
You mentioned configuration files: if all you're talking about is a linear config file, then XML might not give much benefit. But if your config file has a hierarchical structure, XML does provide a benefit, since it provides a well-defined and standard way to represent that hierarchical structure. In addition, XML-aware editors make it easier to work with these files, plus you don't have to write a specialized parser for it, plus you can display the file in an XML-aware browser, plus you can run automated transformations on the file, plus...
XML is one technology where the mindless adoption by people who don't really understand why they're adopting it, may in fact be of benefit to everyone in the long run.
XML is the first and closest thing we have to a universal standard data format. We're better off having such a thing than not having it. Since XML is the first such format, naturally it has its problems and limitations. But it's a step in the right direction, and we'll only find out how best to improve it if we use it heavily.
On the subject of the article, though, you're right. Whether a database's native representation is XML is irrelevant.
Re:Why 'Sorcerer's Stone' and not Philosopher's st
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 2
No, it's because the English think that Americans are too stupid to understand what the Philosopher's Stone is.
I think it's far more likely that the American marketing department of Time Warner et al thought that Americans wouldn't recognize the Philosopher's Stone. One thing top-tier marketers in America never do is overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of their audience...
There are plenty of ways to sell Linux to top executives. You just have to understand how to do it. Using Microsoft as an application development platform creates huge business risk: a single vendor dependency, even if that vendor is the current 500lb gorilla, Microsoft, is never a good idea, especially when that vendor takes every opportunity to eschew and subvert standards. You might be surprised how this argument alone is enough to make many completely non-technical top execs pay attention instantly. Execs don't like risks, and they especially don't like them when they're risks they either haven't thought of before, of have thought of but don't know how to deal with. Show them a way to manage that risk, and they'll eat out of your hand.
as a result a large, large segement of Linux users have become these aimless zealots who don't even know why they use Linux any more other than to crush Microsoft. And as such, Linux has lost.
This is just the normal evolution of any social movement. In the beginning, it's small and consists mainly of people who understand why they're doing what they're doing. As it grows, it picks up "groupies", in effect, who are in it for the cool factor and because they see these other people, whom they admire, doing it. None of this affects the real reasons why the people who know why they're using (and developing!) Linux, use Linux. So the fundamentals haven't changed.
As for the anti-Microsoft focus, the reason for that, in case you haven't noticed, is that we're surrounded by Microsoft, and this is not a good thing! Everywhere you look, people are crashing and cursing their computers and fetishistically running scandisk and installing more and more antivirus software and wondering if their new XP license is going to expire before they get to a phone to call for renewal. Even if Linux didn't exist, people would still bash Microsoft. Heck, many Linux-ignorant Microsoft users bash Microsoft.
Linux hasn't lost anything just because it's seen as a potential haven and refuge from the most egregious monopoly that's been seen for decades. Linux can only win. In fact, the real virtue of Linux is really, really, simple: ultimately, it cannot lose. It is the operating system that the people of this planet have chosen to create cooperatively. Until all of those people decide to switch their efforts to something else, Linux isn't going anywhere, or losing anything.
Wasn't that the time that Microsoft had disperate need to show to DepOfJustice that they still _had_ some competitions?
Yes, but if the Halloween documents were truly leaked intentionally for that purpose, it may have backfired on Microsoft pretty badly. A lot of people started taking Linux more seriously after those documents were released - Microsoft basically was seen to acknowledged Linux as a serious competitor, apparently in private and not just as a courtroom claim.
From a marketing perspective, this sucks for Microsoft. This latest memo does something similar. The more frightened Microsoft gets, the harder they squeeze to "eliminate" Linux, the more customers will slip through their fingers. I presented at a meeting yesterday in which I explained to two CEOs - one of a business with 300 employees, and one with annual revenues in the billion dollar range - why we were moving some of their key in-house applications away from Microsoft development products, and they were nodding in agreement. They've heard the news stories. Microsoft can no longer fight the bad PR, except by becoming a genuinely responsible company (and how likely is that?)
It's sort of funny to see the memos plaintively wondering why clients are moving to Linux. I suppose it's tough for Microsoft to admit the truth to itself: "because our business practices suck, and customers are sick of us!"
Ok...that was just silly. I am an American citizen. I vote AND write my congress.
Believe it or not, I didn't actually mean that as any kind of insult, just a reflection of the fact that having a more public presence, Cox is more likely to have an impact than you, unless you are actually active in politics in some way, beyond simply voting and writing your congressperson.
By doing what he's doing, Alan Cox is preaching to the choir and alienating americans.
You're only alienated if you choose to be alienated. While you may not have voted for the DMCA, nevertheless your elected representatives did. There's a problem there, which may stem from issues like campaign finance that allow corporations to purchase legislation, and from politicians and their staffs being undereducated on information technology and its social implications. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a problem, and I think it only helps the cause if people outside the US make it clear that they perceive a problem.
Yet, he is "punishing" us because of his ego. He thinks he is important enough that he'll make a difference.
Actually, as some other people have pointed out, his position may be much more pragmatic than political - he doesn't want to expose himself to unnecessary risks. Either way, though, I think you underestimate the value of apparently "token" actions like those Alan has taken. It all adds up. Symbolic gestures are often the things that get people thinking about something, and they propagate through society in unexpected and unpredictable ways. If everyone simply sits back and accepts the situation, you can be sure that nothing will ever change. Alan has made it clear that he perceives a problem, and that's important.
If we're not making a difference here, he won't make a difference concealing details about something most, if not all, congressmen have never even heard of.
But he can now be pointed to as an example of how the DMCA is affecting the willingness of the international community to collaborate on technological projects with the U.S. There are similarities to the Felten case. This hasn't happened yet, but he's just one more piece of evidence in the case against the DMCA. He alone is certainly unlikely to change anything, but again, change has to start somewhere.
Taking action in the certain expectation of criticism like yours is part of what makes what Alan's actions admirable. He's doing what he thinks is right and necessary. You're choosing to interpret that as some kind of personal insult, but I think you're wrong to see it that way. Alan, whether wrong or right, is at least taking a stand and a position that has a chance to have an effect.
I, for one, am just glad that he's not going to maintain the 2.4 kernel.
I don't really understand the connection - this just seems petty to me. You can get hold of the changelogs if you want them, just not from Alan, so that's not really an issue. You object to anyone outside the US pointing to the stupidity of a US law? Why? He's on your side, whether you realize it or not. Don't be so sensitive - the US can withstand a bit of bashing, especially when it deserves it, and it doesn't have to be a reflection on you personally.
The "nonsense" here is the DMCA. Alan's is actually quite a rational response. If he ever finds himself accused under the DMCA, he can point to the fact that once apprised of his legal situation, he took proactive steps to change it. This would certainly mitigate if not eliminate any liability or guilt he has under the law.
Perhaps I should suggest to the FBI that Alan is a known multiple violator of the DMCA and they should extradite him?
If your copyrights were being violated in some way that had to do with previous Linux changelogs, you might be able to do just that, although it might depend on the details of the extradition treaties. What's your point?
Anyone see how Alan's soapboxism is silly now?
No. As you say, you're not as well known as Alan - and not being well-known, you're not exposed to the legal risks, due to greater scrutiny, to which higher-profile people are often subject. I'm sure Sklyarov is really glad to hear that you don't think the DMCA is anything to worry about.
Assuming we knew anything in the first place...
on
New AIBO Demo'd
·
· Score: 2
In the article you reference, the site in question was making Sony copyrighted material available for download, without Sony's consent. Sony is well within its rights to attempt to prevent that, and in fact could have gone further by having the site shut down by its ISP, under the provisions of the DMCA. Kudos to Sony for not doing that.
A separate issue is Sony's claim against the distribution of independently-created programs for the Aibo. In this area, Sony is attempting to use the DMCA in an unfortunate way. But while the sites providing such information are violating more basic, longstanding tenets of copyright law, they don't have the slightest chance of being taken seriously.
The creation of content for a platform, based on reverse engineering of that platform, has some legal precedent. The "unauthorized" creation of games for Nintendo consoles was one example that actually went to court and was found to be legal. If the DMCA prevents such actions, independently created programs for the Aibo would make a good basis for a test case to have these provisions overturned. However, the waters are so badly muddied by the distribution of Sony's copyrighted material, that a successful legal defense of these sites is probably all but impossible. These sites bring this on themselves - they should stick to distributing things that they have created, and they'll be on much firmer ground, and might even find that organizations like the EFF or ACLU would be willing to defend them.
The DMCA is a U.S. law. Dmitri Skylarov was arrested while breaking the DMCA on U.S. soil.
Not a law student, I take it. If Alan makes information available across the Internet to Americans, that violates a US law, Alan has violated US law and can be arrested when he enters the country. To take a less ephemeral example, imagine if a Colombian mails you a package of cocaine and puts his name and return address on the package. You don't think he could be arrested on entry to the US? By your logic, Osama bin Laden could not be arrested if he flew into JFK tomorrow, because he has never personally committed a crime on US soil.
The federal goverment does not actively seek out violators of the DMCA without a "victim" bringing the violation to their attention.
Do you think Sklyarov knew that his "victims" had filed a complaint against him, before he was arrested? How is Alan going to know when it is or isn't safe to travel to the US? Tivo might decide to bring a complaint because Alan has enabled people to more easily crack their boxes, for example. Linux has far wider scope, and many more applications, than anything Sklyarov ever did.
This business of having draconian laws which are enforced at the authorities discretion is very dangerous. It restricts freedom in all sorts of ways, and often results in people restricting their own freedoms, and those of others - as Alan has done - in order to "play it safe". Laws like this take away basic freedoms in an insidious, indirect way that would never be possible if done directly.
If you're saying that you support the DMCA as written, then I suppose we have a total different argument which we haven't even begun to address. But if you don't support the DMCA, you should respect Alan Cox's right to respond to it.
Alan Cox is doing more for freedom in America than you have ever done. Think about that the next time you criticize.
What if, besides caruso, Intel's compiler is actually a BETTER compiler than gcc on intel hardware?
Another one who learned the pronunciation of "Crusoe" from the Gilligan's Island theme song!
Re:Gravity and what Physics says
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
Part of the problem is thinking that there has to be a 'why'. There doesn't;
People can be forgiven for thinking that there must be a "why", because physics and indeed all of science is all about answering "why". The only problem is that science never provides an absolute and total answer, which may be, as you say, because there isn't one.
But the lack of an "ultimate answer" is disturbing to many people, so religion, which also attempts to answer the "why" question, is often used to fill the gap that science leaves. So it's not surprising that this whole issue of ultimate cause is often used as a justification for the existence of deities.
the fundamental laws of the universe work the way they do *just because*. If the Big Bang had turned out a little differently then so would these fundamental laws; Planck's Constant, for example, could be any number of values depending on the properties of the initial creation of the universe. There's no 'why' to it, nor does there need to be.
Except that you've just given a "why": that at least some fundamental laws and constants were determined by the Big Bang. That could raise question of why the Big Bang happened the way it did - which, of course, is an area of intense study.
The problem is figuring out which things have a why and which things don't. For example, we might still learn more about "why mass warps spacetime", once they figure out that all the theories about the Higgs boson are wrong...;)
Re:Gravity and what Physics says
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But that Gravity quote seemed sort of silly. It doesn't actually explain why matter inherently comes back into existence closer to large objects.
That same problem applies to all of our physical theories about the universe, at some level. Newton's theory of gravity did not explain why massive objects attract each other - they just do. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does not explain why spacetime warps in the presence of mass - it just does.
All we can really do with our theories is describe what we observe, and develop predictive models. Physics doesn't provide an ultimate answer to the question of "why" - it only ever provides local answers, pushing back the "why" to a different level.
Scott Adams' theory of gravity does this too, and is actually quite comparable to Newton's theory. In fact, I'm sure it would be possible to develop an Adamsian theory that's the equal of Newton's theory in all predictive respects - but you would ultimately find that you could dispense with the winking in and out of existence stuff, just as Einstein was able to dispense with the ether as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. As you pointed out with the carrier pigeon example, if something can't be detected, and doesn't add predictive value to a theory, to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
From the position of Free Software vs Non-Free Software, the issue is not about price but about liberty. If a given peice of software takes away your liberty, then it has harm.
By advertising non-free software, you are in a way saying that it's okay to harm others.
That's a completely subjective position. As a user of both free and non-free software, by choice, I don't feel that my liberty has been taken away by my choice to use some non-free software. Therefore your statements don't apply. As a user of GNOME, I find it useful, relevant, and interesting to be told about applications that are available for it, whether free or not.
If freedom and liberty are so important, why is RMS attempting to restrict free speech, and restrict the information that I receive from the GNOME Foundation? Does the importance of freedom in software override the importance of freedom in other areas, such as speech?
The mark of a fanatic is when the fanatic's cause overrides all other considerations.
I laughed when I saw this: "Gates has played a key role in establishing software as a copyrighted good (Open Letter to Lobbyists, 1976)." Perhaps if Gates had been paying more attention to lobbyists back in '76, he could have forestalled all this pesky DOJ stuff!
Of course, the author meant to refer to An Open Letter to Hobbyists. One wonders if this mistake was made by the original author, or by well-meaning but ignorant editors.
This piece is typical first-MBA-thesis quality, and I agree it casts doubt on the quality of the peer review and the site that publishes it.
Are the big companies, in using Linux here and there in order to gain developer-share in the community, hurting Linux and OS or helping them, in your opinion?
Once software has been open-source licensed, it's out there and won't go away, unless it has no merit or appeal to anyone. So it would be difficult for companies like IBM to "hurt" open source by open sourcing more of their software.
Besides, IBM's open source efforts are unlikely to "sour", even if IBM changes direction in future. IBM is going into this with its eyes open, and the people behind this movement aren't naive. The money they're spending on open source can be likened to a marketing budget - the $40 million which Eclipse allegedly cost to develop isn't even enough for a national TV advertising campaign. But it goes beyond marketing - it's strategic, and attracts developers away from their competitors, some of whom don't have a good response to open source (Microsoft) and some of whom are already playing in this space (Sun, with Forte/Netbeans).
So while the big guys duke it out in a "race to the bottom" in terms of the cost and openness of certain kinds of software, we the audience should sit back and enjoy the results. It's competition, and we all benefit from it.
I can't let some innocent young person read what you wrote without the chance to hear a second voice.
Ah, a propagator of the received wisdom of our forefathers, I was expecting you...
"An analogy would be to compare primitive Mesopotamian clay sculptures to more modern artwork..."
I struggle to think of a less valid analogy.
Thank you - my work was not in vain!
Personally I find love, hope, faith, unfairness, treachery, sacrifice and so on pretty interesting.
That's just your reptilian hindbrain talking. You probably enjoy Star Trek then, and think of it as science fiction rather than space opera.
I'll close with the immortal words of Karl Popper, who defended trolls everywhere when he said of an incident in which Wittgenstein stormed out of a Popper lecture at the philosophy society at Cambridge:
"The incident was, in part, attributable to my custom, whenever I am invited to speak in some place, of trying to develop some consequences of my views which I expect to be unacceptable to the particular audience. For I believe there is only one excuse for a lecture: to challenge. It is the only way in which speech can be better than print."
Slashdot Mirror
Checking the facts upon which one's articles are based is a basic tenet of journalism, and all the evidence indicates that Katz has violated this. That is the premise upon which I base my assessment of Katz's capabilities as a journalist. The very fact that he posted something so questionable without a clearer explanation of the source or context, even if it is real, is poor journalism.
Certainly, Katz might yet produce evidence backing up his suspicious story. Like others here, I am eager to see that, and will certainly post an apology in the unlikely event that I am wrong.
I was wrong about one thing, though: Katz's latest blunder was clearly not beyond any possibility of defense, since you are defending it. I respect your trusting attitude, but I think you are very likely to be proved wrong. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and everything to do with basic factual contradictions. I think the most likely theory is that Katz simply got carried away and exaggerated something beyond what could be sustained by the facts he had access to.
Could someone point me to the URL for DIVX-over-SMTP???
As for the fact that Junis had allegedly emailed Katz before, if Katz wrote about that for Hotwired, perhaps someone trolled him using that knowledge. If so, it would qualify as the best /. troll ever!
Either that, or Katz is exaggerating and adding details to suit his story, or simply completely inventing Junis - which would be even worse than if he was trolled. This is a hole out of which Katz cannot dig himself - he finally seems to have exposed his cluelessness and/or deceitfulness beyond any possibility of a plausible defense.
So let me get this straight: we're supposed to debate ideas Katz brings up as a result of being trolled? You claim he's a "respected geek journalist". There's only one problem with that - the article we're responding to has nothing in common with any kind of journalism. It has all the credibility of the original hoax that Katz seems to have fallen for. The only debate here is about what disrepute Katz brings to the term "journalist".
However, in stodgy old binary, the levels are typically something like 0 Volts (i.e. "off") and 5 Volts (or 3.5 Volts). A "typical" ternary system would add a negative voltage, like -5V (or -3.5V), since that's easier to detect reliably than an intermediate positive voltage value.
So to answer your question, yes a "third state of electricity" is used, one which was previously being ignored in binary circuits. Instead of on, off, and dim, think of positive, off, and negative.
According to the XLISP home page, the Bob source code was last updated today (oh, ok, maybe in response to the /. article). But at least the author is out there and paying attention...
Nice to see some solid and useful info being posted on /. every now and then...
You mentioned configuration files: if all you're talking about is a linear config file, then XML might not give much benefit. But if your config file has a hierarchical structure, XML does provide a benefit, since it provides a well-defined and standard way to represent that hierarchical structure. In addition, XML-aware editors make it easier to work with these files, plus you don't have to write a specialized parser for it, plus you can display the file in an XML-aware browser, plus you can run automated transformations on the file, plus...
XML is one technology where the mindless adoption by people who don't really understand why they're adopting it, may in fact be of benefit to everyone in the long run.
XML is the first and closest thing we have to a universal standard data format. We're better off having such a thing than not having it. Since XML is the first such format, naturally it has its problems and limitations. But it's a step in the right direction, and we'll only find out how best to improve it if we use it heavily.
On the subject of the article, though, you're right. Whether a database's native representation is XML is irrelevant.
I think it's far more likely that the American marketing department of Time Warner et al thought that Americans wouldn't recognize the Philosopher's Stone. One thing top-tier marketers in America never do is overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of their audience...
This is just the normal evolution of any social movement. In the beginning, it's small and consists mainly of people who understand why they're doing what they're doing. As it grows, it picks up "groupies", in effect, who are in it for the cool factor and because they see these other people, whom they admire, doing it. None of this affects the real reasons why the people who know why they're using (and developing!) Linux, use Linux. So the fundamentals haven't changed.
As for the anti-Microsoft focus, the reason for that, in case you haven't noticed, is that we're surrounded by Microsoft, and this is not a good thing! Everywhere you look, people are crashing and cursing their computers and fetishistically running scandisk and installing more and more antivirus software and wondering if their new XP license is going to expire before they get to a phone to call for renewal. Even if Linux didn't exist, people would still bash Microsoft. Heck, many Linux-ignorant Microsoft users bash Microsoft.
Linux hasn't lost anything just because it's seen as a potential haven and refuge from the most egregious monopoly that's been seen for decades. Linux can only win. In fact, the real virtue of Linux is really, really, simple: ultimately, it cannot lose. It is the operating system that the people of this planet have chosen to create cooperatively. Until all of those people decide to switch their efforts to something else, Linux isn't going anywhere, or losing anything.
Yes, but if the Halloween documents were truly leaked intentionally for that purpose, it may have backfired on Microsoft pretty badly. A lot of people started taking Linux more seriously after those documents were released - Microsoft basically was seen to acknowledged Linux as a serious competitor, apparently in private and not just as a courtroom claim.
From a marketing perspective, this sucks for Microsoft. This latest memo does something similar. The more frightened Microsoft gets, the harder they squeeze to "eliminate" Linux, the more customers will slip through their fingers. I presented at a meeting yesterday in which I explained to two CEOs - one of a business with 300 employees, and one with annual revenues in the billion dollar range - why we were moving some of their key in-house applications away from Microsoft development products, and they were nodding in agreement. They've heard the news stories. Microsoft can no longer fight the bad PR, except by becoming a genuinely responsible company (and how likely is that?)
It's sort of funny to see the memos plaintively wondering why clients are moving to Linux. I suppose it's tough for Microsoft to admit the truth to itself: "because our business practices suck, and customers are sick of us!"
Believe it or not, I didn't actually mean that as any kind of insult, just a reflection of the fact that having a more public presence, Cox is more likely to have an impact than you, unless you are actually active in politics in some way, beyond simply voting and writing your congressperson.
By doing what he's doing, Alan Cox is preaching to the choir and alienating americans.
You're only alienated if you choose to be alienated. While you may not have voted for the DMCA, nevertheless your elected representatives did. There's a problem there, which may stem from issues like campaign finance that allow corporations to purchase legislation, and from politicians and their staffs being undereducated on information technology and its social implications. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a problem, and I think it only helps the cause if people outside the US make it clear that they perceive a problem.
Yet, he is "punishing" us because of his ego. He thinks he is important enough that he'll make a difference.
Actually, as some other people have pointed out, his position may be much more pragmatic than political - he doesn't want to expose himself to unnecessary risks. Either way, though, I think you underestimate the value of apparently "token" actions like those Alan has taken. It all adds up. Symbolic gestures are often the things that get people thinking about something, and they propagate through society in unexpected and unpredictable ways. If everyone simply sits back and accepts the situation, you can be sure that nothing will ever change. Alan has made it clear that he perceives a problem, and that's important.
If we're not making a difference here, he won't make a difference concealing details about something most, if not all, congressmen have never even heard of.
But he can now be pointed to as an example of how the DMCA is affecting the willingness of the international community to collaborate on technological projects with the U.S. There are similarities to the Felten case. This hasn't happened yet, but he's just one more piece of evidence in the case against the DMCA. He alone is certainly unlikely to change anything, but again, change has to start somewhere.
Taking action in the certain expectation of criticism like yours is part of what makes what Alan's actions admirable. He's doing what he thinks is right and necessary. You're choosing to interpret that as some kind of personal insult, but I think you're wrong to see it that way. Alan, whether wrong or right, is at least taking a stand and a position that has a chance to have an effect.
I, for one, am just glad that he's not going to maintain the 2.4 kernel.
I don't really understand the connection - this just seems petty to me. You can get hold of the changelogs if you want them, just not from Alan, so that's not really an issue. You object to anyone outside the US pointing to the stupidity of a US law? Why? He's on your side, whether you realize it or not. Don't be so sensitive - the US can withstand a bit of bashing, especially when it deserves it, and it doesn't have to be a reflection on you personally.
The "nonsense" here is the DMCA. Alan's is actually quite a rational response. If he ever finds himself accused under the DMCA, he can point to the fact that once apprised of his legal situation, he took proactive steps to change it. This would certainly mitigate if not eliminate any liability or guilt he has under the law.
Perhaps I should suggest to the FBI that Alan is a known multiple violator of the DMCA and they should extradite him?
If your copyrights were being violated in some way that had to do with previous Linux changelogs, you might be able to do just that, although it might depend on the details of the extradition treaties. What's your point?
Anyone see how Alan's soapboxism is silly now?
No. As you say, you're not as well known as Alan - and not being well-known, you're not exposed to the legal risks, due to greater scrutiny, to which higher-profile people are often subject. I'm sure Sklyarov is really glad to hear that you don't think the DMCA is anything to worry about.
A separate issue is Sony's claim against the distribution of independently-created programs for the Aibo. In this area, Sony is attempting to use the DMCA in an unfortunate way. But while the sites providing such information are violating more basic, longstanding tenets of copyright law, they don't have the slightest chance of being taken seriously.
The creation of content for a platform, based on reverse engineering of that platform, has some legal precedent. The "unauthorized" creation of games for Nintendo consoles was one example that actually went to court and was found to be legal. If the DMCA prevents such actions, independently created programs for the Aibo would make a good basis for a test case to have these provisions overturned. However, the waters are so badly muddied by the distribution of Sony's copyrighted material, that a successful legal defense of these sites is probably all but impossible. These sites bring this on themselves - they should stick to distributing things that they have created, and they'll be on much firmer ground, and might even find that organizations like the EFF or ACLU would be willing to defend them.
Not a law student, I take it. If Alan makes information available across the Internet to Americans, that violates a US law, Alan has violated US law and can be arrested when he enters the country. To take a less ephemeral example, imagine if a Colombian mails you a package of cocaine and puts his name and return address on the package. You don't think he could be arrested on entry to the US? By your logic, Osama bin Laden could not be arrested if he flew into JFK tomorrow, because he has never personally committed a crime on US soil.
The federal goverment does not actively seek out violators of the DMCA without a "victim" bringing the violation to their attention.
Do you think Sklyarov knew that his "victims" had filed a complaint against him, before he was arrested? How is Alan going to know when it is or isn't safe to travel to the US? Tivo might decide to bring a complaint because Alan has enabled people to more easily crack their boxes, for example. Linux has far wider scope, and many more applications, than anything Sklyarov ever did.
This business of having draconian laws which are enforced at the authorities discretion is very dangerous. It restricts freedom in all sorts of ways, and often results in people restricting their own freedoms, and those of others - as Alan has done - in order to "play it safe". Laws like this take away basic freedoms in an insidious, indirect way that would never be possible if done directly.
If you're saying that you support the DMCA as written, then I suppose we have a total different argument which we haven't even begun to address. But if you don't support the DMCA, you should respect Alan Cox's right to respond to it.
Alan Cox is doing more for freedom in America than you have ever done. Think about that the next time you criticize.
Another one who learned the pronunciation of "Crusoe" from the Gilligan's Island theme song!
People can be forgiven for thinking that there must be a "why", because physics and indeed all of science is all about answering "why". The only problem is that science never provides an absolute and total answer, which may be, as you say, because there isn't one.
But the lack of an "ultimate answer" is disturbing to many people, so religion, which also attempts to answer the "why" question, is often used to fill the gap that science leaves. So it's not surprising that this whole issue of ultimate cause is often used as a justification for the existence of deities.
Except that you've just given a "why": that at least some fundamental laws and constants were determined by the Big Bang. That could raise question of why the Big Bang happened the way it did - which, of course, is an area of intense study.
The problem is figuring out which things have a why and which things don't. For example, we might still learn more about "why mass warps spacetime", once they figure out that all the theories about the Higgs boson are wrong... ;)
That same problem applies to all of our physical theories about the universe, at some level. Newton's theory of gravity did not explain why massive objects attract each other - they just do. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does not explain why spacetime warps in the presence of mass - it just does.
All we can really do with our theories is describe what we observe, and develop predictive models. Physics doesn't provide an ultimate answer to the question of "why" - it only ever provides local answers, pushing back the "why" to a different level.
Scott Adams' theory of gravity does this too, and is actually quite comparable to Newton's theory. In fact, I'm sure it would be possible to develop an Adamsian theory that's the equal of Newton's theory in all predictive respects - but you would ultimately find that you could dispense with the winking in and out of existence stuff, just as Einstein was able to dispense with the ether as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. As you pointed out with the carrier pigeon example, if something can't be detected, and doesn't add predictive value to a theory, to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.
If freedom and liberty are so important, why is RMS attempting to restrict free speech, and restrict the information that I receive from the GNOME Foundation? Does the importance of freedom in software override the importance of freedom in other areas, such as speech?
The mark of a fanatic is when the fanatic's cause overrides all other considerations.
If you can fGNUord see this, please report to the Discordian Embassy for debriefinGNU!
The horror! I think I hear the sound of an "Ask Slashdot" submitter slitting his wrists...
Of course, the author meant to refer to An Open Letter to Hobbyists. One wonders if this mistake was made by the original author, or by well-meaning but ignorant editors.
This piece is typical first-MBA-thesis quality, and I agree it casts doubt on the quality of the peer review and the site that publishes it.
Now I'm never going to get the horrible image of that serious book cover out of my mind...
Once software has been open-source licensed, it's out there and won't go away, unless it has no merit or appeal to anyone. So it would be difficult for companies like IBM to "hurt" open source by open sourcing more of their software.
Besides, IBM's open source efforts are unlikely to "sour", even if IBM changes direction in future. IBM is going into this with its eyes open, and the people behind this movement aren't naive. The money they're spending on open source can be likened to a marketing budget - the $40 million which Eclipse allegedly cost to develop isn't even enough for a national TV advertising campaign. But it goes beyond marketing - it's strategic, and attracts developers away from their competitors, some of whom don't have a good response to open source (Microsoft) and some of whom are already playing in this space (Sun, with Forte/Netbeans).
So while the big guys duke it out in a "race to the bottom" in terms of the cost and openness of certain kinds of software, we the audience should sit back and enjoy the results. It's competition, and we all benefit from it.
I'll close with the immortal words of Karl Popper, who defended trolls everywhere when he said of an incident in which Wittgenstein stormed out of a Popper lecture at the philosophy society at Cambridge: