Please, post comments. Don't use your position as the guy writing the story to give your comments an automatic permanent "+5, sysop".
Copyright is a brilliant compromise. It encourages people to make things available that they wouldn't otherwise, knowing that they still have some control over these things. Now, I grant freely that the huge extension of copyright duration works solidly against users - but other aspects of the law have done a very good job of balancing these things, such as the fair use rules.
In the absence of copyright, how exactly do you think games would get written? How would John Carmack earn a living?
So far as I know, the Nomad II lets you copy files as plain old MP3's. The driver software they provide for Mac won't let me copy things back from it, but that's no big deal.
On the other hand, what freedom, exactly, am I ever denying anyone? They have access to all the public code I do; if I don't produce code, they can't use it, so I can never be "taking away" their freedom to use it; they have such freedom only if I choose to create it.
The editorial note is fundamentally misguided. Some freedoms are also powers. By opposing other people's freedom to choose licenses, Stallman is also pushing for *his* power.
You can't just draw a line and say "these freedoms are really freedoms, others aren't". Free speech is the power to hurt people's feelings; freedom of association is the power to form unions. If we allow people to choose terms for their software, they can, indeed, do so. This doesn't mean it's not a form of freedom; it just means that Stallman is dogmatic, rather than philosophical, about freedom. The freedoms he wants are the only ones he will recognize; this is no different from other people who recognize only those freedoms their dogma encourages.
Adding features is good, but keep them out of the thing that claims to be the standard version of the language./bin/sh should be a POSIX shell, period.
Embrace and extend. There is no way to write a script in bash and have bash warn you if you're using an extension, so they tend to creep into scripts. Embrace and extend is evil; the compatability mode should be *pure* sh, with no extensions.
Does this still have the insanely weird "gravity is just everything expanding" model? He advocated this in a previous book, and refuses to budge, even though it's easy to show it's wrong. (Hint: Three objects of different masses not in a straight line.)
Comdex spent two or three years spamming me after I told them repeatedly not to. Why would you think they exist in a world where the word "privacy" is used in any way?
About half the people trying to edit scenarios are unable to change any rules, and I'm one of them; if I change *ANY* rules, or even if I just uncheck the "use default rules" option, the tech tree is totally destroyed - even though it all seems to be correct, and to have the same values you would expect.
One person reports being able to save a mod as the default ruleset and have it work. !
Could you name this large block of IP space that is listed on MAPS, but which is not, in fact, hosting well-known spammers? I seem to have missed the actual facts substantiating your claims. Perhaps there aren't any?
Go look at the documentation for a listing. It'll be there, and by the time netblocks are listed, it'll be pretty impressive.
MAPS doesn't blacklist sites for sharing a network with spammers; they blacklist networks that have a spam problem. This is different, just as there's a difference between hitting someone who jumps in front of your car and trying to run someone down.
I know everyone likes to stick up for the little guy, but when the little guy would rather work with companies that host spammers than companies that don't, I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy left for him.
The question is, who really deserves the blame? I don't blame the police for the sirens; I blame the people who make it necessary for the police to drive quickly.
Without blacklists, you might well lose a lot of this mail anyway - and other people would lose more. Is this solution ideal? No. However, the only ideal solutions to this problem involve killing spammers, and we can't do that.
Freedom means the government can't tell you to shut up; it doesn't mean I have to listen to you.
Freedom of speech is *harmed* by spam; it is harder and harder to talk to people, because more and more of them need a variety of local blacklists, buggy procmail rules, or other harsh filters, just to use their mailboxes *at all*. My friend can't email her dad, because the first time he checked his mailbox, he had a thousand pieces of spam.
That's not free speech. Free speech is the right to say things that people don't like - not the right to say things at no cost to yourself, to people who don't want to subsidize you, in their private space.
Essentially, the people who are cheering about this have made it clear that they think it's a great thing. If they think this is a great thing, we know that, while they might be *unable* to do it, they would if they could.
It's hard to have any sympathy for them, given that. Does this justify Israel's treatment of Palestinians in general? No, but it makes it a lot easier to understand.
Just think about it. Try to imagine someone whose first response to ten thousand innocent bystanders being killed is to say "It's like I'm dreaming, it's so wonderful". What possible grounds can we have for not shooting this rabid dog? He has gone beyond any possible redemption on this earth.
Israel has, so far as I can tell, *responded* to acts of violence. Maybe the violent people should stop for a while, and see if the retaliation stops, too.
... or it might be because people go out of their way to fan the flames.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who are bombing innocents *aren't* actually the victims in this picture. You can bet I am less willing now than ever before to believe the palestinian people to be "victims" of anything but their own bloodlust. People who cheer and dance at the news that ten thousand innocent people are dead are *sick*, and if those are the people being "repressed", then it's not such a bad thing.
When the people who did this admit it, and say "we were totally and absolutely wrong, and we will never do any such thing, to any target, ever again", I might believe you.
When Palestinians are dancing in the streets cheering the death of ten thousand innocent bystanders, retaliation is not merely possible, but *necessary*. These are people who cannot conceive of "right" or "wrong". While they live, no innocent life is safe.
You shoot rabid dogs. You shoot terrorists. It's the same action, for the same reason.
Good for them. If you want to distribute files, put up a fucking web page or an ftp server. Usenet should be a discussion medium, and the reason good, broad, news servers are rare is that alt.binaries dwarfs the bandwidth of the entire rest of the feed.
I wouldn't call Dogma "religion bashing". It got a lot of protests, but the movie itself was not actually particularly "bashing" religion. It may not have had the literary punch of _Last Temptation_, but it was still a movie with a lot to say to religious people, and very little of it hostile.
Well, since so much of the GNU project's work depended on code and culture provided by the Berkeley folks, how about we call it the "BSD/GNU"
project? While we're at it, how about those AT&T/BSD systems? Perhaps we should even extend this to GE/AT&T's original work. [... time passes...]
So, anyway, I was using my God/Adam/Abel/[...]/GE/AT&T/BSD/GNU/Linux system, the other day, and... dammit, now I've forgotten what I was going to talk about. It's all those damn begats.
Programmers are a dime a dozen. *Good* programmers are rarer than hen's teeth. Part of the problem is that good programmers spend a lot of time cleaning up after less-skilled workers.
There is still a shortage of *good* programmers, and there probably always will be. It's not clear whether this justifies hiring in new people, but frankly, I'm all for hiring people who come from poorer countries, because it funnels money into economies that need it, as people save up and send money home.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, post comments. Don't use your position as the guy writing the story to give your comments an automatic permanent "+5, sysop".
Copyright is a brilliant compromise. It encourages people to make things available that they wouldn't otherwise, knowing that they still have some control over these things. Now, I grant freely that the huge extension of copyright duration works solidly against users - but other aspects of the law have done a very good job of balancing these things, such as the fair use rules.
In the absence of copyright, how exactly do you think games would get written? How would John Carmack earn a living?
So far as I know, the Nomad II lets you copy files as plain old MP3's. The driver software they provide for Mac won't let me copy things back from it, but that's no big deal.
On the other hand, what freedom, exactly, am I ever denying anyone? They have access to all the public code I do; if I don't produce code, they can't use it, so I can never be "taking away" their freedom to use it; they have such freedom only if I choose to create it.
The editorial note is fundamentally misguided. Some freedoms are also powers. By opposing other people's freedom to choose licenses, Stallman is also pushing for *his* power.
You can't just draw a line and say "these freedoms are really freedoms, others aren't". Free speech is the power to hurt people's feelings; freedom of association is the power to form unions. If we allow people to choose terms for their software, they can, indeed, do so. This doesn't mean it's not a form of freedom; it just means that Stallman is dogmatic, rather than philosophical, about freedom. The freedoms he wants are the only ones he will recognize; this is no different from other people who recognize only those freedoms their dogma encourages.
Adding features is good, but keep them out of the thing that claims to be the standard version of the language. /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell, period.
This is why ksh is called "ksh", not "sh".
Embrace and extend. There is no way to write a script in bash and have bash warn you if you're using an extension, so they tend to creep into scripts. Embrace and extend is evil; the compatability mode should be *pure* sh, with no extensions.
BSD/OS ships with bash in /bin.
And yes, I have been burned regularly by scripts which assumed that "sh" would have bash extensions.
Does this still have the insanely weird "gravity is just everything expanding" model? He advocated this in a previous book, and refuses to budge, even though it's easy to show it's wrong. (Hint: Three objects of different masses not in a straight line.)
Comdex spent two or three years spamming me after I told them repeatedly not to. Why would you think they exist in a world where the word "privacy" is used in any way?
About half the people trying to edit scenarios are unable to change any rules, and I'm one of them; if I change *ANY* rules, or even if I just uncheck the "use default rules" option, the tech tree is totally destroyed - even though it all seems to be correct, and to have the same values you would expect.
One person reports being able to save a mod as the default ruleset and have it work. !
It's like banning alcohol, drugs, or guns, really. :)
Seriously, this is a tough issue. How do you specify "acceptable" use of cookies?
Could you name this large block of IP space that is listed on MAPS, but which is not, in fact, hosting well-known spammers? I seem to have missed the actual facts substantiating your claims. Perhaps there aren't any?
Go look at the documentation for a listing. It'll be there, and by the time netblocks are listed, it'll be pretty impressive.
MAPS doesn't blacklist sites for sharing a network with spammers; they blacklist networks that have a spam problem. This is different, just as there's a difference between hitting someone who jumps in front of your car and trying to run someone down.
I know everyone likes to stick up for the little guy, but when the little guy would rather work with companies that host spammers than companies that don't, I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy left for him.
The question is, who really deserves the blame? I don't blame the police for the sirens; I blame the people who make it necessary for the police to drive quickly.
Without blacklists, you might well lose a lot of this mail anyway - and other people would lose more. Is this solution ideal? No. However, the only ideal solutions to this problem involve killing spammers, and we can't do that.
Freedom means the government can't tell you to shut up; it doesn't mean I have to listen to you.
Freedom of speech is *harmed* by spam; it is harder and harder to talk to people, because more and more of them need a variety of local blacklists, buggy procmail rules, or other harsh filters, just to use their mailboxes *at all*. My friend can't email her dad, because the first time he checked his mailbox, he had a thousand pieces of spam.
That's not free speech. Free speech is the right to say things that people don't like - not the right to say things at no cost to yourself, to people who don't want to subsidize you, in their private space.
The terms of service never guarantee connectivity, and frankly, not blacklisting spammers means overall worse connectivity than blacklisting spammers.
It's a "cooperative network". If you don't cooperate, we don't network with you.
So... the first one has been sold. Has it crashed yet? Been reinstalled?
"Palm compatible", in this case, means "sue me! sue me harder!"
Essentially, the people who are cheering about this have made it clear that they think it's a great thing. If they think this is a great thing, we know that, while they might be *unable* to do it, they would if they could.
It's hard to have any sympathy for them, given that. Does this justify Israel's treatment of Palestinians in general? No, but it makes it a lot easier to understand.
Just think about it. Try to imagine someone whose first response to ten thousand innocent bystanders being killed is to say "It's like I'm dreaming, it's so wonderful". What possible grounds can we have for not shooting this rabid dog? He has gone beyond any possible redemption on this earth.
Israel has, so far as I can tell, *responded* to acts of violence. Maybe the violent people should stop for a while, and see if the retaliation stops, too.
... or it might be because people go out of their way to fan the flames.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who are bombing innocents *aren't* actually the victims in this picture. You can bet I am less willing now than ever before to believe the palestinian people to be "victims" of anything but their own bloodlust. People who cheer and dance at the news that ten thousand innocent people are dead are *sick*, and if those are the people being "repressed", then it's not such a bad thing.
When the people who did this admit it, and say "we were totally and absolutely wrong, and we will never do any such thing, to any target, ever again", I might believe you.
When Palestinians are dancing in the streets cheering the death of ten thousand innocent bystanders, retaliation is not merely possible, but *necessary*. These are people who cannot conceive of "right" or "wrong". While they live, no innocent life is safe.
You shoot rabid dogs. You shoot terrorists. It's the same action, for the same reason.
Good for them. If you want to distribute files, put up a fucking web page or an ftp server. Usenet should be a discussion medium, and the reason good, broad, news servers are rare is that alt.binaries dwarfs the bandwidth of the entire rest of the feed.
I wouldn't call Dogma "religion bashing". It got a lot of protests, but the movie itself was not actually particularly "bashing" religion. It may not have had the literary punch of _Last Temptation_, but it was still a movie with a lot to say to religious people, and very little of it hostile.
Well, since so much of the GNU project's work depended on code and culture provided by the Berkeley folks, how about we call it the "BSD/GNU"
... dammit, now I've forgotten what I was going to talk about. It's all those damn begats.
project? While we're at it, how about those AT&T/BSD systems? Perhaps we should even extend this to GE/AT&T's original work. [... time passes...]
So, anyway, I was using my God/Adam/Abel/[...]/GE/AT&T/BSD/GNU/Linux system, the other day, and
Programmers are a dime a dozen. *Good* programmers are rarer than hen's teeth. Part of the problem is that good programmers spend a lot of time cleaning up after less-skilled workers.
There is still a shortage of *good* programmers, and there probably always will be. It's not clear whether this justifies hiring in new people, but frankly, I'm all for hiring people who come from poorer countries, because it funnels money into economies that need it, as people save up and send money home.