The problem is, who are 'bad guys'? What is to stop someone else from re-defining bad guys to include you or me?
The Constitution was written to protect rights (and limit government) for a good reason - without hard, fast well-defined limits politicians wanting power will trample anyone in their way. Outrage at the loss of freedom, is a bulwark of our society (although you wouldn't know it since the 1930s).
And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path [to the totalitarianism of the ant heap]. Ronald Reagan, Mar 20, 1981 (and 1964)
In a democracy, personal liberties are rarely diminished overnight. Rather, they are lost gradually, by acts of well - meaning people, with good intentions, amid public approval. But the subtle loss of freedom is never recognized until the crisis is over and we look back in horror. And then it is too late. Judge Andrew Napolitano, October 2001
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment of men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. Louis D Brandies, 1928
The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms (Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science and Information Processing) by Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft, Jeffrey D. Ullman
>Yes, I'm sure this will help the whole legal case; defacement has always been such a valued piece of input in court *cough*.
This is what the whole comment was but adding a caret character at the end of a quote here munges it.
It shouldn't impact the legal case one way or another unless one of the parties did it, which I seriously doubt.
That statement is like, after someone spray painted graffiti on the outside of a building that GE owns, "Yes, I'm sure this will help all the legal cases against GE..."
It has no bearing on the case and I can't imagine why anyone would even suggest it would.
It would be nice to stream to all the AEs at once - I bought two for different rooms. I knew from the start that it would only stream to one at a time, but having it stream to all at once would be awesome.
This is just like so many predictions from modems - I remember hearing that over 9600 was impossible (and before that over 1200). Ditto for Moore's 'law'. Granted it is a great observation, but the predicted demise keeps getting pushed back.
While the article makes it clear it is for magnetic storage, the headline doesn't. And, as with all the other limits, smart people will work through the problems or change mediums.
This is just over-hyping a research article which is making a good point - that there are limits to current technology extrapolation.
I submitted this, but it is gone again, see http://sarovar.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=474. What is most interesting is: Something that is interesting is that the cease and desist letter says: "When our clients addressed a cease and desist letter to SourceForge, the website removed the program immediately from its server, in recognition of the fact that PlayFair compromised the intellectual property rights of our clients."
If I read what SF said, they removed it per their policy and if there is a counter-claim they'll put it back up. What the sarovar letter said seems completely at odds with what SF said.
(I did submit the story here, but who knows if it will make it up to the news section).
They wanted someone: (a) large enough to have $, (b) large enough to get noticed, (c) with a documented relationship with IBM, (d) AND a documented relationship with SCO but (e) non-technical enough so that they are more easily intimidated.
(c) is important so that they can have something concrete to tie it in to IBM. (d) is important so that they can always try the breach of contract claim if the IP dispute is dismissed. Keeping the breach claim around gives them extra time to try to keep the case around.
With (e) I think their effort here is to pick a technologically weak company with shareholders who have less of a technical education. This allows them to file, the AutoZone shareholders see the suit, panic (because they have less of a technical background than, say, RedHat) and hope tha AZ will settle quickly to make the suit go away.
I don't think it will work, but I can see the logic for picking this particular target for their thug-like tactics.
I would expect something to distinguish the second target so that they couldn't consolidate the two cases.
One of the nice things about "free" software is that it promotes competition. Does everything have to be free or open source? No, but anything that helps increase the number of options is good. Another advantage is that if one person stops supporting open source, then someone else can take over, not leaving you high and dry.
>>7. I correctly predicted the Mac G5 computer line >This had been announced by Apple already.
Apple didn't announce the G5s until the WWDC, which began June 23 of 2003, so, no, Apple had NOT announced it in January 2003. It had been scheduled for May, but was pushed back, part of the reason for the push back (reportedly) was to intro the G5
Just fyi.
Yes, people *knew* it would come eventually, but it hadn't been annouced by Apple until half-way through 2003 and few people thought it would be announced as early as it was.
Re:The only people who worry are those up to no go
on
OnStar Considered Harmful
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790 (This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's 'Historical Review,' 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.))
You should hold it! When I got my 1st computer, I got a 16K (yes K) upgrade and that was a TON of RAM (this is not RAM of course). But still it cost a lot more than the 512MB RAM card in my Nokia 6600.
Of course by 2005, flash memory will be cheaper. I guess the question should be: 5 times cheaper than flash *now* or when it is available?
Anything that increase the storage for the $ is great!
Just a follow-up. I haven't seen them argue that the GPL is un-Constitutional (perhaps I missed it). Their only possible argument that would have any basis is that it is an unenforcable contract to enforce a license. Looking at the GPL (from a lawyers perspective) I don't see any way that they could challege it. It has all the elements that make a contract valid and although they can easily *attempt* to do so, I don't think they'll have any success with it.
Of course they moved the article to the archives now so you can't see the quotation. I will attempt to find it an post the exact quotation once I get into their archives, either here or in the next thread about SCO. Regarding the "free" part, I presume he meant that you don't have to pay $ to use much of the software under the GPL. Obviously it has terms and conditions with it.
I guess the point was that whatever the case - whether they think the GPL = PD, or that the GPL = unConstitional etc - they distributed (or "gave away" in Darl speak) software under the GPL and (a) they accepted the terms then, and (b) *now* he said that distributing under the GPL is fine with them. So, given that and his other statements, they should have a difficult time arguing that they didn't accept the terms, particularly that he acknowledged in the paper in Dec of 2003 that distribution ("giving away") is ok when he has presumably had a lot of time to look at it.
To me that is what is called an admission against interest - e.g. if they argue that the GPL is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional or is that same as PD - yet he admits it is fine to distribute under that license. It is against his interests to do so, and therefore admissable as evidence.
It is really stupid to argue one thing in court documents and then say the opposite when a reporter is there recording it.
There were two more articles on SCO yesterday (Tuesday Dec 23, 2003) in Investor's Business Daily - one an interview (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech01.asp?v=1 2/23) and one a new article (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/ 23) are in Investor's Business Daily today. The interview has some interesting quotations from McBride, including "we don't deny that right [to give away their work through the GPL-he mentions it] at all. Anybody that wants to develop their work and give it away, God bless them." The interesting part about that is it seems at odds with previous statements he has made/implied regarding the GPL.
The follow-up question *should* have been: "Given that you support the right to give away software under the GPL, once someone has done so, thereby accepting the terms of the GPL, how can one take the opposing position, after all, the terms don't allow one to 'un-release' under the GPL?"
I had submitted this yesterday, and no doubt 3 or 4 copies of it will show up in the next week, but it is relevant now!
I am not sure why this would be scary. For those of us who don't have a singer on staff, it is pretty cool! (Particularly once the price comes down and when it becomes even more sophisticated).
This will *increase* the artistry and creativity of many people and of the population as a whole. How many people are good song writers? Quite a lot. How many of them can sing too. Not as many. This will eventually let those who can write do recordings too.
It lets more people be creative. It is called freedom.
p.s. That is NOT to imply that licensing must be uniform. It could be "free licensing for people I agree with" (everyone else) and "expensive licensing for those I don't" (MSFT) or "no licensing for those I don't" (e.g. MSFT).
Slashdot Mirror
"it is truly 99.99% bad guys getting trampled on"
The problem is, who are 'bad guys'? What is to stop someone else from re-defining bad guys to include you or me?
The Constitution was written to protect rights (and limit government) for a good reason - without hard, fast well-defined limits politicians wanting power will trample anyone in their way. Outrage at the loss of freedom, is a bulwark of our society (although you wouldn't know it since the 1930s).
And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path [to the totalitarianism of the ant heap].
Ronald Reagan, Mar 20, 1981 (and 1964)
In a democracy, personal liberties are rarely diminished overnight. Rather, they are lost gradually, by acts of well - meaning people, with good intentions, amid public
approval. But the subtle loss of freedom is never recognized until the crisis is over and we look back in horror. And then it is too late.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, October 2001
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment of men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Louis D Brandies, 1928
This is a good one we used in undergrad and grad CS programs (nice reference):
9 6/ ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-5294359-9337643
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/02010002
The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms (Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science and Information Processing)
by Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft, Jeffrey D. Ullman
>Yes, I'm sure this will help the whole legal case; defacement has always been such a valued piece of input in court *cough*.
This is what the whole comment was but adding a caret character at the end of a quote here munges it.
It shouldn't impact the legal case one way or another unless one of the parties did it, which I seriously doubt.
That statement is like, after someone spray painted graffiti on the outside of a building that GE owns, "Yes, I'm sure this will help all the legal cases against GE..."
It has no bearing on the case and I can't imagine why anyone would even suggest it would.
>Yes, I'm sure this will help the whole legal case; defacement has always been such a valued piece of input in court *cough*."
It has no bearing on the case and I can't imagine why anyone would even suggest it would.
It would be nice to stream to all the AEs at once - I bought two for different rooms. I knew from the start that it would only stream to one at a time, but having it stream to all at once would be awesome.
>the theme song is the best theme song ever written for any series
;-)
I agree it is good, but it wasn't written for the series.
It was on the Patch Adams soundtrack in 1998. (They re-recorded it for Enterprise and I like the re-recording better than the Rod Stewart version).
This is just like so many predictions from modems - I remember hearing that over 9600 was impossible (and before that over 1200). Ditto for Moore's 'law'. Granted it is a great observation, but the predicted demise keeps getting pushed back.
While the article makes it clear it is for magnetic storage, the headline doesn't. And, as with all the other limits, smart people will work through the problems or change mediums.
This is just over-hyping a research article which is making a good point - that there are limits to current technology extrapolation.
I submitted this, but it is gone again, see http://sarovar.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=474.
What is most interesting is:
Something that is interesting is that the cease and desist letter says: "When our clients addressed a cease and desist letter to SourceForge, the website removed the program immediately from its server, in recognition of the fact that PlayFair compromised the intellectual property rights of our clients."
If I read what SF said, they removed it per their policy and if there is a counter-claim they'll put it back up. What the sarovar letter said seems completely at odds with what SF said.
(I did submit the story here, but who knows if it will make it up to the news section).
>Don't the /. moderators even bother to RTFA at all?
And another point, it is REUTERS who wrote the story, which the Forbes web site picked up through their feed.
I agree with you - Sherwin Williams is more likely than Target for the 2nd suit. But my bet is that it will be one of the two of them.
Gee, I wonder which of them will be next?
They wanted someone: (a) large enough to have $, (b) large enough to get noticed, (c) with a documented relationship with IBM, (d) AND a documented relationship with SCO but (e) non-technical enough so that they are more easily intimidated.
(c) is important so that they can have something concrete to tie it in to IBM. (d) is important so that they can always try the breach of contract claim if the IP dispute is dismissed. Keeping the breach claim around gives them extra time to try to keep the case around.
With (e) I think their effort here is to pick a technologically weak company with shareholders who have less of a technical education. This allows them to file, the AutoZone shareholders see the suit, panic (because they have less of a technical background than, say, RedHat) and hope tha AZ will settle quickly to make the suit go away.
I don't think it will work, but I can see the logic for picking this particular target for their thug-like tactics.
I would expect something to distinguish the second target so that they couldn't consolidate the two cases.
One of the nice things about "free" software is that it promotes competition. Does everything have to be free or open source? No, but anything that helps increase the number of options is good. Another advantage is that if one person stops supporting open source, then someone else can take over, not leaving you high and dry.
What I find odd is the quotation attributed to Linus:
"he knows of no substantial code in his Linux kernel source code tree which could possibly be subject to ownership claims by The SCO Group."
He says "no substantial". I hope this is a mis-quotation because that sounds different than what I have heard others say.
Comments? Anyone know?
>Since the JWST will be at the L2 point, servicing will be impossible."
You can still service it there. What that should have said is it will be impossible ***with the shuttle***.
I get this too, perhaps it is a propogation thing?
>>7. I correctly predicted the Mac G5 computer line
>This had been announced by Apple already.
Apple didn't announce the G5s until the WWDC, which began June 23 of 2003, so, no, Apple had NOT announced it in January 2003. It had been scheduled for May, but was pushed back, part of the reason for the push back (reportedly) was to intro the G5
Just fyi.
Yes, people *knew* it would come eventually, but it hadn't been annouced by Apple until half-way through 2003 and few people thought it would be announced as early as it was.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790 (This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's 'Historical Review,' 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.))
You should hold it! When I got my 1st computer, I got a 16K (yes K) upgrade and that was a TON of RAM (this is not RAM of course). But still it cost a lot more than the 512MB RAM card in my Nokia 6600.
Of course by 2005, flash memory will be cheaper. I guess the question should be: 5 times cheaper than flash *now* or when it is available?
Anything that increase the storage for the $ is great!
Just a follow-up. I haven't seen them argue that the GPL is un-Constitutional (perhaps I missed it). Their only possible argument that would have any basis is that it is an unenforcable contract to enforce a license. Looking at the GPL (from a lawyers perspective) I don't see any way that they could challege it. It has all the elements that make a contract valid and although they can easily *attempt* to do so, I don't think they'll have any success with it.
Of course they moved the article to the archives now so you can't see the quotation. I will attempt to find it an post the exact quotation once I get into their archives, either here or in the next thread about SCO. Regarding the "free" part, I presume he meant that you don't have to pay $ to use much of the software under the GPL. Obviously it has terms and conditions with it.
I guess the point was that whatever the case - whether they think the GPL = PD, or that the GPL = unConstitional etc - they distributed (or "gave away" in Darl speak) software under the GPL and (a) they accepted the terms then, and (b) *now* he said that distributing under the GPL is fine with them. So, given that and his other statements, they should have a difficult time arguing that they didn't accept the terms, particularly that he acknowledged in the paper in Dec of 2003 that distribution ("giving away") is ok when he has presumably had a lot of time to look at it.
To me that is what is called an admission against interest - e.g. if they argue that the GPL is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional or is that same as PD - yet he admits it is fine to distribute under that license. It is against his interests to do so, and therefore admissable as evidence.
It is really stupid to argue one thing in court documents and then say the opposite when a reporter is there recording it.
There were two more articles on SCO yesterday (Tuesday Dec 23, 2003) in Investor's Business Daily - one an interview (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech01.asp?v=1 2/23) and one a new article (http://www.investors.com/editorial/tech.asp?v=12/ 23) are in Investor's Business Daily today. The interview has some interesting quotations from McBride, including "we don't deny that right [to give away their work through the GPL-he mentions it] at all. Anybody that wants to develop their work and give it away, God bless them." The interesting part about that is it seems at odds with previous statements he has made/implied regarding the GPL.
The follow-up question *should* have been:
"Given that you support the right to give away software under the GPL, once someone has done so, thereby accepting the terms of the GPL, how can one take the opposing position, after all, the terms don't allow one to 'un-release' under the GPL?"
I had submitted this yesterday, and no doubt 3 or 4 copies of it will show up in the next week, but it is relevant now!
I am not sure why this would be scary. For those of us who don't have a singer on staff, it is pretty cool! (Particularly once the price comes down and when it becomes even more sophisticated).
This will *increase* the artistry and creativity of many people and of the population as a whole. How many people are good song writers? Quite a lot. How many of them can sing too. Not as many. This will eventually let those who can write do recordings too.
It lets more people be creative. It is called freedom.
What is a state doing selling it anyway? Sheesh. Stupid.
p.s. That is NOT to imply that licensing must be uniform. It could be "free licensing for people I agree with" (everyone else) and "expensive licensing for those I don't" (MSFT) or "no licensing for those I don't" (e.g. MSFT).
>where free software (BSD, GPL, Artistic license) gains free use and closed-source has to pay a "reasonable" fee.
Just to play the devils advocate: What about another category? "free software, that is closed-source." Microsoft gives away IE.