It was RedHat 5.(something?) for me... I know. I'm a freaking noob here it seems. I installed using a CD, not the floppies like all you.
But my first experience after getting it up and running, was getting the NIC drivers loaded (I had a classic tulip card). That was easy. I then wanted to figure out what I was going to do... So I logged into one of the IRC channels that I normally talked on, and got immediately booted because I was running as root.
This is akin to charging Louisville Slugger for battery because someone used their bat to injure someone. If someone's going to get charged for infringement, charge the people who do the downloading.
I have a couple of follow up thoughts though: 1) Does this mean that if any of us make a product, and someone is able to use that product to break the law, are we now responsible for what that product does? 2) Also, are we now assuming that the masses are no longer responsible for their own actions? If I download a file or video from a site, and the material is copyrighted, does that mean that I'm not to blame anymore?
The persons running the site are the problem since it's been made available to me and "I can't help but download that?" Even better, where are the web browser makers in all this? I mean, I'm sure that Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Opera, et al. must have to shoulder some blame for providing a product that allows them to go to unsavory sites such as this! What about Bram! He created a protocol that allows millions of people to download stuff even faster!
Oh oh! What about the American Department of Defense! They created a "network" that has permitted piracy an a previously unimaginable level! They need to pay for their copyright infringment too!
OK... I've totally fallen off the tracks here... I'll check in tomorrow.
Calling someone a sissy for not going to the library is not denying them access. They effectively deny themselves access, which is an entirely different matter.
I agree with you that teaching the kids critical thinking is the most important part. But remember what I said in my post before, they aren't being held responsible for what they do anyway. By providing kids "unrestricted access" there'll be some over-protective parent going nuts about how their kid was "exposed" to some terrible material and try to hold the school responsible. I attack it from a self protection angle for that exact reason.
Now, if the policy of the school is: "We'll give your kids access to everything, but they are responsible for what happens. Don't go to naughty sites, or they'll lose access." Have the parents sign it, and only then allow the kid access to the internet connection, then at least you're covering your bases right?
The argument you bring forth makes me feel the true pain it is to grant any sort of internet access to a population that isn't held responsible for what they do. Which is covered by the latter part of the rant above. If the sites are blocked, then free expression is squelched. If the sites are allowed, it could be considered offensive by the parents that you are arguing for.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes." I would assume that the access to the internet is not intended to be for the entertainment of the student. It likely has a purpose, namely assisting with research, email, or whatever else. The simple solution is to tell the student users, "This is for [purpose] only." And allow sites that assist with that purpose. If a student really wants to read about some other subject, they can research it at home, or at a local library, or a freaking coffee shop if they really want to. I'm sure that even Tennessee has a Starbucks or something to provide that in the towns.
If the school is feeling really frisky, they can even allow that instant messaging thing. Also, give the staff a way to access the broader content, so if there's something that they feel is worthwhile, they can get it added. I think that this addresses the biggest concern, "What should they be doing at school" against "What shouldn't they."
I don't think a school is a place where kids should be hanging out streaming the NCAA tourney either... Cause I'll bet that's not part of the curriculum.
It's not ethical. I'll certainly give you that. But what makes it illegal is supposed to be the question at hand. The feelings that I've had regarding this issue have nothing to do with "it is something that is right or wrong." It's got more to do with "Who's really responsible here?"
Fining and arresting people who "make things available" can be viewed as a classic slippery slope. You could even argue that making the software available is a convenience for legit users who seriously messed up their installation media. This would be a totally fine since a paying customer is really just trying to access media for a product they already own. It's a hypothetical, but it's worth considering.
My problem with attacking TPB is that aren't doing the stealing, the people who initiate the download are the real theives, assuming they don't have a license. The people who modify the software are liable for EULA violations. But what we're doing is punishing people who provide an interface. Someone makes a search engine (are you reading this Yahoo and Google) for people to search for software, and download it. In fact, this sort of ruling indicates to me that if you have an FTP site where you allow your friends to upload stuff (pictures, home made videos, etc) you could be held liable if your buddy uploads Office.
So, that's my problem. Yes, it sucks that someone is trying to grab your software. I'm sorry about that. But the bright side in the case you were trying to paint is that someone cares enough about what you make to share it... and maybe even provide you a few paying customers that you may or may not have had otherwise.
The problem with everyone voting for the lesser evil is that it allows the two at the top to keep taking care of themselves in the name of "representing the people." It doesn't take a majority to create real change. 10% of the population can have a huge impact on the dealings of two parties that each have 40-45% of the population's support.
But continuing the status quo is a guaranteed loser. If you are indeed truly happy voting for someone in the D or R range, then please vote for them. If you aren't, then vote for someone you actually like, not against someone you don't.
Voting for someone (third party or not) should be a statement of who you want representing you.
Agree with Letharion. The life expectancy of oil was 10-20 years back in the 1920s. Try reading The Age of Oil. We really don't know how much oil there is down there, but it's not running out now.
There. Fixed that for you. That's really all we know about the supply... We don't.
What's sad about this is: If those managers are doing what they should already be doing then this shouldn't be necessary. The manager should know what the employee is producing and know the value that said employee is bringing already. Some stupid formula based on a behavior only provides a method to exploit the evaluation in a non-productive way.
If the manager doesn't know what an employee's value (or lack of) is, then they've already failed. No formula is going to fix that failure.
Let's try with a little IT analogy (shocking, I know). The "everyone do their own little thing" are the dreaded small VBA applications hacked up in Excel that have no architecture, no signoffs and just pop up all over the place
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all of those little applications actually solved problems for the business?
Of course, but that's missing the point. If it's really useful for the business, then someone should be there to take care of it and make sure the interface makes sense and is maintainable.
It's easy to be an armchair MBA and think you got all the answers because you don't see the actual implications.
There's only two kinds of people a company needs: people that make things and people that sell them. MBAs do neither. They don't sell, and they don't make. There's no value-add, so there is no point.
MBAs do not make you instantly worthless. Having one could supposedly make you more aware of how the financials part of the business works if you don't already. There's plenty of point as long as the holder of said MBA has some concept of what they're managing... Which sadly isn't as common as it should be. But your broad generalization tells me that you don't really know what managers do. I've never been one, and AFAIC, I hope I never am one, but a good manager (even with that dreaded MBA) is often the difference between having a great job and having a living hell at work. The great ones promise a lot but know what those promises require. The bad ones promise a lot and expect the underlings to figure it out. The worthless promise nothing.
But they certainly have a point. Someone needs to be the interface for the makers so they can continue making. The value that they add is that they handle the red tape so the workers don't need to. Their function is to increase productivity by eliminating the BS from their workday. You can debate how effective that is (I certainly won't argue that there are spectacular failures). But think of it this way: If one of the marketing guys walked up to you and said that the customers are asking for "new shiny feature A" would you actually want to go through the management work of getting approval, funding, coordinating? Or would you just prefer to give your input to your manager when needed so you don't have to listen to a bunch of other talking heads waste your time when they aren't going over the technicals?
A truly clever developer will create code so easy to understand that a less than average developer could debug it.
Only if it does not impact time to market of the product. Average developers need to step up and get better.
Agreed, but you know as well as anyone that there are always going to be mediocre programmers. That's why organizations establish some sort of standard to abide by. That way there's a formal review. Which is totally ignored by your statement earlier about "all of those little applications actually solved problems." The headache of fixing those macros, applets, or programs when something changes and breaks them. All of a sudden, there's nothing for someone to work with to fix it... except lots of extra spent time decoding what's happening.
Agreed. Moderators were distracted by the plethora of particular humor above, and didn't notice that this post that was marked "redundant" was posted WAY before most of the jokes above. At 7:43 this was a perfectly legit comment.
Please mods, correct this. This only encourages usage of the FRPoR (first reasonable post or reply) for all future moderation or karma gains. This was quite funny, and I am giving CaptainPatent a +1 in my mind.
As always: IANAL, but I do remember the class in business law I took... For whatever that's worth.
The statement that stuck with me in that class is, you go after them wherever they do their business. If they're based in New York, you go to New York cause that's the state that would have to most jurisdiction and ability to uphold whatever the ruling is.
Are you saying that we need to implement a third rule? 1) Never fight a land war in Asia. 2) Never go into a wager with a Sicilian when death is on the line. 3) Don't F with Monsanto, cause you won't.
And yes, that's kinda what I was implying with that "matter of time" stuff. But as with all things that involve congress, it's going to take support from the right folks to make them actually look at evidence and support some sort of penalty. There would need to be some sort of movement from a large group of companies (you know... camera and device makers) and it would certainly help if these companies were represented by a wide variety of congresspeople.
That's a scenario that I'd love to see. But feasibility will depend on how expensive it is for TomTom to pull that stunt. If they have to rewrite their software and "upgrade" all their TomToms to use a new format and use an Apple interface, that's quite a lot of cash and time.
But, if TomTom's doing well enough, maybe they could decide to give the big finger to MS. I'd certainly applaud.
This sort of thing boggles my mind. You, as a company, make a lot of lovely commercials talking about how easy your OS is to copy pictures, and do all sorts of cool things. You employ a kid to pimp your OS. Everything is clouds and rainbows.
In the past, you made it so your OS *only* supports file systems that you hold patents for. It's sketchy, but that's what you did. It even seems convenient to the end user cause they don't need to decide what format to do. Camera and device makers are faced with a choice to either: A) Use your file system in the storage to make it easy to copy (like in the commercials you make later). B) Force the makers to create an interface and make the copy process a pain for the end user.
So, most makers choose A since the standard's been published and things seem pretty calm and clear. Happiness abounds, and since the standard is readily available almost everyone else has employed usage of said OS. It's lightweight, does a simple job quite well. Device makers make plenty of products that directly support and utilize your FS and it seems to add value to your OS.
Then, you decide it's time to enforce the patent. Against certain competitors, or you start charging licensing fees. Device makers and the competition has to suffer since your OS dominates the market and there's no way to go back and stop using the FS since that requires recalling your entire product portfolio.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is: WHY DO THIS? Greed.. At least that's a simple answer.
More importantly though, does this qualify as either abusive or anti-competitive? I certainly think so. IANAL, but even if it's neither the former, it's certainly un-ethical. It's certainly a great way to get more people to hate you. It's only a matter of time before someone with enough resources hates you enough to pull you into court or a governmental session and start killing you in the public eye and in the bottom line.
Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
If TomTom uses FAT (12 or 16), then they're in the clear... Unless they're specifically using the VFAT extension.
This is very hard for people who come from democratic countries to understand.
Exactly. The US is a republic. The federal government was supposed to represent a collection of states, hence the EC. Since then, power was concentrated more and more into the federal hands, and the autonomy of the states was greatly reduced.
Now, the states are more like districts. And that's perfectly fine cause that's what the people voted for over and over again. The will of the masses made that happen... Not explicitly, but that's what we and they all got over the last 220 years. We all elected them. As for the EC - it probably could be considered obsolete, and if someone really wants it gone, make the change in the constitution where it belongs.
The senate is very interesting in all this too. At one point in time, the senate was elected by state assemblies. A constitutional change was made to make it so they were directly elected (quite proper and all). But, a less populated state's citizen still gets MUCH more clout in the senate than an higher populated state's citizen. So, by the logic of eliminating the EC, shouldn't the senate also face the same scrutiny? But then, we'd have to look at a unicameral or *gasp* parliamentary system!
Or, we could just start over with a new constitution. The US's current government is acting in a way that the original framers never imagined. We've literally been fitting round pegs into our square frame for decades. Maybe the time has come to just rethink the whole thing and set it up the way we think it should be now. Then add a clause that in another 200 years it'll have to be rewritten again.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's different than everything else the UK and US governments do?
It was RedHat 5.(something?) for me... I know. I'm a freaking noob here it seems. I installed using a CD, not the floppies like all you.
But my first experience after getting it up and running, was getting the NIC drivers loaded (I had a classic tulip card). That was easy. I then wanted to figure out what I was going to do... So I logged into one of the IRC channels that I normally talked on, and got immediately booted because I was running as root.
That was my first lesson in computer security.
This is akin to charging Louisville Slugger for battery because someone used their bat to injure someone. If someone's going to get charged for infringement, charge the people who do the downloading.
I have a couple of follow up thoughts though:
1) Does this mean that if any of us make a product, and someone is able to use that product to break the law, are we now responsible for what that product does?
2) Also, are we now assuming that the masses are no longer responsible for their own actions? If I download a file or video from a site, and the material is copyrighted, does that mean that I'm not to blame anymore?
The persons running the site are the problem since it's been made available to me and "I can't help but download that?" Even better, where are the web browser makers in all this? I mean, I'm sure that Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Opera, et al. must have to shoulder some blame for providing a product that allows them to go to unsavory sites such as this! What about Bram! He created a protocol that allows millions of people to download stuff even faster!
Oh oh! What about the American Department of Defense! They created a "network" that has permitted piracy an a previously unimaginable level! They need to pay for their copyright infringment too!
OK... I've totally fallen off the tracks here... I'll check in tomorrow.
Whoops... thanks for the correction.
Calling someone a sissy for not going to the library is not denying them access. They effectively deny themselves access, which is an entirely different matter.
I agree with you that teaching the kids critical thinking is the most important part. But remember what I said in my post before, they aren't being held responsible for what they do anyway. By providing kids "unrestricted access" there'll be some over-protective parent going nuts about how their kid was "exposed" to some terrible material and try to hold the school responsible. I attack it from a self protection angle for that exact reason.
Now, if the policy of the school is: "We'll give your kids access to everything, but they are responsible for what happens. Don't go to naughty sites, or they'll lose access." Have the parents sign it, and only then allow the kid access to the internet connection, then at least you're covering your bases right?
The argument you bring forth makes me feel the true pain it is to grant any sort of internet access to a population that isn't held responsible for what they do. Which is covered by the latter part of the rant above. If the sites are blocked, then free expression is squelched. If the sites are allowed, it could be considered offensive by the parents that you are arguing for.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes." I would assume that the access to the internet is not intended to be for the entertainment of the student. It likely has a purpose, namely assisting with research, email, or whatever else. The simple solution is to tell the student users, "This is for [purpose] only." And allow sites that assist with that purpose. If a student really wants to read about some other subject, they can research it at home, or at a local library, or a freaking coffee shop if they really want to. I'm sure that even Tennessee has a Starbucks or something to provide that in the towns.
If the school is feeling really frisky, they can even allow that instant messaging thing. Also, give the staff a way to access the broader content, so if there's something that they feel is worthwhile, they can get it added. I think that this addresses the biggest concern, "What should they be doing at school" against "What shouldn't they."
I don't think a school is a place where kids should be hanging out streaming the NCAA tourney either... Cause I'll bet that's not part of the curriculum.
It's not ethical. I'll certainly give you that. But what makes it illegal is supposed to be the question at hand. The feelings that I've had regarding this issue have nothing to do with "it is something that is right or wrong." It's got more to do with "Who's really responsible here?"
Fining and arresting people who "make things available" can be viewed as a classic slippery slope. You could even argue that making the software available is a convenience for legit users who seriously messed up their installation media. This would be a totally fine since a paying customer is really just trying to access media for a product they already own. It's a hypothetical, but it's worth considering.
My problem with attacking TPB is that aren't doing the stealing, the people who initiate the download are the real theives, assuming they don't have a license. The people who modify the software are liable for EULA violations. But what we're doing is punishing people who provide an interface. Someone makes a search engine (are you reading this Yahoo and Google) for people to search for software, and download it. In fact, this sort of ruling indicates to me that if you have an FTP site where you allow your friends to upload stuff (pictures, home made videos, etc) you could be held liable if your buddy uploads Office.
So, that's my problem. Yes, it sucks that someone is trying to grab your software. I'm sorry about that. But the bright side in the case you were trying to paint is that someone cares enough about what you make to share it... and maybe even provide you a few paying customers that you may or may not have had otherwise.
Mod parent up.
Just ask George Washington what he thought of political parties.
The problem with everyone voting for the lesser evil is that it allows the two at the top to keep taking care of themselves in the name of "representing the people." It doesn't take a majority to create real change. 10% of the population can have a huge impact on the dealings of two parties that each have 40-45% of the population's support.
But continuing the status quo is a guaranteed loser. If you are indeed truly happy voting for someone in the D or R range, then please vote for them. If you aren't, then vote for someone you actually like, not against someone you don't.
Voting for someone (third party or not) should be a statement of who you want representing you.
Agree with Letharion. The life expectancy of oil was 10-20 years back in the 1920s. Try reading The Age of Oil. We really don't know how much oil there is down there, but it's not running out now.
There. Fixed that for you. That's really all we know about the supply... We don't.
I stand corrected. You are quite right.
Ding ding ding! Winner!
What's sad about this is: If those managers are doing what they should already be doing then this shouldn't be necessary. The manager should know what the employee is producing and know the value that said employee is bringing already. Some stupid formula based on a behavior only provides a method to exploit the evaluation in a non-productive way.
If the manager doesn't know what an employee's value (or lack of) is, then they've already failed. No formula is going to fix that failure.
Let's try with a little IT analogy (shocking, I know). The "everyone do their own little thing" are the dreaded small VBA applications hacked up in Excel that have no architecture, no signoffs and just pop up all over the place
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all of those little applications actually solved problems for the business?
Of course, but that's missing the point. If it's really useful for the business, then someone should be there to take care of it and make sure the interface makes sense and is maintainable.
It's easy to be an armchair MBA and think you got all the answers because you don't see the actual implications.
There's only two kinds of people a company needs: people that make things and people that sell them. MBAs do neither. They don't sell, and they don't make. There's no value-add, so there is no point.
MBAs do not make you instantly worthless. Having one could supposedly make you more aware of how the financials part of the business works if you don't already. There's plenty of point as long as the holder of said MBA has some concept of what they're managing... Which sadly isn't as common as it should be. But your broad generalization tells me that you don't really know what managers do. I've never been one, and AFAIC, I hope I never am one, but a good manager (even with that dreaded MBA) is often the difference between having a great job and having a living hell at work. The great ones promise a lot but know what those promises require. The bad ones promise a lot and expect the underlings to figure it out. The worthless promise nothing.
But they certainly have a point. Someone needs to be the interface for the makers so they can continue making. The value that they add is that they handle the red tape so the workers don't need to. Their function is to increase productivity by eliminating the BS from their workday. You can debate how effective that is (I certainly won't argue that there are spectacular failures). But think of it this way: If one of the marketing guys walked up to you and said that the customers are asking for "new shiny feature A" would you actually want to go through the management work of getting approval, funding, coordinating? Or would you just prefer to give your input to your manager when needed so you don't have to listen to a bunch of other talking heads waste your time when they aren't going over the technicals?
A truly clever developer will create code so easy to understand that a less than average developer could debug it.
Only if it does not impact time to market of the product. Average developers need to step up and get better.
Agreed, but you know as well as anyone that there are always going to be mediocre programmers. That's why organizations establish some sort of standard to abide by. That way there's a formal review. Which is totally ignored by your statement earlier about "all of those little applications actually solved problems." The headache of fixing those macros, applets, or programs when something changes and breaks them. All of a sudden, there's nothing for someone to work with to fix it... except lots of extra spent time decoding what's happening.
At 10, I could have told you about quarks... But I would've told you that the best use of them involved reciting the Rules of Acquisition.
Agreed. Moderators were distracted by the plethora of particular humor above, and didn't notice that this post that was marked "redundant" was posted WAY before most of the jokes above. At 7:43 this was a perfectly legit comment.
Please mods, correct this. This only encourages usage of the FRPoR (first reasonable post or reply) for all future moderation or karma gains. This was quite funny, and I am giving CaptainPatent a +1 in my mind.
As always: IANAL, but I do remember the class in business law I took... For whatever that's worth.
The statement that stuck with me in that class is, you go after them wherever they do their business. If they're based in New York, you go to New York cause that's the state that would have to most jurisdiction and ability to uphold whatever the ruling is.
Are you saying that we need to implement a third rule?
1) Never fight a land war in Asia.
2) Never go into a wager with a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3) Don't F with Monsanto, cause you won't.
I think so Brain, but if Jimmy cracks corn and nobody cares, why does he keep doing it?
How do you know? You ever ask one?
Just wait till they get better at aiming their rifles.
OI!
Thank you.
And yes, that's kinda what I was implying with that "matter of time" stuff. But as with all things that involve congress, it's going to take support from the right folks to make them actually look at evidence and support some sort of penalty. There would need to be some sort of movement from a large group of companies (you know... camera and device makers) and it would certainly help if these companies were represented by a wide variety of congresspeople.
That's a scenario that I'd love to see. But feasibility will depend on how expensive it is for TomTom to pull that stunt. If they have to rewrite their software and "upgrade" all their TomToms to use a new format and use an Apple interface, that's quite a lot of cash and time.
But, if TomTom's doing well enough, maybe they could decide to give the big finger to MS. I'd certainly applaud.
This sort of thing boggles my mind. You, as a company, make a lot of lovely commercials talking about how easy your OS is to copy pictures, and do all sorts of cool things. You employ a kid to pimp your OS. Everything is clouds and rainbows.
In the past, you made it so your OS *only* supports file systems that you hold patents for. It's sketchy, but that's what you did. It even seems convenient to the end user cause they don't need to decide what format to do. Camera and device makers are faced with a choice to either:
A) Use your file system in the storage to make it easy to copy (like in the commercials you make later).
B) Force the makers to create an interface and make the copy process a pain for the end user.
So, most makers choose A since the standard's been published and things seem pretty calm and clear. Happiness abounds, and since the standard is readily available almost everyone else has employed usage of said OS. It's lightweight, does a simple job quite well. Device makers make plenty of products that directly support and utilize your FS and it seems to add value to your OS.
Then, you decide it's time to enforce the patent. Against certain competitors, or you start charging licensing fees. Device makers and the competition has to suffer since your OS dominates the market and there's no way to go back and stop using the FS since that requires recalling your entire product portfolio.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is: WHY DO THIS? Greed.. At least that's a simple answer.
More importantly though, does this qualify as either abusive or anti-competitive? I certainly think so. IANAL, but even if it's neither the former, it's certainly un-ethical. It's certainly a great way to get more people to hate you. It's only a matter of time before someone with enough resources hates you enough to pull you into court or a governmental session and start killing you in the public eye and in the bottom line.
From Wikipedia (cause I'm lazy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
If TomTom uses FAT (12 or 16), then they're in the clear... Unless they're specifically using the VFAT extension.
This is very hard for people who come from democratic countries to understand.
Exactly. The US is a republic. The federal government was supposed to represent a collection of states, hence the EC. Since then, power was concentrated more and more into the federal hands, and the autonomy of the states was greatly reduced.
Now, the states are more like districts. And that's perfectly fine cause that's what the people voted for over and over again. The will of the masses made that happen... Not explicitly, but that's what we and they all got over the last 220 years. We all elected them. As for the EC - it probably could be considered obsolete, and if someone really wants it gone, make the change in the constitution where it belongs.
The senate is very interesting in all this too. At one point in time, the senate was elected by state assemblies. A constitutional change was made to make it so they were directly elected (quite proper and all). But, a less populated state's citizen still gets MUCH more clout in the senate than an higher populated state's citizen. So, by the logic of eliminating the EC, shouldn't the senate also face the same scrutiny? But then, we'd have to look at a unicameral or *gasp* parliamentary system!
Or, we could just start over with a new constitution. The US's current government is acting in a way that the original framers never imagined. We've literally been fitting round pegs into our square frame for decades. Maybe the time has come to just rethink the whole thing and set it up the way we think it should be now. Then add a clause that in another 200 years it'll have to be rewritten again.