As I understand the original story, there was no court order in Canada. It was an action from a US State taking out a domain registered and operating in Canada. That's what I object to.
From the original article.
But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland simply issued a federal warrant was issued in the State of Maryland[1] to.com operator Verisign, (who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for.com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the domain to the takedown page. But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact, Maryland state law) as been imposed on a.com domain operating outside the USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about when we commented on SOPA. Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be asserted over all domains registered under.com,.net, org,.biz and maybe.info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US).
Shutting down the site would be legal if done by Canadians, in Canada. What happened was more like anonymous shutting down a site. An unauthorized police force policing another country. Doesn't matter how bad the offender is, when one country's government starts policing another country's citizens, that's a very very bad thing.
My argument is akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar, because it's not in our country"
I agree that gambling is a big social problem. I don't think that it justifies an illegal act to shut it down though. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Similar to US bounty hunters coming to Canada and illegally abducting people back to the states. Happened in the days of the slave trade and is still happening. The US only gives a shit about another countries laws if they can benefit, Otherwise it's do whatever you want.
When your mother "explains" that you can't live in her basement now, it's an explanation, not an untested hypothesis. He explained how it worked by giving reasonable definitions of closed and open source, and showing the differences in both the cultural and the practical. Culturally, with Open Source, many people poking around the source code, find more and more varied solutions to problems. Through the evolution of this, better software emerges. With Closed source, a limited number of people are poking around the source code, so consequently fewer solutions to problems arise. Closed source must therefore have more bugs and design errors since fewer eyes are looking for them and tend to be more narrowly focused.
He explained it. Whether you believe it or not, is up to you. The proof is in the fact that Open Source software is the most prevalent software in the world.
Uh he also wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which as far as I know was the first article of any sort that could explain how Open Source worked, and why it worked so well. Surely that's got to count for something.
You may be a user, but that doesn't make you part of the culture that ESR is referring to . He's talking about the culture of the people who actually work on and in the Internet. The people who would of course care about how it is used, as opposed to the people who use it and have no idea of how it works, or how it could be damaged and what the damage may do to the Internet as a whole.
The experts at www.StockChase.com are from a call in TV show, so they won't be talking about it unless someone calls in about it. But it might show up as a comment.
The comments are all: 1. Stallman is a nutjob so we shouldn't listen to him. 2. The article has numerous errors, so should be ignored 3. Let's have arguments about arguments. (typical slashdot argument nazis)
The article is making the point that governments around the world are becoming more restrictive in how people use computers. Stallman predicted this, and tried to oppose it by creating the GNU foundation. By putting the source code into everyone's hands and allowing people to use it in however way they want, it helps stop the inevitable slide towards the government control that nobody except those controlling the government want.
Stallman saw the direction that software was heading and saw where it would lead. That is if you don't have control over the code your computer is running then who does? If you don't see the same thing, why not?
What exactly does a company internal Linux distro mean, when you are selling the displays that are using the distro? I thought the point of GPL was that if you sold the hardware that used the software you also needed to provide the source for the software.
You are right that making it opensourced will help with the support load, but that doesn't imply that it's been abandoned. Competition is good, and android needs some.
I've had a career in programming for about 30 years so far. I've loved the tech side of things, and I've always called myself a programmer. (or grunt) People either know what it means or they don't and you have to explain it to them. Calling yourself a software engineer does not change the job.
A programmer by any other name is still a programmer (and smells as sweet).
If the neutrinos were moving at the speed of light, and the earth was rotating towards the source, wouldn't it appear that the neutrino's were moving faster then the speed of light?
Of course I can't believe the mistake would have been this obvious.
I've not bought any sony products since they removed the other OS option from the ps3, and I must say they've lost a bunch of money from me. Didn't look at any monitors, tvs, cd or anything else with the hated label.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand the original story, there was no court order in Canada. It was an action from a US State taking out a domain registered and operating in Canada.
That's what I object to.
From the original article.
But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland simply issued a federal warrant was issued in the State of Maryland[1] to .com operator Verisign, (who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for .com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the domain to the takedown page. .com domain operating outside the USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about when we commented on SOPA. Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be asserted over all domains registered under .com, .net, org, .biz and maybe .info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US).
But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact, Maryland state law) as been imposed on a
Shutting down the site would be legal if done by Canadians, in Canada. What happened was more like anonymous shutting down a site. An unauthorized police force policing another country. Doesn't matter how bad the offender is, when one country's government starts policing another country's citizens, that's a very very bad thing.
My argument is akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar, because it's not in our country"
I agree that gambling is a big social problem. I don't think that it justifies an illegal act to shut it down though. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Did you miss the part about "still happening"?
Similar to US bounty hunters coming to Canada and illegally abducting people back to the states. Happened in the days of the slave trade and is still happening. The US only gives a shit about another countries laws if they can benefit, Otherwise it's do whatever you want.
When your mother "explains" that you can't live in her basement now, it's an explanation, not an untested hypothesis.
He explained how it worked by giving reasonable definitions of closed and open source, and showing the differences in both the cultural and the practical.
Culturally, with Open Source, many people poking around the source code, find more and more varied solutions to problems. Through the evolution of this, better software emerges.
With Closed source, a limited number of people are poking around the source code, so consequently fewer solutions to problems arise. Closed source must therefore have more bugs and design errors since fewer eyes are looking for them and tend to be more narrowly focused.
He explained it. Whether you believe it or not, is up to you. The proof is in the fact that Open Source software is the most prevalent software in the world.
Where there any actual studies that refuted his explanation?
Uh he also wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which as far as I know was the first article of any sort that could explain how Open Source worked, and why it worked so well. Surely that's got to count for something.
You may be a user, but that doesn't make you part of the culture that ESR is referring to . He's talking about the culture of the people who actually work on and in the Internet. The people who would of course care about how it is used, as opposed to the people who use it and have no idea of how it works, or how it could be damaged and what the damage may do to the Internet as a whole.
The experts at www.StockChase.com are from a call in TV show, so they won't be talking about it unless someone calls in about it. But it might show up as a comment.
If a monkey can control a robotic arm with 7 degrees of freedom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWSah4RD2E
http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/12/monkey-controls-robot-arm-with-7-degrees-of-freedom-video/
http://www.physorg.com/news194796581.html
you would think a brain implant would be a useful thing at this point for him. Yes it is a risk, but really, wouldn't it be worth it?
The comments are all:
1. Stallman is a nutjob so we shouldn't listen to him.
2. The article has numerous errors, so should be ignored
3. Let's have arguments about arguments. (typical slashdot argument nazis)
The article is making the point that governments around the world are becoming more restrictive in how people use computers. Stallman predicted this, and tried to oppose it by creating the GNU foundation. By putting the source code into everyone's hands and allowing people to use it in however way they want, it helps stop the inevitable slide towards the government control that nobody except those controlling the government want.
Stallman saw the direction that software was heading and saw where it would lead. That is if you don't have control over the code your computer is running then who does? If you don't see the same thing, why not?
You need to account for inflation as well. Add another 2% per year while your at it.
What exactly does a company internal Linux distro mean, when you are selling the displays that are using the distro? I thought the point of GPL was that if you sold the hardware that used the software you also needed to provide the source for the software.
Like openoffice/libraoffice firefox blender?
You are right that making it opensourced will help with the support load, but that doesn't imply that it's been abandoned. Competition is good, and android needs some.
Found your post after I wrote mine. (probably a couple down from yours). Totally agree!
I've had a career in programming for about 30 years so far. I've loved the tech side of things, and I've always called myself a programmer. (or grunt)
People either know what it means or they don't and you have to explain it to them.
Calling yourself a software engineer does not change the job.
A programmer by any other name is still a programmer (and smells as sweet).
If the neutrinos were moving at the speed of light, and the earth was rotating towards the source, wouldn't it appear that the neutrino's were moving faster then the speed of light?
Of course I can't believe the mistake would have been this obvious.
No, about the same. I'm just more careful in my purchases, and advise others to do the same. IMHO Sony is an evil company.
Then we are both happy.
I've not bought any sony products since they removed the other OS option from the ps3, and I must say they've lost a bunch of money from me. Didn't look at any monitors, tvs, cd or anything else with the hated label.
apparently I'm not alone.
http://wololo.net/wagic/2011/04/24/64-of-users-ready-to-boycott-sony-products/
Wish I had mod points. +Informative +Insightful
Get back to work!
I agree. I've got several dells and other generics and one HP box. The HP box is fantastic, and the next computer was going to be HP because of that.
Of course, bills under the mattress are losing value every day.
By I. P. Knightly