Taking their lead from China, two Americans have opened the first US-based Internet Addiction treatment center in Fall City, Wash.
I wonder how much they charge for a beating that results in death? We might have some catch-up to do, as it seems china includes that service in their base fee;P
Is it a requirement to CHANGE anything in the kernel? If they're just using stock builds, what is there to give back?
Well, I would say to "contribute back to the Linux kernel", that yes, changing the kernel is a requirement;}
Thus my question. Parent said Google DID contribute back to the kernel. I, like you, assumed they used a stock build. But admittedly I did not know either way what the case was.
I can't answer that question, but you know what other big linux using corporation is conspiciously absent from that list?
Google.
Serious question (I must not be awake enough yet to form a proper Google query)
How much HAS Google actually contributed back to Linux?
I mean I realize they USE Linux and all, but I haven't heard of any kernel updates/patches from them.
Have they really contributed much back to the kernel? the distros? All that they make popular and well known are their apps, which is great and all, but an app is not a kernel. And even their apps seem to usually get late ports to Linux, just after the already late port to MacOS, which was embarrassingly late after the Windows versions.
I don't mean this as knocking Google. They are awesome and I still heart them.
And to cut off most of the replies I expect, contributing to OSS is not at all the same as contributing specifically to Linux. I know they do the former a lot. It's the latter I've never really heard of.
Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing.
Actually I thought this was the most genius part!
RIAA/MPAA/friends offer ISP big $$$ to block the pirate bay.
ISP accepts that dirty money, and announces they will block them on Sept 1st.
The pirate bay sell off is scheduled for August 27th, 4 days before the block will be put in place.
The ISP seems to realize that the pirate bay will be worthless to everyone a couple days before they block access to it, which no one will care about since the pirate bays new owners will have basically already blocked access by taking the site as-is down.
The ISP just took the RIAA/MPAA bribe and is giving them nothing of any value in return.
My elderly father says "I did without a cell phone for over seven decades, why would I need one now?" I pointed out that they're handy in an emergency, he countered with "my car has on-star".
I just think it is funny that the reason your father believes he does not need a cell phone, is because his car already has a cell phone built in!
Reminds me of that AOL comercial in the late 90's
"My friend asked me if I had AOL. I said 'Why, I already have a computer!'"
You know what is going to happen? We are going to get sites that do nothing but list DHT hash URI's (or maybe just the hashes) instead of torrent files. I wonder how the powers that be will take that?
Isn't it obvious after these past ten years?
Linking to a hash of data that points to other data that links back to a hash to different data will be made a felony carrying a one trillion dollar per second per infraction fine, and 2 back to back life sentences.
First off, sorry you got modded troll. Too many moronic moderators these days use Troll in place of "I don't agree":/
It's not depriving you a helluva lot more than the alternative, i.e. the works not being created in the first place. For any commercial work created under copyright, there is a very good chance that it would never have been created without copyright.
That is flat out wrong, and provable.
Copyright is only a couple hundred years old, yet creative works of art have been made for over 10,000 years.
I mean, the Renaissance?
Most of the expansion of human knowledge has come about without any form of copyright protection, and in fact is measurably slower now which some say might be due to stifling effects of copyright. For every 1 company that makes some new advance in technology, a thousand more are prevented from improving upon it for their lifetime.
In an age where scientific discoveries no longer need to take multiple life times, and a person can see the results of the same work they started, it seems more than counter intuitive to artificially limit human advancement just so some large companies can continue to rape profits from those that actually created the things that make the companies rich.
In fact, that statement is yet another example of the deep sense of entitlement that has permeated our hearts and minds over culture since piracy became popular.
You're right. Artists and their sense of entitlement over ideas that are impossible to 'own' is destroying our country, culture, and scientific advancement. I fully agree with you here.
Personally, I would rather live without a piece of crap art someone only made because they wanted a buck, in exchange for advancement of science that would make mine and everyone elses quality of life improve leaps and bounds. After all, real artists create art for the sake of creating art. Money isn't a factor, it's only nice to get for it. I don't do what I love for my profession either. I can't help but do the things that interest me, even for free. That's why I also work at a job, to have money to live on. Artists should remember how the rest of the world lives and come back to reality.
This is what a lot of people, and comcast, are not seeing. No body at all (except comcast) has said they can't throttle!
Comcast wants to be free to do 'thing A', because there are no laws against doing 'thing A' And they are right. And they CAN do 'thing A' and no one said otherwise.
Problem is, comcast is actually doing 'thing B' which is totally different and unrelated.
The FCC told them they can't do 'thing B' because it is not legal. Comcast replies "But but but, 'thing A' is legal! we should be able to do it!" as if that was relative to anything at all.
Obviously, 'thing A' is traffic shaping and throttling. 'thing B' is packet forgery and spoofing.
If I write a driver for Linux, and it is GPLed, all that is required of me is to release the source code for that driver. I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, nor a mirror of the FSF code base, nor am I expected to provide the source code to your pet GPL project, if I do not distribute any of that stuff as a binary!
It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.
If my driver is made from scratch, I must provide its complete source, and any glue code needed to compile and use it. If it is a modification to an existing driver, then I must provide sources of the entire end-result. aka diff files are not enough, it must be the entire code for THE DRIVER, including my changes. But that is it. Not the source to all kernels, not the source to every possible distro that driver would work on. Just my changes.
Providing a distribution is different of course. You do need a source 'snapshot' of the entire distribution. But that is it! If I distribute a version of Ubuntu with my driver, then I must provide the source to that Ubuntu release, as well as my driver.
Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim. Just source of what you are distributing binaries of.
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?
No.
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source, but only to the people you gave the binary to. There can even be a fee for delivering the source (But not one greater than the cost of the binary the source is for, or something similar but not exactly that. Consult the GPL if that is an actual concern.) Typically a link on a webpage, or an attachment by email reply, is fine. Generally the first option will be more convenient for you if you have anything but a very tiny customer base.
If you modified nothing, then the extent of your responsibility to redistribute is only to ensure the copyright notice stays intact. If you *really* modified nothing, this part is already done for you.
If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?
Nope. Goto 10 and reapply, specifically the 'if you *really* modified nothing' part.
If I pay a lawyer enough money will they always take my case?
Yup! That's about the only thing this article shows us.
Does this mean that Linux was never more secure than Windows--only more obscure?
It's hardly obscure since they could look and find it, evidenced by the fact they found it.
Go try that with the Windows kernels!
In addition, there is already a patch out for this, which by end of the week will be pushed down from the distro managers. We don't have to wait years after finding it for the fix to be released, as Microsoft historically does.
In fact, why just assume this similar bug is NOT in the windows kernel? Did you check? Did any reputable security company check? I'm not saying it is there, only that you can't easily prove otherwise.
*that* is the security being spoken of.
As far as I know, only one OS claims no exploits, and that is OpenBSD.
Furthermore, if it really is about current fugitives, then wouldn't the government love to know a mailing address for these people so they can arrest them, rather than just refusing SS payment?
That's what I was wondering. They know where the checks are being sent, and the bank records are equally accessible for direct deposit... Just go and get them and get it over with!
That was a huge WTF flag in my mind, and makes me wonder what the real reasons behind all of this are.
In what possible way could someone confuse what I wrote with stealing?
Just wait until the next bittorrent article, you'll get it.
And to answer: You are making the complaint that you can write an entire application, yet somehow can't also write the same functionality found in 'a tiny GPL library', and so the answer is not to write it yourself, or purchase it under a non-GPL license from the author, or find an already comercial-only library to pay for and include... Instead the answer seems to complain how the GPL lib somehow hurts you because you can't use it without paying its price.
If there was two libraries, one where the cost is you can't include it in closed source software (GPL), and the other where the cost is say $10,000 (commercial), you have four options: 1- pick one and pay for it. 2- make your own at your own expense 3- pirate one of them 4- do without
Everyone (else, not you) seems to imply all businesses only want to choose #3, but at the same time don't want to get in any legal trouble from doing so, and so they just complain about that fact in guise of complaints against the GPL.
But then your post comes along and reads as if this is a _fault_ of the GPL, instead of the reality that this is exactly the goal of the GPL license.
Oh, and PS, I wasn't accusing you personally of stealing or copyright infringement.. it was meant as a generic reply, but more than that, as a zap at 90% of slashdots readership who don't believe copyright violations exist, but downloading a song is indeed stealing, thus the entire last paragraph of that post...
The result really is that a GPL license is poison to many companies
Well stop being a thief, and it wouldn't matter if you are allowed or not to steal someone elses code:P
Go write the code yourself, or buy it from a company. Hell, you can even ask the author to sell you his GPLed code under a different license, one very specific to you and your company to allow distribution only by you, and set some form of compensation. Then the GPLed code is yours to use and pay for, but the GPL is not involved in any way/shape/form.
Don't go stealing someones GPLed lib, then getting pissed that the author of that code doesn't WANT you to steal it and make money off his/her work.
You are just being cheap. If you are selling your product, go PAY for the stuff you use in it, and stop complaining that the world isn't giving you for free all the stuff it relies on.
(For the record, I am well aware copyright violations are not theft, but that seems to be what all the trolls on this board call it or understand it as, so wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding from them of what I meant... In their head, it is theft, and so is this.)
A hundred years ago today, if someone had a giant safe in their house, and they were suspected of any crime whatsoever, the legal authorities (of pretty much every country in the world, it would baffle me to hear about somewhere this would not be the case) would simply ask for the keys.
With this law, there is no safe, and there is no key, and you still go to prison for 5 years if they claim something is a safe when it is in fact random data on a hard drive.
If police of a hundred years ago came into your house, and claimed that the houselplant by the door is a safe, and demands the key... That officer would get stabbed. Even today that same officer would be put away for being mentally ill.
It looks like this guy just discovered the angry video game nerd video files, spent the weekend watching them all, and rehashing every complaint made in those videos for hardware on his own site in text format with the humor stripped out.
I would say it is a good list, if it wasn't for the fact I've seen all of these problems complained about in one place before
It's amusing that you've made up your mind based on media reporting and are second guessing the jury. Did you sit in the court room? Did you see the evidence that was presented? Are you looking at it logically or are your beliefs driven by emotion?
I don't need to be on the jury, sit in the court room, or see additional evidence to know that when a child is in your care and a camera (which you can watch the video of online) caught the killing on tape, I can't come up with a single reason where that situation would be legitimate and not named 'killing'.
Also history has shown the law is not just or fair, so any statement coming from the legal system is suspect for that reason alone.
So that is three points against the killers, to make me think they are murderers, and zero for them. I admit that 'zero for them' might be a 'one for them' if they had some magical evidence that proves the camera footage was a photoshop (or the equivalent for video) Either way, one number is still larger than the other.
My point is that there is something terribly wrong when laws allow companies to decline liability via a standard form contract.
The point everyone else is making is, there are no laws that allow companies to do that. In fact there are laws against it.
You seem to have a problem in trusting corporations too much. Just because they say something is so, does not make it so. Just because they claim the law is one way, does not make it so.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking their lead from China, two Americans have opened the first US-based Internet Addiction treatment center in Fall City, Wash.
I wonder how much they charge for a beating that results in death? ;P
We might have some catch-up to do, as it seems china includes that service in their base fee
Is it a requirement to CHANGE anything in the kernel? If they're just using stock builds, what is there to give back?
Well, I would say to "contribute back to the Linux kernel", that yes, changing the kernel is a requirement ;}
Thus my question. Parent said Google DID contribute back to the kernel. I, like you, assumed they used a stock build.
But admittedly I did not know either way what the case was.
I can't answer that question, but you know what other big linux using corporation is conspiciously absent from that list?
Google.
Serious question (I must not be awake enough yet to form a proper Google query)
How much HAS Google actually contributed back to Linux?
I mean I realize they USE Linux and all, but I haven't heard of any kernel updates/patches from them.
Have they really contributed much back to the kernel? the distros? All that they make popular and well known are their apps, which is great and all, but an app is not a kernel.
And even their apps seem to usually get late ports to Linux, just after the already late port to MacOS, which was embarrassingly late after the Windows versions.
I don't mean this as knocking Google. They are awesome and I still heart them.
And to cut off most of the replies I expect, contributing to OSS is not at all the same as contributing specifically to Linux. I know they do the former a lot. It's the latter I've never really heard of.
Or would you like your internet connection to be served by a SUV carrying hard drives?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fedex truck packed with 250 lbs of hard disks!
Depending on the file size of what you would be downloading and with what technology, overnight shipping might STILL be better latency too!
Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing.
Actually I thought this was the most genius part!
RIAA/MPAA/friends offer ISP big $$$ to block the pirate bay.
ISP accepts that dirty money, and announces they will block them on Sept 1st.
The pirate bay sell off is scheduled for August 27th, 4 days before the block will be put in place.
The ISP seems to realize that the pirate bay will be worthless to everyone a couple days before they block access to it, which no one will care about since the pirate bays new owners will have basically already blocked access by taking the site as-is down.
The ISP just took the RIAA/MPAA bribe and is giving them nothing of any value in return.
Awesome!
Doesn't Ireland have a "common carrier" status like the US?
Actually yes, they have "common carrier" status JUST like the US.
That is to say, exactly nothing what so ever.
My elderly father says "I did without a cell phone for over seven decades, why would I need one now?" I pointed out that they're handy in an emergency, he countered with "my car has on-star".
I just think it is funny that the reason your father believes he does not need a cell phone, is because his car already has a cell phone built in!
Reminds me of that AOL comercial in the late 90's
"My friend asked me if I had AOL. I said 'Why, I already have a computer!'"
You know what is going to happen? We are going to get sites that do nothing but list DHT hash URI's (or maybe just the hashes) instead of torrent files. I wonder how the powers that be will take that?
Isn't it obvious after these past ten years?
Linking to a hash of data that points to other data that links back to a hash to different data will be made a felony carrying a one trillion dollar per second per infraction fine, and 2 back to back life sentences.
Oh, and the FBI will kick your puppy too.
First off, sorry you got modded troll. :/
Too many moronic moderators these days use Troll in place of "I don't agree"
It's not depriving you a helluva lot more than the alternative, i.e. the works not being created in the first place. For any commercial work created under copyright, there is a very good chance that it would never have been created without copyright.
That is flat out wrong, and provable.
Copyright is only a couple hundred years old, yet creative works of art have been made for over 10,000 years.
I mean, the Renaissance?
Most of the expansion of human knowledge has come about without any form of copyright protection, and in fact is measurably slower now which some say might be due to stifling effects of copyright.
For every 1 company that makes some new advance in technology, a thousand more are prevented from improving upon it for their lifetime.
In an age where scientific discoveries no longer need to take multiple life times, and a person can see the results of the same work they started, it seems more than counter intuitive to artificially limit human advancement just so some large companies can continue to rape profits from those that actually created the things that make the companies rich.
In fact, that statement is yet another example of the deep sense of entitlement that has permeated our hearts and minds over culture since piracy became popular.
You're right. Artists and their sense of entitlement over ideas that are impossible to 'own' is destroying our country, culture, and scientific advancement. I fully agree with you here.
Personally, I would rather live without a piece of crap art someone only made because they wanted a buck, in exchange for advancement of science that would make mine and everyone elses quality of life improve leaps and bounds.
After all, real artists create art for the sake of creating art. Money isn't a factor, it's only nice to get for it.
I don't do what I love for my profession either. I can't help but do the things that interest me, even for free. That's why I also work at a job, to have money to live on. Artists should remember how the rest of the world lives and come back to reality.
Just for reference: RFC 1178
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html
While it is not a direct answer to your question, it does give a lot of good why and why not's on this subject. Just as handy now as in the 90s.
Comcast could be free to throttle.
This is what a lot of people, and comcast, are not seeing.
No body at all (except comcast) has said they can't throttle!
Comcast wants to be free to do 'thing A', because there are no laws against doing 'thing A'
And they are right. And they CAN do 'thing A' and no one said otherwise.
Problem is, comcast is actually doing 'thing B' which is totally different and unrelated.
The FCC told them they can't do 'thing B' because it is not legal.
Comcast replies "But but but, 'thing A' is legal! we should be able to do it!" as if that was relative to anything at all.
Obviously, 'thing A' is traffic shaping and throttling. 'thing B' is packet forgery and spoofing.
You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.
Just because such a comment will get you modded up on slashdot, does not make it true.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
If I write a driver for Linux, and it is GPLed, all that is required of me is to release the source code for that driver.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, nor a mirror of the FSF code base, nor am I expected to provide the source code to your pet GPL project, if I do not distribute any of that stuff as a binary!
It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.
If my driver is made from scratch, I must provide its complete source, and any glue code needed to compile and use it.
If it is a modification to an existing driver, then I must provide sources of the entire end-result. aka diff files are not enough, it must be the entire code for THE DRIVER, including my changes. But that is it. Not the source to all kernels, not the source to every possible distro that driver would work on. Just my changes.
Providing a distribution is different of course. You do need a source 'snapshot' of the entire distribution. But that is it!
If I distribute a version of Ubuntu with my driver, then I must provide the source to that Ubuntu release, as well as my driver.
Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim. Just source of what you are distributing binaries of.
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?
No.
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source, but only to the people you gave the binary to.
There can even be a fee for delivering the source (But not one greater than the cost of the binary the source is for, or something similar but not exactly that. Consult the GPL if that is an actual concern.)
Typically a link on a webpage, or an attachment by email reply, is fine. Generally the first option will be more convenient for you if you have anything but a very tiny customer base.
If you modified nothing, then the extent of your responsibility to redistribute is only to ensure the copyright notice stays intact. If you *really* modified nothing, this part is already done for you.
If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?
Nope. Goto 10 and reapply, specifically the 'if you *really* modified nothing' part.
If I pay a lawyer enough money will they always take my case?
Yup! That's about the only thing this article shows us.
Within a few days, patches will be released to all the OSS vendors. Admins will be inconvenienced by a reboot.
Even that last bit is avoidable, if you have Ksplice installed :D
Does this mean that Linux was never more secure than Windows--only more obscure?
It's hardly obscure since they could look and find it, evidenced by the fact they found it.
Go try that with the Windows kernels!
In addition, there is already a patch out for this, which by end of the week will be pushed down from the distro managers. We don't have to wait years after finding it for the fix to be released, as Microsoft historically does.
In fact, why just assume this similar bug is NOT in the windows kernel? Did you check? Did any reputable security company check?
I'm not saying it is there, only that you can't easily prove otherwise.
*that* is the security being spoken of.
As far as I know, only one OS claims no exploits, and that is OpenBSD.
Furthermore, if it really is about current fugitives, then wouldn't the government love to know a mailing address for these people so they can arrest them, rather than just refusing SS payment?
That's what I was wondering.
They know where the checks are being sent, and the bank records are equally accessible for direct deposit... Just go and get them and get it over with!
That was a huge WTF flag in my mind, and makes me wonder what the real reasons behind all of this are.
In what possible way could someone confuse what I wrote with stealing?
Just wait until the next bittorrent article, you'll get it.
And to answer: You are making the complaint that you can write an entire application, yet somehow can't also write the same functionality found in 'a tiny GPL library', and so the answer is not to write it yourself, or purchase it under a non-GPL license from the author, or find an already comercial-only library to pay for and include...
Instead the answer seems to complain how the GPL lib somehow hurts you because you can't use it without paying its price.
If there was two libraries, one where the cost is you can't include it in closed source software (GPL), and the other where the cost is say $10,000 (commercial), you have four options:
1- pick one and pay for it.
2- make your own at your own expense
3- pirate one of them
4- do without
Everyone (else, not you) seems to imply all businesses only want to choose #3, but at the same time don't want to get in any legal trouble from doing so, and so they just complain about that fact in guise of complaints against the GPL.
But then your post comes along and reads as if this is a _fault_ of the GPL, instead of the reality that this is exactly the goal of the GPL license.
Oh, and PS, I wasn't accusing you personally of stealing or copyright infringement.. it was meant as a generic reply, but more than that, as a zap at 90% of slashdots readership who don't believe copyright violations exist, but downloading a song is indeed stealing, thus the entire last paragraph of that post...
The result really is that a GPL license is poison to many companies
Well stop being a thief, and it wouldn't matter if you are allowed or not to steal someone elses code :P
Go write the code yourself, or buy it from a company. Hell, you can even ask the author to sell you his GPLed code under a different license, one very specific to you and your company to allow distribution only by you, and set some form of compensation. Then the GPLed code is yours to use and pay for, but the GPL is not involved in any way/shape/form.
Don't go stealing someones GPLed lib, then getting pissed that the author of that code doesn't WANT you to steal it and make money off his/her work.
You are just being cheap. If you are selling your product, go PAY for the stuff you use in it, and stop complaining that the world isn't giving you for free all the stuff it relies on.
(For the record, I am well aware copyright violations are not theft, but that seems to be what all the trolls on this board call it or understand it as, so wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding from them of what I meant... In their head, it is theft, and so is this.)
A hundred years ago today, if someone had a giant safe in their house, and they were suspected of any crime whatsoever, the legal authorities (of pretty much every country in the world, it would baffle me to hear about somewhere this would not be the case) would simply ask for the keys.
With this law, there is no safe, and there is no key, and you still go to prison for 5 years if they claim something is a safe when it is in fact random data on a hard drive.
If police of a hundred years ago came into your house, and claimed that the houselplant by the door is a safe, and demands the key... That officer would get stabbed.
Even today that same officer would be put away for being mentally ill.
It is not the same then or now.
If the names are stored in an encrypted database, we have them by the balls!
Oh, wait, this is the government. It's probably currently being mailed Second Class to a royal heir in Nigeria.
No wait, this is the UK government. It's probably being taken home by the secretary's brothers grandchild, with instructions to leave it on the train.
Wow
It looks like this guy just discovered the angry video game nerd video files, spent the weekend watching them all, and rehashing every complaint made in those videos for hardware on his own site in text format with the humor stripped out.
I would say it is a good list, if it wasn't for the fact I've seen all of these problems complained about in one place before
It's amusing that you've made up your mind based on media reporting and are second guessing the jury. Did you sit in the court room? Did you see the evidence that was presented? Are you looking at it logically or are your beliefs driven by emotion?
I don't need to be on the jury, sit in the court room, or see additional evidence to know that when a child is in your care and a camera (which you can watch the video of online) caught the killing on tape, I can't come up with a single reason where that situation would be legitimate and not named 'killing'.
Also history has shown the law is not just or fair, so any statement coming from the legal system is suspect for that reason alone.
So that is three points against the killers, to make me think they are murderers, and zero for them.
I admit that 'zero for them' might be a 'one for them' if they had some magical evidence that proves the camera footage was a photoshop (or the equivalent for video)
Either way, one number is still larger than the other.
My point is that there is something terribly wrong when laws allow companies to decline liability via a standard form contract.
The point everyone else is making is, there are no laws that allow companies to do that. In fact there are laws against it.
You seem to have a problem in trusting corporations too much. Just because they say something is so, does not make it so. Just because they claim the law is one way, does not make it so.
I sure hope that the reason he only served two years for raping a five-year-old is that he is dead. That is WAY too short a sentence.
Welcome to america
Where the sad truth is downloading a CD will have a worse and exponential effect on your future than raping a 5 year old girl does :/
Are you a stupid person who can't make a decision in the fast food restaurant? Dog orders you a cheeseburger.
At Taco Bell.
That is still a big step up from some of the orders I've heard placed at Taco Bell :P