Ummm, right wing pistol packing rabbis are the greatest defenders of the Bill of Rights? Man we're in serious trouble. Guess what people -- there's and NRA man in the white house, and another as Atty General; the second amendment is not the part of the Bill of Rights under real attack these days.
true but this is TCP/IP we're talking about. If a windows box can telnet or ftp to a mac server on the real internet, it should work with IP over firewire the same way, no?
At least that restriction is clear and specific - any judge can easily determine who is allowed to use it and who is prohibited. Determining whether a user "promotes fundamental human rights of end-users" would be a much more difficult task. How is a restriction like the above - or "this software may only be used by card carrying members of the NRA" any different from any license which only allows software to be used by a particular group of organizations (for presumably commercial rather than political reasons)? I suppose such software is no longer strictly "free," but I don't see why one couldn't craft an open source license that places restrictions in such a manner, aas long as they are clear and specific.
True. Just wait until an American company gets sued by an Iraqi company for violating this clause in the license.... But really isn't this all symbolic anyway? As someone else points out here, do we really need to charge the Milosevics of the world with violating a EULA in order to improve human rights conditions?
For example, AI's main complaint about the US is that we still use capital punishment.
They do mention this, but they also discuss police brutality and shootings by police, which are both far too common here, all things considered. Their 2002 Report also raises a number of post-911 issues with regard to human rights, including surveillance, arrest and detention without charges, military tribunals.
By the way, the death penalty is one thing; but I don't know of another nation in the West or elsewhere that openly considers it acceptable to try, sentence, and execute one of its own citizens in another country using an unmanned plane.
Open Source is political, in the strict sense of the term. Your problem is not with politics per se, but the kind of politics it should be allowed to support. The problem with such clauses in licenses is not that they are political, but that they require political judgements that have nothing to do with software and technology issues.
What was wrong with Jocelyn Elders? She had sensible but unpopular attitudes about masturbation and the war on drugs?
To the point: I'm not sure what's more disturbing; that you have no problem with "payback" as a means of appointing government officials or that you consider a board advising USAID (upon whom millions depend for food aid) to be a "waste of time." And isn't it obvious why it would be a bad idea to have as a board member advising USAID the CEO of a company who accidentally destroys soybeans by mixing them with diarrhea medicine?
My one beef with BBEdit is it doesn't support hypertext internally. That was a cool feature of Alpha, which will soon be out for os x. I am waiting for alphaX so I can play with that feature. I work with large quantities of text documents (not always HTML but easily converted) and it would be great to have an easy way to navigate them in a primitive web browser like lynx or whatever but internal to bbedit so I don't have to switch to mozilla every time. Which of course doesn't word-wrap when you're looking at text files which is annoying if you actually want to read them rather than just edit code.
But on the brighter side, back when I first ordered bbedit (version 3 I think it was, something like $50 at educational pricing) they sent me a free "Software That Doesn't Suck" T-shirt.
I'm using 6.5.3 on OS X for all my web and text editor needs and it ROCKS. It was the one reason I didn't stay with linuxppc a few years ago, before OS X (and before mac-on-linux was all that mature). I had debian and yellowdog running on 3 different machines (not to mention slackware on a pentium), but I could never get the hang of emacs. Everyone (except vi users, of course) told me how great it was and how I could make it do everything bbedit did if I wanted but I never learned enough to figure out how to make that work for me. With OS X I feel like I have the best of both worlds, everything I wanted from UNIX plus the easy (for me) to understand interface of the Mac. The bbedit command line tools are a great addition that it looks like are vastly improved in BBEdit 7.
Damn; that sounded like a switch commercial, sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I never had emacs go BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP....
This actually is the way EMI and other companies whining about p2p should be going. Not charging for the service - let them charge 20 bucks for the client, or for a one-time fee for access or something, and give people access to everything, with advertising linking mp3s to websites where they can buy records, stickers, shirts, panties, whatever, plus read bios, interviews, etc. Let people take the music freely; the music is already out there, and any network they build, there will be no way for them to keep the music on that network. The problem is they won't take the step of understanding that they aren't losing anything by doing this -- the music is and will be out there. Once they accept that they can think intelligently about ways to make more money. Until then they're pouring more and more time and money into stopping piracy which is a business model that is bound to fail. But their freakin egos are too big; they really believe they deserve 16 dollars every time some kid downloads a song. They can't see past that; or at least they've refused to so far.
p2p is nothing more than copying a file across the network. Face it, they're screwed no matter what.:P
Anybody whose business model depends on people not being able to copy a file across the internet doesn't deserve to be making millions. Anybody whose business model depends on making it impossible and/or illegal to copy a file over the internet should have their corporate charter revoked. I mean, seriously, come on. Sucks for them and all, their empire will come crumbling down, or will at least change so they can't make the millions they've been making for decades, but isn't it time for them to stop their whining and learn how to live on salaries more consistent with the amount of labor that they do, like the rest of us? I have no problem with people making millions, but when their business model no longer makes them millions, why should the rest of us agree to suffer for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, right wing pistol packing rabbis are the greatest defenders of the Bill of Rights? Man we're in serious trouble. Guess what people -- there's and NRA man in the white house, and another as Atty General; the second amendment is not the part of the Bill of Rights under real attack these days.
Yeah, and I'm sure his dad spends a lot of time on MUDs.
there's a naked bike game? I want one.
true but this is TCP/IP we're talking about. If a windows box can telnet or ftp to a mac server on the real internet, it should work with IP over firewire the same way, no?
Why not? This is just TCP/IP, right? as long as the hardware will connect why wouldn't it treat it like any other connection using IP?
threaten a Congressional investigation into his mens' use of military-issued credit cards.
oh, wait, that's a Colonel....
A deer can now get shot simply for acting strangely?
At least that restriction is clear and specific - any judge can easily determine who is allowed to use it and who is prohibited. Determining whether a user "promotes fundamental human rights of end-users" would be a much more difficult task. How is a restriction like the above - or "this software may only be used by card carrying members of the NRA" any different from any license which only allows software to be used by a particular group of organizations (for presumably commercial rather than political reasons)? I suppose such software is no longer strictly "free," but I don't see why one couldn't craft an open source license that places restrictions in such a manner, aas long as they are clear and specific.
True. Just wait until an American company gets sued by an Iraqi company for violating this clause in the license.... But really isn't this all symbolic anyway? As someone else points out here, do we really need to charge the Milosevics of the world with violating a EULA in order to improve human rights conditions?
They do mention this, but they also discuss police brutality and shootings by police, which are both far too common here, all things considered. Their 2002 Report also raises a number of post-911 issues with regard to human rights, including surveillance, arrest and detention without charges, military tribunals.
By the way, the death penalty is one thing; but I don't know of another nation in the West or elsewhere that openly considers it acceptable to try, sentence, and execute one of its own citizens in another country using an unmanned plane.
Open Source is political, in the strict sense of the term. Your problem is not with politics per se, but the kind of politics it should be allowed to support. The problem with such clauses in licenses is not that they are political, but that they require political judgements that have nothing to do with software and technology issues.
This stuff is cool.... is there anything for Chimera on OSX? Or anyone working on it?
What was wrong with Jocelyn Elders? She had sensible but unpopular attitudes about masturbation and the war on drugs?
To the point: I'm not sure what's more disturbing; that you have no problem with "payback" as a means of appointing government officials or that you consider a board advising USAID (upon whom millions depend for food aid) to be a "waste of time." And isn't it obvious why it would be a bad idea to have as a board member advising USAID the CEO of a company who accidentally destroys soybeans by mixing them with diarrhea medicine?
Downloading While Chinese.
Who says they got this ad for free?
Basic case handling fee: $500,00 ...
Case study: $280
Rapid deployment fee: $843,00
The look on your boss's face when she gets the bill: Priceless.
Imagine a single-processor version of this!!
My one beef with BBEdit is it doesn't support hypertext internally. That was a cool feature of Alpha, which will soon be out for os x. I am waiting for alphaX so I can play with that feature. I work with large quantities of text documents (not always HTML but easily converted) and it would be great to have an easy way to navigate them in a primitive web browser like lynx or whatever but internal to bbedit so I don't have to switch to mozilla every time. Which of course doesn't word-wrap when you're looking at text files which is annoying if you actually want to read them rather than just edit code.
But on the brighter side, back when I first ordered bbedit (version 3 I think it was, something like $50 at educational pricing) they sent me a free "Software That Doesn't Suck" T-shirt.
I'm using 6.5.3 on OS X for all my web and text editor needs and it ROCKS. It was the one reason I didn't stay with linuxppc a few years ago, before OS X (and before mac-on-linux was all that mature). I had debian and yellowdog running on 3 different machines (not to mention slackware on a pentium), but I could never get the hang of emacs. Everyone (except vi users, of course) told me how great it was and how I could make it do everything bbedit did if I wanted but I never learned enough to figure out how to make that work for me. With OS X I feel like I have the best of both worlds, everything I wanted from UNIX plus the easy (for me) to understand interface of the Mac. The bbedit command line tools are a great addition that it looks like are vastly improved in BBEdit 7.
Damn; that sounded like a switch commercial, sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I never had emacs go BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP....
This actually is the way EMI and other companies whining about p2p should be going. Not charging for the service - let them charge 20 bucks for the client, or for a one-time fee for access or something, and give people access to everything, with advertising linking mp3s to websites where they can buy records, stickers, shirts, panties, whatever, plus read bios, interviews, etc. Let people take the music freely; the music is already out there, and any network they build, there will be no way for them to keep the music on that network. The problem is they won't take the step of understanding that they aren't losing anything by doing this -- the music is and will be out there. Once they accept that they can think intelligently about ways to make more money. Until then they're pouring more and more time and money into stopping piracy which is a business model that is bound to fail. But their freakin egos are too big; they really believe they deserve 16 dollars every time some kid downloads a song. They can't see past that; or at least they've refused to so far.
Anybody whose business model depends on people not being able to copy a file across the internet doesn't deserve to be making millions. Anybody whose business model depends on making it impossible and/or illegal to copy a file over the internet should have their corporate charter revoked. I mean, seriously, come on. Sucks for them and all, their empire will come crumbling down, or will at least change so they can't make the millions they've been making for decades, but isn't it time for them to stop their whining and learn how to live on salaries more consistent with the amount of labor that they do, like the rest of us? I have no problem with people making millions, but when their business model no longer makes them millions, why should the rest of us agree to suffer for it?
I thought we had killed
spam dead by writing haiku
I guess I was wrong.
Korean or Chinese spambots could visit your websites and get your email address that way.
What's worse is that people not only put up with it; there are some who will defend it as a necessary annoyance in a free market.
It's really funny to annoy your employer by having the sound from "The Matrix" suddenly come blaring out of his computer.