OUCH! You've got pigs in your OWWWW!! office? Kwitcher whinin' boy OW!OW!OW! That's nothing compared to OUCH! ARGH! OUCH! monkeys flying out of your ass. (SOMEBODY GET ME A PROCTOLOGIST, DAMMIT!)
the canonical example of making a copy and giving it away would be of a teacher who makes copies of material and hands it out to the students in the class. That's fair use. Wish I'd known that five years ago when I was teaching; I could have cut several hundred dollars of textbook fees out of my budget by simply making copies:)
In fact ONLY when a copy is distributed to someone is there even the possibility of it not being fair use. Your own personal copies are always fair use. Not...entirely correct. I make a copy of a CD, keep it, give you the original...not fair use.
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated.
Did you mean "still compensated hugely for minimal effort?" Life is not fair. There is no guarantee that what made you rich last year will make you rich next year. Consider the poor wheat farmer. Twenty acres can produce enough wheat to feed a whole town for a year; that's a HUGE amount of wealth...in a subsistence economy. But the economy has changed, and now it's barely worth it to farm a single field. The music industry, whether it realizes it or not, has changed. Mass production of music has arrived (near-infinite perfect copies at zero marginal cost) and NOTHING can change that (cue Jon Katz - "Look what we geeks have done to the recording industry!") The question now is who will cling to the old business model until it dies (taking them with it), and who will work to develop new models.
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated. That's funny...I can. "Don't perform or record unless you're paid!" BTW, Phish seems to do fairly well, in spite of their policy of permitting ANYONE to record them, make copies of the recordings, and distribute them. I suspect that the advent of MP3s has affected them not at all.
The really interesting thing to consider is what will happen when we all have 1GB/s connections and 50TB hard drives at home, and we start trading DVDs? Will Tom Cruise and his crowd start suing us?
The first craft to orbit the Sun. Not true! Ogg make craft from log, float in lake. Ogg catch many fish. Ogg craft orbit sun six years. (Take 365.2475 days orbit sun.)
See, the funny thing is, you think you're being funny but you're actually mistaking the "no power" state for the "no clocks" state. Running a system at 0MHz is a sort of demanding task; it requires that NO timing signals be sent to the CPU (thus maintaining the CPU indefinitely in whatever state it's in), but that the CPU be ready and waiting to start working again the instant the clock starts again.
Once again a Slashdot reader proves beyond any doubt that he is the intellectual equal to the rock sitting outside my front door
I'd have to say the slashdot in question would be you, I'm afraid. Come on, re-read that email. It is SO over the top, SO stereotyped that it can only be sarcasm! Do you really think the writer was serious? And if he was, why would he NOT post it on slashdot, where the whole world could read his righteous condemnation of you? I didn't write the email, but I could have - it's my kind of humor - Far-out exageration and stupidity for the purpose of humor.
BTW, the rock outside your door could be sentient and ignoring you, for all you know. After all, we take the skeletons of the most common kinds of rocks and use them to make computers. If the dead bodies of rocks can be made to simulate intelligence, what about the rocks themselves? I'll bet the Rocky Mountains are laughing at us right now, in our pitiful attempts to factor large semi-prime numbers.
most computer businesses and, therefore, their employees, are on one of the costs If you define "on the coast" as "in any state which borders the Atlantic or Pacific but not the Gulf of Mexcio (except for Florida)", then I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of PEOPLE are on one of the coasts. That said, I think it's pretty idiotic to suggest (try it at work sometime; see what reaction you receive) that the businesses on the coast should only try to sell to the people on the coast.
Public domain is the most free of all the licenses. No encumberment at all. This is conceptually identical to "Anarchy is the most free of all forms of government." While it is superficially true, in practice, anarchy almost always leads to totalitarianism as the strongest and most ruthless take control of the situation. Putting all your source code into the public domain means that corporations will, effectively, take it away from you.
non hackers shouldn't have any say in the Open Source movement, and that THEY (hackers) and not avg. Joe should decide whether to put Microsoft on it's knees. Hi. I'm a non-hacker. I think you should write a Linux app that will replace Hyperterminal... ... ... ... Are you done yet? ... ... ... So what's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you what's wrong. The Open Source movement is a whole bunch of individual people. They write what they want to write. No non-hacker can tell a hacker what to write, unless they've got the money to pay for the hacker's talents. I don't see ESR so much dictating policy as stating an obvious fact: those without power cannot exert power over those who have power unless they take some of that power for themselves. No non-hacker can create code unless they become a hacker.
The protein folding problem is not a problem. It merely awaits the ineveitable exponential growth of computing power. In the meantime, this might be a more useful problem for a distributed computing organization, rather than reading secret messages, looking for signals from little green men, or factoring large semi-prime numbers.
You think that's bad, in my state they not only ake blood samples at birth without your consent, they also inject you with disease organisms throughout your childhood without your consent. As a matter of fact, they will do it even if you are protesting loudly while they do it!
I agree with you about individual risks; the probability of a single SSN being stolen through hacking or social engineering aren't significantly different. However, it is much harder to steal 50,000 SSNs with social engineering than it is to steal one. But the level of effort involved in stealing one SSN through hacking would seem to be same as for stealing 50,000. A government must look at the risk for all people, not merely the risks for a particular individual. And you can bet that if a government at any level implemented an insecure system, we at/. would be among the first to howl about it.
Re:x86 is popular to hate, but not that bad really
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 2
Yes, that's obvious. Just pointing out amibiguities in languages between fields of study. Truly, a dizzying waste of time and intellect...
Come see www.nudepinkgirls.com! All our girls wear pink body paint, guaranteed to beat your compay's software! Don't let your parents, your library, or your HR department jerk you around! Exercise your constitutional right to exercise your arm!
Re:x86 is popular to hate, but not that bad really
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 2
x86 has about three orders of magnitude too many instructions and a similar factor too few registers
If I remember my physics correctly, an order of magnitude is a power of ten; three orders of magnitude would be 10^3, or a thousand. Thus you're saying the x86 needs a single instruction and about ten thousand registers.:)
It's been a long time, and I don't remember the source - Scientific American, maybe - but I recall seeing an article about logic gates built out of Tinkertoys. Somebody put together enough of these to build a Tinkertoy machine the size of a car that could play unbeatable tic-tac-toe (aka noughts and crosses). I'd think if you could build logic gates out of Tinkertoys, you could surely build them out of Legos.
Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public?
If you catch your kids with their hands in the cookie jar, you go harder on them when their defense is "I didn't do it" than if they just 'fess up and say "I'm sorry." A defense of innocence IS a lack of remorse, if you are, in fact, guilty.
Remember the other suit, back in the early 90's IIRC, the one that didn't accomplish anything? Oh, it accomplished something. Prior to the consent decree of 1994, Microsoft charged for its licenses based on how many PCs each OEM sold. Each OEM had to report how many PCs they sold to MS (important point - remember this). The government decided that this was very, very bad. They said (among other things) that MS could NOT charge for every machine an OEM sold.
However, they did agree that MS could charge for every machine sold within a model line. If an OEM wanted to license MS software on a particular model line, MS would charge them for every machine sold within that model line. So if a vendor wanted to sell PCs with OS/2 or DR DOS preloaded, they could create a separate model line and not have to pay MS. OEMs now had to report to MS how many PCs they sold within each model line (important point number two).
Because of the market dominance of MS in the consumer OS space, most OEMs didn't create model lines to sell other OSi. (Correct me if I'm wrong - anybody here buy a PC from a major OEM in the last five years with an OS other than Windows preloaded?) MS went from knowing how many PCs each OEM sold to knowing how many of each model they sold. The intelligence they received from the PC industry was increased by an order of magnitude. They knew what consumers bought and could tailor their marketing accordingly. They knew better than ANYONE what the consumer PC market was doing and where it was going.
In short, the consent decree of 1994 gave MS a powerful tool that assisted them in moving to where they are now. The government apparently didn't realize in 1994 that MS already so dominated the market. None of this was foreseen by DOJ, but you can bet your pants it was foreseen by MS. MS employees are not stupid.
So, anyone care to guess what nasty unforeseen consequences of this trial we'll see in the next few years?
Slashdot Mirror
OUCH! You've got pigs in your OWWWW!! office? Kwitcher whinin' boy OW!OW!OW! That's nothing compared to OUCH! ARGH! OUCH! monkeys flying out of your ass. (SOMEBODY GET ME A PROCTOLOGIST, DAMMIT!)
the canonical example of making a copy and giving it away would be of a teacher who makes copies of material and hands it out to the students in the class. That's fair use. :)
Wish I'd known that five years ago when I was teaching; I could have cut several hundred dollars of textbook fees out of my budget by simply making copies
In fact ONLY when a copy is distributed to someone is there even the possibility of it not being fair use. Your own personal copies are always fair use.
Not...entirely correct. I make a copy of a CD, keep it, give you the original...not fair use.
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated.
Did you mean "still compensated hugely for minimal effort?" Life is not fair. There is no guarantee that what made you rich last year will make you rich next year. Consider the poor wheat farmer. Twenty acres can produce enough wheat to feed a whole town for a year; that's a HUGE amount of wealth...in a subsistence economy. But the economy has changed, and now it's barely worth it to farm a single field. The music industry, whether it realizes it or not, has changed. Mass production of music has arrived (near-infinite perfect copies at zero marginal cost) and NOTHING can change that (cue Jon Katz - "Look what we geeks have done to the recording industry!") The question now is who will cling to the old business model until it dies (taking them with it), and who will work to develop new models.
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated.
That's funny...I can. "Don't perform or record unless you're paid!" BTW, Phish seems to do fairly well, in spite of their policy of permitting ANYONE to record them, make copies of the recordings, and distribute them. I suspect that the advent of MP3s has affected them not at all.
The really interesting thing to consider is what will happen when we all have 1GB/s connections and 50TB hard drives at home, and we start trading DVDs? Will Tom Cruise and his crowd start suing us?
Your tagline...
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
...made me laugh. There's our congress-critters, sitting in front of the music industry, downloading and playing MP3s found on Napster or Gnutella.
That's an example I'm happy to follow.
The first craft to orbit the Sun.
Not true! Ogg make craft from log, float in lake. Ogg catch many fish. Ogg craft orbit sun six years. (Take 365.2475 days orbit sun.)
See, the funny thing is, you think you're being funny but you're actually mistaking the "no power" state for the "no clocks" state. Running a system at 0MHz is a sort of demanding task; it requires that NO timing signals be sent to the CPU (thus maintaining the CPU indefinitely in whatever state it's in), but that the CPU be ready and waiting to start working again the instant the clock starts again.
now that we've interviewed ian of the debian project, will we get to interview deb of the debian project?
Kansas. It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.
Kansas. It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.
Kansas. It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.
Once again a Slashdot reader proves beyond any doubt that he is the intellectual equal to the rock sitting outside my front door
I'd have to say the slashdot in question would be you, I'm afraid. Come on, re-read that email. It is SO over the top, SO stereotyped that it can only be sarcasm! Do you really think the writer was serious? And if he was, why would he NOT post it on slashdot, where the whole world could read his righteous condemnation of you? I didn't write the email, but I could have - it's my kind of humor - Far-out exageration and stupidity for the purpose of humor.
BTW, the rock outside your door could be sentient and ignoring you, for all you know. After all, we take the skeletons of the most common kinds of rocks and use them to make computers. If the dead bodies of rocks can be made to simulate intelligence, what about the rocks themselves? I'll bet the Rocky Mountains are laughing at us right now, in our pitiful attempts to factor large semi-prime numbers.
most computer businesses and, therefore, their employees, are on one of the costs
If you define "on the coast" as "in any state which borders the Atlantic or Pacific but not the Gulf of Mexcio (except for Florida)", then I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of PEOPLE are on one of the coasts. That said, I think it's pretty idiotic to suggest (try it at work sometime; see what reaction you receive) that the businesses on the coast should only try to sell to the people on the coast.
Public domain is the most free of all the licenses. No encumberment at all.
This is conceptually identical to "Anarchy is the most free of all forms of government." While it is superficially true, in practice, anarchy almost always leads to totalitarianism as the strongest and most ruthless take control of the situation. Putting all your source code into the public domain means that corporations will, effectively, take it away from you.
No, I think you're wrong. I think he works a lot like a duck - calm and relaxed on the surface, and paddling like crazy where you can't see!
I think it would be more precise to say that "we run the internet", not that we own it.
Have you never read Dune? "The power to destroy a thing is the power to control it absolutely" or something like that.
non hackers shouldn't have any say in the Open Source movement, and that THEY (hackers) and not avg. Joe should decide whether to put Microsoft on it's knees.
Hi. I'm a non-hacker. I think you should write a Linux app that will replace Hyperterminal...
...
...
...
Are you done yet?
...
...
...
So what's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you what's wrong. The Open Source movement is a whole bunch of individual people. They write what they want to write. No non-hacker can tell a hacker what to write, unless they've got the money to pay for the hacker's talents. I don't see ESR so much dictating policy as stating an obvious fact: those without power cannot exert power over those who have power unless they take some of that power for themselves. No non-hacker can create code unless they become a hacker.
The protein folding problem is not a problem. It merely awaits the ineveitable exponential growth of computing power. In the meantime, this might be a more useful problem for a distributed computing organization, rather than reading secret messages, looking for signals from little green men, or factoring large semi-prime numbers.
You think that's bad, in my state they not only ake blood samples at birth without your consent, they also inject you with disease organisms throughout your childhood without your consent. As a matter of fact, they will do it even if you are protesting loudly while they do it!
I agree with you about individual risks; the probability of a single SSN being stolen through hacking or social engineering aren't significantly different. However, it is much harder to steal 50,000 SSNs with social engineering than it is to steal one. But the level of effort involved in stealing one SSN through hacking would seem to be same as for stealing 50,000. A government must look at the risk for all people, not merely the risks for a particular individual. And you can bet that if a government at any level implemented an insecure system, we at /. would be among the first to howl about it.
Yes, that's obvious. Just pointing out amibiguities in languages between fields of study. Truly, a dizzying waste of time and intellect...
Come see www.nudepinkgirls.com! All our girls wear pink body paint, guaranteed to beat your compay's software! Don't let your parents, your library, or your HR department jerk you around! Exercise your constitutional right to exercise your arm!
x86 has about three orders of magnitude too many instructions and a similar factor too few registers
:)
If I remember my physics correctly, an order of magnitude is a power of ten; three orders of magnitude would be 10^3, or a thousand. Thus you're saying the x86 needs a single instruction and about ten thousand registers.
It's been a long time, and I don't remember the source - Scientific American, maybe - but I recall seeing an article about logic gates built out of Tinkertoys. Somebody put together enough of these to build a Tinkertoy machine the size of a car that could play unbeatable tic-tac-toe (aka noughts and crosses). I'd think if you could build logic gates out of Tinkertoys, you could surely build them out of Legos.
Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public?
If you catch your kids with their hands in the cookie jar, you go harder on them when their defense is "I didn't do it" than if they just 'fess up and say "I'm sorry." A defense of innocence IS a lack of remorse, if you are, in fact, guilty.
Remember the other suit, back in the early 90's IIRC, the one that didn't accomplish anything?
Oh, it accomplished something. Prior to the consent decree of 1994, Microsoft charged for its licenses based on how many PCs each OEM sold. Each OEM had to report how many PCs they sold to MS (important point - remember this). The government decided that this was very, very bad. They said (among other things) that MS could NOT charge for every machine an OEM sold.
However, they did agree that MS could charge for every machine sold within a model line. If an OEM wanted to license MS software on a particular model line, MS would charge them for every machine sold within that model line. So if a vendor wanted to sell PCs with OS/2 or DR DOS preloaded, they could create a separate model line and not have to pay MS. OEMs now had to report to MS how many PCs they sold within each model line (important point number two).
Because of the market dominance of MS in the consumer OS space, most OEMs didn't create model lines to sell other OSi. (Correct me if I'm wrong - anybody here buy a PC from a major OEM in the last five years with an OS other than Windows preloaded?) MS went from knowing how many PCs each OEM sold to knowing how many of each model they sold. The intelligence they received from the PC industry was increased by an order of magnitude. They knew what consumers bought and could tailor their marketing accordingly. They knew better than ANYONE what the consumer PC market was doing and where it was going.
In short, the consent decree of 1994 gave MS a powerful tool that assisted them in moving to where they are now. The government apparently didn't realize in 1994 that MS already so dominated the market. None of this was foreseen by DOJ, but you can bet your pants it was foreseen by MS. MS employees are not stupid.
So, anyone care to guess what nasty unforeseen consequences of this trial we'll see in the next few years?