Well, you can't just not play the songs because one song has naughty words in it. That isn't fair to other songs, really.
And censoring it, IMHO, would be QUITE ironic especially when you consider that SP:BLU is all about exactly that: censorship, particularly in regard to naughty words. I *highly* suggest that you see this movie so that you know what I'm talking about. It's on video, and its been on PPV a few times, and you'll probably be able to catch it on premium cable before too long.
Now, ABC can't air a song with naughty words due to FCC regulation (although censoring the word "fart" is highly questionable). I wonder if they can play the song after 10 p.m., but air the rest of the broadcast before 10 p.m.? The Oscars typically start at around 9 p.m. anyhow, so at least half the broadcast is after 9 p.m.
Other than that, censoring with a BLEEP may be the only alternative, although it is not a tasteful one.
In the language of the statute, any person who ?invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,? subject to the conditions and requirements of the law.
What is and what is not a process is left up to interpretation, of course. Henry Ford patented the assembly line process of manufacturing cars. Is a computer program a process? IANAL, but no, I don't really think so, but the courts have obviously disagreed with my opinion.:) Plus, most software patents have just been ridiculous, for instance, the LZW-77 compression algorithm, the.GIF file format, or the company (I forgot who) that tried to patent hypertext.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be ?useful.?... a machine which will not operate to perfrom the intended purpose would not be called useful...
So any software patents Microsoft might have on Windows 2000 would be null and void on that basis?:)
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
I should point out that the USPTO has been granting patents on genes and genetic sequences in DNA. People have been buying them up left and right hoping that researchers will find the cure for cancer or AIDS in the gene that they bought.
Did I miss something? Did Microsoft cancel the W2K launch at the last moment? Did the spooks cover it up? No, everybody else is reporting the news except/.
Huh? Microshaft? Who are they? W2K? Is that anything like Y2K? I'm confused!
I am right now about 80% certain that if they open source any source code, it will be the Windows 9x source, which means NOTHING TO ANYONE anymore at this point, since that entire architecture is basically dead.
Windows 2000 is based almost entirely on Windows NT 4.0, so you can bet they're going to avoid releasing any of that. Remember that this lawsuit was about Windows 95 and 98. Now that the lawsuit has dragged on what? 3 years? its now pointless, because Microsoft has had it in the plan ALL ALONG to migrate their users to Windows NT-based technology.
Bear in mind that Windows 95 and its successors are nothing more than stopgaps to get mainstream developers writing Win32 code so that they could announce one day that Windows NT (aka Windows 2000) is now the ordained successor to the Windows line. They could never have gone from Windows 3.1 straight to NT because Win16 code does not run well on NT. But now that they've got every Tom, Dick and Harry writing Win32 code, the time is ripe for them to declare Windows 2000 the successor and that is what they have done (this was announced sometime shortly after Windows 98 was released for those who haven't been paying attention.)
So now that this lawsuit is about Windows 9x, and Microsoft has been VERY, VERY careful about AVOIDING bringing Windows NT or Windows 2000 into this lawsuit, I can be at least 80% certain that what Bill Gates is talking about making open source is the dead as a doornail Windows 98 source code. Big floppy donkey dick deal.
my fridge will run freebsd, but my toilet will run windows
The application FLUSH.EXE has performed an illegal operation exception and will be terminated. Please close all err..umm...applications and prepare to run PLUNGER.EXE.
But themes aren't pretending be an operating system. Themes aren't programs or software, they are just graphics and sound and color and font schemes.
Remember that parody is allowable in fair use. These themes are essentially parodies of the MacOS. Whether the logo could be allowed is questionable. My guess is that if the apple logo is changed signifcantly enough so that it could not be confused with Apple's actual corporate logo, then this would be allowable, but IANAL.
GPL code is owned by the copyright holder. In the case of GNU software, this is the FSF. But in the case of Linux, for example, there are many copyright holders, but the principle copyright holder is Linus Torvald's, so he said to "own" the code.
Errmm...this page you are likley looking at RIGHT NOW has an Apple logo on it. Should it be removed from the page and posted again? Is Apple going to sue Slashdot? Has anyone heard of FAIR USE???
Yes, licensed CSS DVD players will not allow you to copy decrypted CSS discs. But, you can use a computer's DVD-ROM drive to make an exact duplicate of the ENCRYPTED DISC. This encrypted disc will still play on licensed players (that the MPAA gets kickbacks for) but will not play on UNLICENSED players (such as DVD-ROM drives attached to Linux boxen).
So no, this is not a copy protection schema at all.
Compaq reverse engineered IBM proprietary BIOS and created the first PC compatible.
Mmm, actually I believe it was either Phoenix Technologies or Award Software, not Compaq who did the original reverse engineering... just picking nits here...
However, these cases aren't quite like this one. The difference here is that there is a new law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that outright makes this type of reverse engineering illegal. The law doesn't apply to the recent Sony vs. Connectix suit because the reverse engineering wasn't done for the purpose of defeating an encryption scheme.
Interesting side note: note that the fact that defeating the encryption scheme by this reverse engineering technique shows that the encryption scheme used in CSS is really, really crappy. What are the legal ramifications of this? For instance, if I ROT13'd this whole message, then threw the following notice on the bottom of it.
Copyright (C) 2000 Rob A. Shinn. All rights reserved. Message Encryption Powered by ROT13.
Would it be illegal for you to use ROT13 to read my message?
These bugs are already well-documented on Mozilla's Seamonkey release notes page
As for helping out, I'm sure I could dive in and code, but it seems to me like they've already got this pretty well handled, and I have other projects which need my time right now.
I disagree that open source is necessarily communist. Many others including myself and most notably Eric Raymond, have asserted that Open Source is really more Libertarian than communist.
One of the key issues in this difference is ownership. Take the WordNet definition:
1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
On the other hand, the Open Source community does have the concept of ownership. Check out this excerpt from Homesteading the Noosphere: there definitely is a strong sense of ownership within the community.
Plus, in general, the Open Source community is tolerant of capitalism. Companies like Red Hat, VA, and Transmeta are cheered on, despite their obvious capitalist nature. Yes, it is expected that these companies will give back to the Open Source community, but the idea of making money on Open Source software is encouraged rather than discouraged, as it would be in a a truly communist society.
I have M13, and it doesn't support SSL or Java, two critical technologies that must be supported.
Also, there are lots and lots of bugs, as it crashes on a regular basis, the forward and back buttons don't always work right and the even some of the new features, like chrome, aren't yet fully functional.
Hmmmm....yes. Portscanning. Then place the results on a PUBLIC, NON-ENCRYPTED, high-profile Web site that port monkeys and script kiddies visit a lot (Slashdot sounds good:) and then allow the 1337 D00DZ HAVE AT EM!!!
1. Does your GSM phone support CDMA (PCS)? I think that some CDMA phones can support GSM and vice versa (mostly the really expensive ones from Nokia and Ericssen).
2. Most nationwide ISPs have a zillion local dialup numbers. However, if you're not sure if they're available everywhere, you could go with one of the many ISPs that have 800 dialup service (toll free call in the U.S.). Most of the big US ones (Earthlink, Netcom, AT&T WorldNet, etc.) support 800 dialup service, but it is kind of expensive, as they usually charge some sort of per-minute fee. Most would be happy to give dialup service to anyone with a credit card.:) OTOH, you can be guaranteed of not having to make a long distance phone call, and the service will travel with you wherever you go.
3. You might be able to rent a phone. PCS phones, in particular,are 14400 bps. I don't know what analog phones are in reality, but I've generally seen connection rates of 9600.
4. Grab one of the many bazillion free AOL disks. Just pop into any store in the U.S. that sells computers to consumers (Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA etc.) and you'll be able to pick up a free AOL disk. They typically come with like 500 minutes. Their service is bad, you'll probably get lots of busy signals and random disconnections, but it won't cost you anything if you drop the service before they start billing you. Note that when it says 500 free minutes, thats 500 free minutes or like 30 days, whichever comes first before they start billing you.
5. If you'll be near a library, many libraries in major metropolitan areas offer free use of their computers for Internet access. These are typically connected over a T1 line, so they're fast. You'll at least be able to check your e-mail if you use a Web-based e-mail account, and again it won't cost you anything. Cybercafes may also be another idea.
6. Netzero and ALtaVista have free internet access. I don't know about local access numbers for AltaVista, but a friend tells me that Netzero has a lot of them, at least in major metropolitan areas. But you'll have to deal with popup ads, although one source tells me that there is a way to defeat Netzero's popup ads (other than moving them off the screen, that is:)
The real problem here is that you will find so many differing opinions on a moral subject that its really not worth asking for moral advice.
But if you want me opinion: go for it! The only thing you have to worry about is lawyers, but you always have to worry about those, so don't sweat it.:)
I don't necessarily see that this business decision is really an issue of morality, in thruth. Business is a cut-throat game and there is no morality. It pays to be ethical in the business community, in general, but it wouldn't seem unethical to me to sell something you already own and acquired for ethical, legitimate reasons.
Look at it this way: you bought a parcel of land in the 1980s, and, prior to new state wetlands laws, you developed on a small part of it. Now it cannot be developed any more, but the buildings on them are still viable. Even though the remaining property is now protected wetlands, it is still ethical, moral, and legal to sell it.
No, I honestly don't think VA's buying of Andover.net will affect Slashdot all that much.
Sure, the editors will be questioning themselves with every move and it is important to keep in mind that CmdrTaco, Roblimo, Hemos and company have shares in Andover, and therefore now VA. The focus of any biasing will be on them and not on Andover or VA.
However, I don't think you have to worry about corporate pressure from VA. If VA is perceived as a "bad guy" or a "bully" in the Open Source community (a good part of which overlap with the Slashdot community), then they will be the ones that are hurting, because in the hearts and minds of Slashdot readership, they will be viewed as being no better than Micros~1.
Remember that VA, for its part, depends on the Open Source community to a very large extent. If they alienate us, then we will retaliate, and they know that.
Nay, I think the worst thing we have to fear is that the editorialship will simply concentrate on serving the community rather than worry about their stock portfolios. Hopefully, they realize that serving the community in a non-biased way will help their stock portfolios in the long run, while, although favoring VA might temporarily help their stock valuations, will only hurt VA, and ultimately themselves, in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can't just not play the songs because one song has naughty words in it. That isn't fair to other songs, really.
And censoring it, IMHO, would be QUITE ironic especially when you consider that SP:BLU is all about exactly that: censorship, particularly in regard to naughty words. I *highly* suggest that you see this movie so that you know what I'm talking about. It's on video, and its been on PPV a few times, and you'll probably be able to catch it on premium cable before too long.
Now, ABC can't air a song with naughty words due to FCC regulation (although censoring the word "fart" is highly questionable). I wonder if they can play the song after 10 p.m., but air the rest of the broadcast before 10 p.m.? The Oscars typically start at around 9 p.m. anyhow, so at least half the broadcast is after 9 p.m.
Other than that, censoring with a BLEEP may be the only alternative, although it is not a tasteful one.
In the language of the statute, any person who ?invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,? subject to the conditions and requirements of the law.
:) Plus, most software patents have just been ridiculous, for instance, the LZW-77 compression algorithm, the .GIF file format, or the company (I forgot who) that tried to patent hypertext.
... a machine which will not operate to perfrom the intended purpose would not be called useful...
:)
What is and what is not a process is left up to interpretation, of course. Henry Ford patented the assembly line process of manufacturing cars. Is a computer program a process? IANAL, but no, I don't really think so, but the courts have obviously disagreed with my opinion.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be ?useful.?
So any software patents Microsoft might have on Windows 2000 would be null and void on that basis?
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
I should point out that the USPTO has been granting patents on genes and genetic sequences in DNA. People have been buying them up left and right hoping that researchers will find the cure for cancer or AIDS in the gene that they bought.
not in lieu of. "In lieu of" means instead of.
Sheesh.
Windows Millennium will be a lite version of Windows 2000 and will be based on the Windows NT architecture.
:)
Likely Windows Millennium will lighten up on the "authoritarian" control or else offer perhaps a "Windows 98 Application Mode" or something
Did I miss something? Did Microsoft cancel the W2K launch at the last moment? Did the spooks cover it up? No, everybody else is reporting the news except /.
Huh? Microshaft? Who are they? W2K? Is that anything like Y2K? I'm confused!
:)
*ducking*
I am right now about 80% certain that if they open source any source code, it will be the Windows 9x source, which means NOTHING TO ANYONE anymore at this point, since that entire architecture is basically dead.
Windows 2000 is based almost entirely on Windows NT 4.0, so you can bet they're going to avoid releasing any of that. Remember that this lawsuit was about Windows 95 and 98. Now that the lawsuit has dragged on what? 3 years? its now pointless, because Microsoft has had it in the plan ALL ALONG to migrate their users to Windows NT-based technology.
Bear in mind that Windows 95 and its successors are nothing more than stopgaps to get mainstream developers writing Win32 code so that they could announce one day that Windows NT (aka Windows 2000) is now the ordained successor to the Windows line. They could never have gone from Windows 3.1 straight to NT because Win16 code does not run well on NT. But now that they've got every Tom, Dick and Harry writing Win32 code, the time is ripe for them to declare Windows 2000 the successor and that is what they have done (this was announced sometime shortly after Windows 98 was released for those who haven't been paying attention.)
So now that this lawsuit is about Windows 9x, and Microsoft has been VERY, VERY careful about AVOIDING bringing Windows NT or Windows 2000 into this lawsuit, I can be at least 80% certain that what Bill Gates is talking about making open source is the dead as a doornail Windows 98 source code. Big floppy donkey dick deal.
Yeah, actually I was trying to semi-humorous, but I like your idea...hehe...
my fridge will run freebsd, but my toilet will run windows
The application FLUSH.EXE has performed an illegal operation exception and will be terminated. Please close all err..umm...applications and prepare to run PLUNGER.EXE.
She's about as computer literate as a house plant.
:)
Hey now! I'll have you know my house plant contributed patches to the 2.3.x series of kernels!
But themes aren't pretending be an operating system. Themes aren't programs or software, they are just graphics and sound and color and font schemes.
Remember that parody is allowable in fair use. These themes are essentially parodies of the MacOS. Whether the logo could be allowed is questionable. My guess is that if the apple logo is changed signifcantly enough so that it could not be confused with Apple's actual corporate logo, then this would be allowable, but IANAL.
Slashdot is essentially a journalist site. Journalists rarely use unique graphics, especially when talking about a well-known company.
Errmm..not that it matters at this point, but:
GPL code is owned by the copyright holder. In the case of GNU software, this is the FSF. But in the case of Linux, for example, there are many copyright holders, but the principle copyright holder is Linus Torvald's, so he said to "own" the code.
Errmm...this page you are likley looking at RIGHT NOW has an Apple logo on it. Should it be removed from the page and posted again? Is Apple going to sue Slashdot? Has anyone heard of FAIR USE???
Sheesh.
Well, look at it this way.
Yes, licensed CSS DVD players will not allow you to copy decrypted CSS discs. But, you can use a computer's DVD-ROM drive to make an exact duplicate of the ENCRYPTED DISC. This encrypted disc will still play on licensed players (that the MPAA gets kickbacks for) but will not play on UNLICENSED players (such as DVD-ROM drives attached to Linux boxen).
So no, this is not a copy protection schema at all.
Compaq reverse engineered IBM proprietary BIOS and created the first PC compatible.
Mmm, actually I believe it was either Phoenix Technologies or Award Software, not Compaq who did the original reverse engineering... just picking nits here...
However, these cases aren't quite like this one. The difference here is that there is a new law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that outright makes this type of reverse engineering illegal. The law doesn't apply to the recent Sony vs. Connectix suit because the reverse engineering wasn't done for the purpose of defeating an encryption scheme.
Interesting side note: note that the fact that defeating the encryption scheme by this reverse engineering technique shows that the encryption scheme used in CSS is really, really crappy. What are the legal ramifications of this? For instance, if I ROT13'd this whole message, then threw the following notice on the bottom of it.
Copyright (C) 2000 Rob A. Shinn. All rights reserved. Message Encryption Powered by ROT13.
Would it be illegal for you to use ROT13 to read my message?
These bugs are already well-documented on
Mozilla's Seamonkey release notes page
As for helping out, I'm sure I could dive in and code, but it seems to me like they've already got this pretty well handled, and I have other projects which need my time right now.
One of the key issues in this difference is ownership. Take the WordNet definition:
On the other hand, the Open Source community does have the concept of ownership. Check out this excerpt from Homesteading the Noosphere: there definitely is a strong sense of ownership within the community.
Plus, in general, the Open Source community is tolerant of capitalism. Companies like Red Hat, VA, and Transmeta are cheered on, despite their obvious capitalist nature. Yes, it is expected that these companies will give back to the Open Source community, but the idea of making money on Open Source software is encouraged rather than discouraged, as it would be in a a truly communist society.
You obviously missed yesterday's story about a Microsoft memo outlining 65,000 bugs in Windows 2000.
Bill Gates: Microsoft should be allowed to innovate
Translation: Microsoft should be allowed to take over the world.
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Translation: How would you like us to fsck you up the ass today?
Linus Torvalds: I was bit by a penguin.
Translation: I was tripping on LSD at the time.
:)
I have M13, and it doesn't support SSL or Java, two critical technologies that must be supported.
Also, there are lots and lots of bugs, as it crashes on a regular basis, the forward and back buttons don't always work right and the even some of the new features, like chrome, aren't yet fully functional.
Hmmmm....yes. Portscanning. Then place the results on a PUBLIC, NON-ENCRYPTED, high-profile Web site that port monkeys and script kiddies visit a lot (Slashdot sounds good :) and then allow the 1337 D00DZ HAVE AT EM!!!
:)
Yeah, let's do it!
You have several options:
:) OTOH, you can be guaranteed of not having to make a long distance phone call, and the service will travel with you wherever you go.
:)
1. Does your GSM phone support CDMA (PCS)? I think that some CDMA phones can support GSM and vice versa (mostly the really expensive ones from Nokia and Ericssen).
2. Most nationwide ISPs have a zillion local dialup numbers. However, if you're not sure if they're available everywhere, you could go with one of the many ISPs that have 800 dialup service (toll free call in the U.S.). Most of the big US ones (Earthlink, Netcom, AT&T WorldNet, etc.) support 800 dialup service, but it is kind of expensive, as they usually charge some sort of per-minute fee. Most would be happy to give dialup service to anyone with a credit card.
3. You might be able to rent a phone. PCS phones, in particular,are 14400 bps. I don't know what analog phones are in reality, but I've generally seen connection rates of 9600.
4. Grab one of the many bazillion free AOL disks. Just pop into any store in the U.S. that sells computers to consumers (Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA etc.) and you'll be able to pick up a free AOL disk. They typically come with like 500 minutes. Their service is bad, you'll probably get lots of busy signals and random disconnections, but it won't cost you anything if you drop the service before they start billing you. Note that when it says 500 free minutes, thats 500 free minutes or like 30 days, whichever comes first before they start billing you.
5. If you'll be near a library, many libraries in major metropolitan areas offer free use of their computers for Internet access. These are typically connected over a T1 line, so they're fast. You'll at least be able to check your e-mail if you use a Web-based e-mail account, and again it won't cost you anything. Cybercafes may also be another idea.
6. Netzero and ALtaVista have free internet access. I don't know about local access numbers for AltaVista, but a friend tells me that Netzero has a lot of them, at least in major metropolitan areas. But you'll have to deal with popup ads, although one source tells me that there is a way to defeat Netzero's popup ads (other than moving them off the screen, that is
Well, I think he's got a legitimate question.
:)
The real problem here is that you will find so many differing opinions on a moral subject that its really not worth asking for moral advice.
But if you want me opinion: go for it! The only thing you have to worry about is lawyers, but you always have to worry about those, so don't sweat it.
I don't necessarily see that this business decision is really an issue of morality, in thruth. Business is a cut-throat game and there is no morality. It pays to be ethical in the business community, in general, but it wouldn't seem unethical to me to sell something you already own and acquired for ethical, legitimate reasons.
Look at it this way: you bought a parcel of land in the 1980s, and, prior to new state wetlands laws, you developed on a small part of it. Now it cannot be developed any more, but the buildings on them are still viable. Even though the remaining property is now protected wetlands, it is still ethical, moral, and legal to sell it.
Your situation is very similar.
No, I honestly don't think VA's buying of Andover.net will affect Slashdot all that much.
Sure, the editors will be questioning themselves with every move and it is important to keep in mind that CmdrTaco, Roblimo, Hemos and company have shares in Andover, and therefore now VA. The focus of any biasing will be on them and not on Andover or VA.
However, I don't think you have to worry about corporate pressure from VA. If VA is perceived as a "bad guy" or a "bully" in the Open Source community (a good part of which overlap with the Slashdot community), then they will be the ones that are hurting, because in the hearts and minds of Slashdot readership, they will be viewed as being no better than Micros~1.
Remember that VA, for its part, depends on the Open Source community to a very large extent. If they alienate us, then we will retaliate, and they know that.
Nay, I think the worst thing we have to fear is that the editorialship will simply concentrate on serving the community rather than worry about their stock portfolios. Hopefully, they realize that serving the community in a non-biased way will help their stock portfolios in the long run, while, although favoring VA might temporarily help their stock valuations, will only hurt VA, and ultimately themselves, in the long term.
True. Except people can't figure out where my firewall is by my e-mail address. :P