The Secret Service's roles have been greatly expanded throughout its long history. It seems to be a Federal law enforcement agency to which responsibilities are added on a whim regardless of whether they're already under another agency's purview. What did protection of the President have to do with investigating currency counterfeiting in the first place? It seem the Patriot act is responsible for their role in this case:
The Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56) increased the Secret Service's role in investigating fraud and related activity in connections with computers.
I know the FBI investigates fraud, theft and extortion both involving computers and otherwise, so I can't imagine why the Secret Service needed to expand into this area.
I certainly agree that the TABASCO trademark should never have been granted and the company has defended it with reprehensible tactics. I've often enjoyed their products since I was young, though ironically I prefer their jalapeño sauces to the original. I will now more likely buy competitors' products.
"Debian" was trademarked in 1999, long before Canonical came along anyway. While Canonical and Mint must use the term "Debian" in compliance with the Debian licensing policy, Canonical gets to determine Ubuntu trademark policy. Whether "Koha" can be trademarked seems a similar question to whether "Ubuntu" can, since it's also a generic word in several languages.
I'm pretty sure LibLime's application for trademark was the first (and probably only) one. It seems that the originators of the project didn't apply for a trademark because they didn't think the generic word "Koha" could be trademarked. Horowhenua Library Trust is not saying they should hold the "real" trademark but that the trademark shouldn't exist at all.
The dispute has nothing to do with copyright (and therefore Copyleft) AFAICT. I don't see any claim that LibLime is distributing proprietary derivatives of Koha. This is only a trademark dispute. If LibLime is trying to gain trademark protection for a term they adopted from the already existing project, that is an attempt to mislead at best and commit fraud at worst, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.
Basically a company who has extended and NOT given back to the community is now wanting the trademark the name of the Open Source product.
If LibLime has distributed Koha binaries, but not source, they have violated its Copyleft license, which is much more serious than a trademark dispute. Is there any evidence they've done so? LibLime's FAQ says
Q. LibLime Koha is open-source software; doesn’t that mean it’s free? A. Yes, LibLime Koha is open source and so LibLime Koha is free, in fact you can download it yourself from a number of sites, including here. LibLime is an open source support company and we were established in 2005 to work with libraries that wish to run LibLime Koha but do not have the internal resources to manage a system. LibLime offers the following services: -Professional project management for your LibLime Koha implementation -Set up and implementation of your LibLime Koha instance -LibLime Koha Training -Migration of legacy data -Hosting and support (help desk and online ticketing system)
Bill Gates is spending his time and money these days looking for a cure for malaria and other diseases. Taking time away from that to testify in this case = more dead babies. Novell is killing babies.
Indeed, it's incredible how Gates has managed to transform himself from ruthless businessman to biologist overnight. I guess being rich and powerful really does mean one is better than the rest of us.
And then people wonder why Linux isn't more popular in the business world.
If silly names are all that's holding back Linux, MS and Apple should be very afraid. MS's approach is no more sensible, but at least it's not very entertaining.
I expect Babylon 5 Swedish meat balls were inspired by jynnan tonnyx, but they are distinct concepts. Adams's idea was that all the drinks were named the same, but totally different, while Babylon 5's was that the dishes were the same, but named differently.
Be careful about implying that Finland is part of Scandinavia. Some say it is, but others are adamant it's not. More importantly, the US has had government funded education and social security for a very long time as well, regardless of whether you call that "Socialism" or not.
Even if something about Scandinavian (and/or Finnish) governance encourages innovation more than other approaches, Linux is hardly a good example of that. Linus was inspired by and depended on technologies of foreign origin including Minix (Dutch), an 80386 PC (American), Unix (American) and GNU (American). By far most of his work on Linux has been done since he moved to the US.
Similarly, this project depends on technologies of foreign origin like the Samsung (Korean) chip based on the ARM (originally British) architecture, Android (American) and Ubuntu (American/South African/British). What the origin of these projects say to me is that government policies may not have that much to do with where and how innovation happens any more. Broken patent systems and other bad government policies can stifle innovation, but all that's required for it to succeed is to not be impeded.
Why no wireless DTV transmitter?!! I mean, really, been the twentyfirst century! for like, a decade, now! Why the hell do I need to hook things up with wires or plug them in except for matters of security or power?!!
you benighted savages disgust me.
Rant against the powers that be who define display connection technologies like VESA, not this device. There are no technologies in common use now which can replace DVI/HDMI with something wireless, let alone ten years ago. Wireless DisplayPort is supposed to be coming eventually, but updating modern displays at 60Hz or higher takes a large bitrate, making it much more difficult to design than LAN or WAN speed network connections. If by "wireless DTV transmitter" you mean something like ATSC or DVB, it's certainly not practical for display connection. Those standards are based on lossy video compression which results in poor quality for sharp images like text and introduces significant latency.
A number of important GNU projects, such as Glibc, are under the more permissive LGPL rather than the GPL. Also, Stallman had nothing to do with the creation of Linux or the choice of license for it except that Linus was inspired by the GNU tools he used as part of Minix. Though he claims to not care about software freedom that much, Linus has never indicated he regretted choosing GPL. Of course it's very controversial, but I'm convinced that being under the GPL is an important factor in Linux's success. A recent example of the pragmatic value of Copyleft is Android. Google has explained that they prefer to keep as many components as possible under permissive licenses like the Apache license so they can choose when and if to release source along with binaries. They chose not to release source for Android 3 except for the Copyleft components, primarily Linux. The GPL did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is to guarantee that everyone has the same freedoms, not just those who make changes.
I've thought they've ended this flame war several years ago?
Several years ago when BSD based Mac OS X took over the Unix desktop market?;-)
I think things are a little more complicated than in the 1990s with respect to BSD vs Linux.
People who buy into the "OSX is BSD" idea need to look a little more closely. Of course OSX has BSD code in it; all modern OSes do (even Windows). However, the XNU kernel is very different from the kernels of modern BSDs like FreeBSD and OpenBSD. While containing some BSD code it is also based on Mach and its own device driver framework. While OSX borrows BSD userspace components (like almost all modern OSes) it also depends on GNU ones, most importantly the development tools. The biggest way OSX differs from BSDs is in all the components the user sees, including the window system and GUI libraries; those are proprietary and can't be found in any non-Apple OS.
Though somewhat subjective, I think the typical modern BSD system has more in common with the typical modern GNU/Linux system than with OSX, especially if considering desktop use. Though all three contain code from BSD and GNU origins, only BSDs and Linux-based systems use traditional Unix-style monolithic kernels and X11 as the windowing system.
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
It probably makes sense for everyone to know the capabilities in a similar as for nuclear weapons. The US military doesn't want to use these bombs. They do want to make potential targets nervous and/or spend a lot more trying to bomb-proof facilities.
Re:Glad I read this, I learned a few things
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
I suspect both sites were made by the same person.
Re:"I hate flash" is the new "I hate Microsoft"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 2
You've clearly never done any serious web development. Even you'd been a heavy Adobe user, you'd have noticed that they've been pushing HTML5 for a while now. I have no idea if their tools for working with web standards are up to the quality of their Flash ones, but that seems to be the goal. Hating Adobe is less reasonable than hating Microsoft, but hating Flash is not.
Re:As much as I hate flash..
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Flash was created for a reason and for many years was necessary to do some things like play video and sound. Even if it's still more convenient for those things, it's no longer necessary. The more web developers abandon it, the more pressure there will be to improve implementations of web standards for the things that Flash has been used for. The longer people hold out against the change, the more painful it will be for all of us.
Re:pissing contests
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
HTML5 is not a superset of Flash. Flash is not a superset of HTML5.
Get over the pissing contests and use the right tool for the job.
Saying Flash is appropriate for a web site is like saying IPX/SPX are appropriate protocols for a LAN connecting to the Internet. Sure, it can be done, but it's a stupid way to do it and thankfully went away many years ago.
The right tools to create web sites are web standards. Even Adobe agrees with that; they've actually been promoting HTML5 for a while. They're still promoting AIR for desktop apps I think. I have no interest in that, but it is apparently the right too for some people.
Re:Occupy HTML, written in HTML
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 2
Indeed, it's a beautiful site (though a direct copy of Occupy Flash) with no Flash dependency at all. The only way it uses Flash is to detect if it's installed. I'm skeptical it's serious at all. I have a sneaking suspicion one person dreamed the whole thing up, including both sites.
Re:Unfortunate
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Though OWS has fuzzy goals, they clearly seem to be against corporate control. What better symbol of corporate control is there than Flash? OWS's issue may be more important, but technology standards are not trivial.
The idealism comes from the fact that major browser incompatibilities have been overcome in the past. It's no longer necessary to resort to ugly hacks to get a page to render the same in modern browsers like it was in the days of IE6. People will do whatever's necessary to make sites work well. Since they can't depend on Adobe, they'll have to depend on consensus, which is the only reason the Internet and web have worked at all.
It is really nice that on my Asus Transformer, every website I've used just works. Compare that to my iPod touch and the iPad where I just get a big lego piece.
Until all websites stop using Flash, this sucks.
Maybe you don't realize that the only way to prevent the Lego piece from appearing on you iPad is to also make it appear on the Transformer. Web developers don't want to (and shouldn't have to) use totally different methods to make their sites work on different devices. It really seems Adobe is really becoming less evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The Secret Service's roles have been greatly expanded throughout its long history. It seems to be a Federal law enforcement agency to which responsibilities are added on a whim regardless of whether they're already under another agency's purview. What did protection of the President have to do with investigating currency counterfeiting in the first place? It seem the Patriot act is responsible for their role in this case:
The Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56) increased the Secret Service's role in investigating fraud and related activity in connections with computers.
I know the FBI investigates fraud, theft and extortion both involving computers and otherwise, so I can't imagine why the Secret Service needed to expand into this area.
I certainly agree that the TABASCO trademark should never have been granted and the company has defended it with reprehensible tactics. I've often enjoyed their products since I was young, though ironically I prefer their jalapeño sauces to the original. I will now more likely buy competitors' products.
"Debian" was trademarked in 1999, long before Canonical came along anyway. While Canonical and Mint must use the term "Debian" in compliance with the Debian licensing policy, Canonical gets to determine Ubuntu trademark policy. Whether "Koha" can be trademarked seems a similar question to whether "Ubuntu" can, since it's also a generic word in several languages.
I'm pretty sure LibLime's application for trademark was the first (and probably only) one. It seems that the originators of the project didn't apply for a trademark because they didn't think the generic word "Koha" could be trademarked. Horowhenua Library Trust is not saying they should hold the "real" trademark but that the trademark shouldn't exist at all.
The dispute has nothing to do with copyright (and therefore Copyleft) AFAICT. I don't see any claim that LibLime is distributing proprietary derivatives of Koha. This is only a trademark dispute. If LibLime is trying to gain trademark protection for a term they adopted from the already existing project, that is an attempt to mislead at best and commit fraud at worst, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.
Basically a company who has extended and NOT given back to the community is now wanting the trademark the name of the Open Source product.
If LibLime has distributed Koha binaries, but not source, they have violated its Copyleft license, which is much more serious than a trademark dispute. Is there any evidence they've done so? LibLime's FAQ says
Q. LibLime Koha is open-source software; doesn’t that mean it’s free?
A. Yes, LibLime Koha is open source and so LibLime Koha is free, in fact you can download it yourself from a number of sites, including here. LibLime is an open source support company and we were established in 2005 to work with libraries that wish to run LibLime Koha but do not have the internal resources to manage a system.
LibLime offers the following services:
-Professional project management for your LibLime Koha implementation
-Set up and implementation of your LibLime Koha instance
-LibLime Koha Training
-Migration of legacy data
-Hosting and support (help desk and online ticketing system)
Bill Gates is spending his time and money these days looking for a cure for malaria and other diseases. Taking time away from that to testify in this case = more dead babies. Novell is killing babies.
Indeed, it's incredible how Gates has managed to transform himself from ruthless businessman to biologist overnight. I guess being rich and powerful really does mean one is better than the rest of us.
And then people wonder why Linux isn't more popular in the business world.
If silly names are all that's holding back Linux, MS and Apple should be very afraid. MS's approach is no more sensible, but at least it's not very entertaining.
I expect Babylon 5 Swedish meat balls were inspired by jynnan tonnyx, but they are distinct concepts. Adams's idea was that all the drinks were named the same, but totally different, while Babylon 5's was that the dishes were the same, but named differently.
Be careful about implying that Finland is part of Scandinavia. Some say it is, but others are adamant it's not. More importantly, the US has had government funded education and social security for a very long time as well, regardless of whether you call that "Socialism" or not.
Even if something about Scandinavian (and/or Finnish) governance encourages innovation more than other approaches, Linux is hardly a good example of that. Linus was inspired by and depended on technologies of foreign origin including Minix (Dutch), an 80386 PC (American), Unix (American) and GNU (American). By far most of his work on Linux has been done since he moved to the US.
Similarly, this project depends on technologies of foreign origin like the Samsung (Korean) chip based on the ARM (originally British) architecture, Android (American) and Ubuntu (American/South African/British). What the origin of these projects say to me is that government policies may not have that much to do with where and how innovation happens any more. Broken patent systems and other bad government policies can stifle innovation, but all that's required for it to succeed is to not be impeded.
Why no wireless DTV transmitter?!! I mean, really, been the twentyfirst century! for like, a decade, now! Why the hell do I need to hook things up with wires or plug them in except for matters of security or power?!!
you benighted savages disgust me.
Rant against the powers that be who define display connection technologies like VESA, not this device. There are no technologies in common use now which can replace DVI/HDMI with something wireless, let alone ten years ago. Wireless DisplayPort is supposed to be coming eventually, but updating modern displays at 60Hz or higher takes a large bitrate, making it much more difficult to design than LAN or WAN speed network connections. If by "wireless DTV transmitter" you mean something like ATSC or DVB, it's certainly not practical for display connection. Those standards are based on lossy video compression which results in poor quality for sharp images like text and introduces significant latency.
A number of important GNU projects, such as Glibc, are under the more permissive LGPL rather than the GPL. Also, Stallman had nothing to do with the creation of Linux or the choice of license for it except that Linus was inspired by the GNU tools he used as part of Minix. Though he claims to not care about software freedom that much, Linus has never indicated he regretted choosing GPL. Of course it's very controversial, but I'm convinced that being under the GPL is an important factor in Linux's success. A recent example of the pragmatic value of Copyleft is Android. Google has explained that they prefer to keep as many components as possible under permissive licenses like the Apache license so they can choose when and if to release source along with binaries. They chose not to release source for Android 3 except for the Copyleft components, primarily Linux. The GPL did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is to guarantee that everyone has the same freedoms, not just those who make changes.
I've thought they've ended this flame war several years ago?
Several years ago when BSD based Mac OS X took over the Unix desktop market? ;-)
I think things are a little more complicated than in the 1990s with respect to BSD vs Linux.
People who buy into the "OSX is BSD" idea need to look a little more closely. Of course OSX has BSD code in it; all modern OSes do (even Windows). However, the XNU kernel is very different from the kernels of modern BSDs like FreeBSD and OpenBSD. While containing some BSD code it is also based on Mach and its own device driver framework. While OSX borrows BSD userspace components (like almost all modern OSes) it also depends on GNU ones, most importantly the development tools. The biggest way OSX differs from BSDs is in all the components the user sees, including the window system and GUI libraries; those are proprietary and can't be found in any non-Apple OS.
Though somewhat subjective, I think the typical modern BSD system has more in common with the typical modern GNU/Linux system than with OSX, especially if considering desktop use. Though all three contain code from BSD and GNU origins, only BSDs and Linux-based systems use traditional Unix-style monolithic kernels and X11 as the windowing system.
Indeed, this is one patent that I hope MS vigorously defends.
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
It probably makes sense for everyone to know the capabilities in a similar as for nuclear weapons. The US military doesn't want to use these bombs. They do want to make potential targets nervous and/or spend a lot more trying to bomb-proof facilities.
http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
I suspect both sites were made by the same person.
You've clearly never done any serious web development. Even you'd been a heavy Adobe user, you'd have noticed that they've been pushing HTML5 for a while now. I have no idea if their tools for working with web standards are up to the quality of their Flash ones, but that seems to be the goal. Hating Adobe is less reasonable than hating Microsoft, but hating Flash is not.
Flash was created for a reason and for many years was necessary to do some things like play video and sound. Even if it's still more convenient for those things, it's no longer necessary. The more web developers abandon it, the more pressure there will be to improve implementations of web standards for the things that Flash has been used for. The longer people hold out against the change, the more painful it will be for all of us.
HTML5 is not a superset of Flash.
Flash is not a superset of HTML5.
Get over the pissing contests and use the right tool for the job.
Saying Flash is appropriate for a web site is like saying IPX/SPX are appropriate protocols for a LAN connecting to the Internet. Sure, it can be done, but it's a stupid way to do it and thankfully went away many years ago.
The right tools to create web sites are web standards. Even Adobe agrees with that; they've actually been promoting HTML5 for a while. They're still promoting AIR for desktop apps I think. I have no interest in that, but it is apparently the right too for some people.
Indeed, it's a beautiful site (though a direct copy of Occupy Flash) with no Flash dependency at all. The only way it uses Flash is to detect if it's installed. I'm skeptical it's serious at all. I have a sneaking suspicion one person dreamed the whole thing up, including both sites.
Though OWS has fuzzy goals, they clearly seem to be against corporate control. What better symbol of corporate control is there than Flash? OWS's issue may be more important, but technology standards are not trivial.
The idealism comes from the fact that major browser incompatibilities have been overcome in the past. It's no longer necessary to resort to ugly hacks to get a page to render the same in modern browsers like it was in the days of IE6. People will do whatever's necessary to make sites work well. Since they can't depend on Adobe, they'll have to depend on consensus, which is the only reason the Internet and web have worked at all.
It is really nice that on my Asus Transformer, every website I've used just works. Compare that to my iPod touch and the iPad where I just get a big lego piece.
Until all websites stop using Flash, this sucks.
Maybe you don't realize that the only way to prevent the Lego piece from appearing on you iPad is to also make it appear on the Transformer. Web developers don't want to (and shouldn't have to) use totally different methods to make their sites work on different devices. It really seems Adobe is really becoming less evil.
If someone can't transition from Flash development to using web standards, she probably deserves to lose her job.