Call me paranoid. In a perfect world this would be the ideal situation.
If you are determined to get this fixed ( as you should be ), and you are
on friendly terms with both your system admins and your school's administration
then take the straight forward approach suggested by joelparker.
If they do not know you, I would attempt to be a little more anonymous.
If you point out laxaties in their security, you will be the first person
they think of when there is a problem. The security admin will probably
also get his ass chewed by his boss. The admin will remember you.
If you are still determined, do one of two things;
1. Compose anonymous snail mails. One to the school's admin, and
if this is a state school - one to the state's security admin at the
department of education.
2. If you have money, or can find an activist lawyer willing to do this
pro-bono - retain council and enter into a priveledged communication.
Have the lawyer communicate with the admins.
Just remember - no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Good points. I admit I was focused on "free" America. I can see where
anonymous reporting in repressive regimes would be very important. How do you
get around the suspicion that the anonymous reporter could be in the employ of
the oppressor? I guess I would have to view them as sources of info I need to
research myself.
I'm fairly ignorant about Freenet - and I'm sure it shows. Time to do my homework, I guess.
I agree. However, once the reputation of the key has been established
-and it has not been stolen or cracked- an organization or reporter
could post while on the run. If they kept another key, tied to the same ID
in a "data haven" somewhere, they could begin using that one and post a notice
that the old key had been compromised. No solution is perfect, but this
could be useful while trying to maintain a free press under, let's say, adverse conditions.
Anonymity is not the key though. I personally don't want my news reporters
to be anonymous. I want them to be accountable. A reputation tied to public keys
is what we need. I suppose an anonymous news reporter could eventually
build up a reputation as credible. That would be tough.
(The public key thing was discussed above, but seemed pertinent here.)
P2P news syndication would be the perfect venue for public keys and signatures.
Find a journalist you trust? An entire news organization maybe?
You could check the validity of source every time.
This may be a funny 4/1 joke and all, but I would not be suprised if
someday this happens. If Open Source takes a big enough chunk of
enterprise, governments will begin to notice the loss of revenue.
They will then begin imposing use taxes based on profitability per seat.
Where did he specify that reprinting copyrighted article in a public form is ok to do ?
The whole bloody thread is about the Salon article! Are you trying to say
we have shifted context? People wanted to reprint the article here.
An argument concerning the legality/morality of this act began.
The article is _copyrighted_ and they did not want to pay or view a 20 second
ad to be able to view it. Simple.
Of course, I did not toe the party line so I was modded down and
called names. Just another day of "intellectual freedom" at Slashdot.
Newbie. Thats a good one. Why do you resort to a personal attack?
I understand your point, yet you continue to ignore mine.
I clearly stated that I understood infringement, to be infringement not theft.
I also explained how infringement can be, and often is, tantamount to theft
because you are depriving someone else of the fruit of their labors.
Again and again on Slashdot, people try to make reasoned replys on
on this subject, only to be modded down as trolls or flamebaiters and
insulted as if they were arguing with children on the playground.
You tout freedom as your primary motivation, and demonstrate the opposite. "Take you and your multi-national media corporatation inspired
propoaganda elsewhere... My opinion is my own. I am an educated
and thoughtful person. I have been making a stand against multinationals
and corrupt law longer than a good deal of slashdotters have been
alive. Am I seeking some sort of "cred?" No. This is an anonymous
forum. A forum where debate has died, and where people claiming to
espouse intellectual freedom shout down anyone who counters them. Very free,
that.
Mod me down just like last time. Go ahead. It matters so little in
the real world.
Oh, before I leave; "Nice troll, newbie." *sigh* What is that?
I suppose you think that an opinion you disagree with is a troll.
Well, not being big into the whole moral relativism scene,
let me say this; You are wrong.
I have deleted the longish reasoned reply I was about to make.
I'll keep this short. One observation and one assertion.
You quote the very section of copyright law that would allow you to
make three personal copies of an article you had compensated the
copyright holder for. Just in-case you don't realize this, that
quote is not very supportive of your notion that re-printing a copyrighted
article in a public forum is ok to do.
I expect to be compensated for my efforts. You expect to consume the
efforts of others as though they were your servants.
"Copyright infrement doesnt change the intent of the copyright owner."
That is the self-serving rhetoric of a 12 year old child. Twisting meaning
and context to justify breaking the spirit of a law while supposedly
not breaking the letter of the law makes you look stupid and foolish.
It also casts a dubious light on any future legitimate work you may do.
Stop acting like a corrupt politician or corporate hack.
If you want to read an article, watch the damn 20 second ad
or go do the interviews and research yourself. If you are good enough
at it, someone may actually pay you for your efforts. Salon did,
after all, pay people to generate the content. That is what those
of us not sponging off of mommy and daddy or welfare agencies do.
"'2. Open Source is about ensuring quality,'
not it is not. that is just a possible outcome of open source. However, if your product doesn't have the 'many eyes' it can still be lacking in quality."
Yes, it is. Without Open Source you have few eyes. With it, you
have the potential for many. If your project is not in demand you will
have few. As soon as there is a need another developer, shop, or
corporation is free to contribute bug fixes or features. That code
is then returned to the base and quality is improved.
"'adherence to standards,'
nothing says an open source product must adhere to standards. They usually do, but in know way is this a part of Open source. How many open source products adhere to a standarad menu bar?"
Allow me to clarify what I mean by "standards." I mean popularly agreed
upon, openly developed, non-proprietary codecs, formats, and structures.
I now realize I did not properly describe who is made to
adhere to these standards.
Adherence to standards is indeed a part of Open Source. With Open
Source, standards battles become fights over utility and quality.
They cease being a struggle between a corporation hoping to create a cash cow
and everyone else. A closed source agent, unless they have been allowed to
establish a closed source software or hardware monopoly can never
hijack a standard if that standard is open.
Fights over UI are nothing more than turf wars. Unless and until someone
actually comes up with something revolutionary in toolbar design, we will
have to read rants about which one is better.
"true, but isn't there something of a double standard where you take contibutions for a product, then don't allow people to distribute it?"
You are referring to the Mozilla logos? You, I, and everyone else are
free to distribute Mozilla products. You cannot print the logos on t-shirts
and sell them. You cannot emblazon coffee mugs with the Mozilla head,
weave flags, or print decals and sell them. Until we live in a world where
the Mozilla people can get their food and clothing from a matter compiler
and hook into the free feed and grow their houses, we are just going to have to
buckle down and buy $10 coffee mugs in exchange for $50, $100, and $1,000
software packages.
Even ignoring the fact that AOL does not own Mozilla;
1. We want large corporations to be involved in Open Source.
They use their resources to grow the project, then return the
code to the community.
2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, adherence to standards,
and defence against hoarders (monopolies).
3. Open Source is _not_ about impoverishing coders and their companies.
You may not get rich from selling packaged versions of your project,
t-shirts, mugs, and books. You might be able to support yourself
and your shop, though. Successfuly defending a trademarked logo
might be the difference between life and death for a project.
The sig of a/. poster of implied Indian descent. You know, India. Where discrimination against anyone not of Indian descent, not of your caste, not of your religion is not only OK but part of the fabric of daily life. What? You don't like being lumped in with a bunch of people you don't even know?.
Now how about you address the topic of the article. The increasingly totalitarian behavior of the American government. Without the smug "hahaha" I'm here on a work visa bullshit.
"With no clear advantage over other free unixes, why is this hobbyOS getting so much attention? i tried a beta disc a few months back, and i didn't see anything special...i mean, a one man OS is impressive, but i can't see anyone actually using it..."
Maybe the point in making it, was in the making. Maybe the interest is rooted in appreciation for a cool hack. Why, by the way, can't you imagine anyone ever using it?
+ Management in corporate America used to be seeded with people
who were motivated to think, invent, and build.
- Management in corporate America today is mostly composed of people
who are primarily motivated by power.
We had a glut of people who wanted the glory and cash
but were not quite bright enough to actually invent anything.
So we built up the mangement class to give the personable yet
otherwise untallented, positions of power. The inventors thought this was great!
They got to spend all of their time in the labs and workshops.
Living for the moment of dicovery was suddenly unfashionable in
corporate America. After that, its all easy math. A labor market of billions,
or a labor market of millions? Not a hard choice when your only goal is
lining your pockets with cash.
We gave away the store. We call it a natural process of free markets,
but that is just to make ourselves feel better. The facts are; we built
the premier educational, scientific, and manufacturing
base in all of history. As we maximised consumer use we exported manufacturing
and made the items disposable. We raised taxes and tuitions to support
our university systems, and granted students from other countries full scholarships.
We returned the newly educated to high population low wage markets. This was not
accidental you know.
And now we pay untallented power-mongers millions a year to export millions
of jobs, and give them millions in severance when we discover they stole
millions from the till.
"Like the treaties it signed after WWII promising never to send soldiers overseas? You know, the one it's violating for the first time *right now*?"
Yep. Those treaties. The ones being set aside at the request some of the nations
they entered into those treaties with in the first place.
The contrast being the French government's willingness to
accept terms until it becomes inconvenient. Not to say that most
nations ( including the US, Germany, Britain... ) are any better.
But, the only two options listed in the article were Japan and
France.
I only have one problem with building this reactor in France.
It has got to be the 1st or 2nd most militarily defeated territory in modern Europe. Probably the 4th or 5th in the world.
Japan is an island nation, and in contemporary terms at least,
much more faithful to the treaties it pledges itself to uphold.
" Slashdot is the only society I've ever known in which, when someone does something that everyone in the community likes, they are attacked and called a "whore"."
The problem is not with karma whores in general. The ones known as karma whore _trolls_ are the problem. Karma whores are just out to gain karma as kind of a game. The trolls are out for karma to get mod points, with which to muck things up.
That is why it is a good idea to click on the "see in context" link when you are meta-modding.
"No, we're not high-minded. We reject other peoples'
attempts to control us, a very selfish view, I agree."
There is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness. What I wonder is,
how far you are willing to take it. Are you saying the benefits
of rule-of-law are yours to enjoy, and yours to dispense or withhold
as you see fit? I checked out your new homepage. Very heady stuff.
Quite an impressive academic career you have had.
Are you planning on making your research and implementations
available for unencumbered public dissemination? Assuming that you
someday will leave academia, do you plan to place your company's or agency's
research and implementations in the public domain? I am wondering how you,
your associates, your employees/employers plan to pay the rent and buy food
under this model.
"Better that we tell the industry what our resistance is really about:
We reject the government's copyright system that makes Federal authorities into thugs that enforce the music companies' restrictions of our freedom to spread information to whomever we want."
I call bullshit. You are trying to style yourself,and others who are ripping off other peoples' work as high minded revolutionaries. What a crock
If you actually gave a damn, about preserving
the right to free access to information, you would
be accumulating and sharing suppressed political
thought. Or, accumulating and sharing little known
or suppressed scientific data. Stealing others'
property, that they put their time and efforts into,
is not a noble endeavor. Do you view artists as
servants that should perform at your feet for your pleasure
and be happy about it?
I notice your personal link leads to a nonexistent student page at Bard College.
Assuming you actually attend Bard, or did, you might want to ask such artists as writer Monique Truong,
and novelist Bradford Morrow if they would mind if you stole their stuff.
Or you could check out Bard's efforts to improve communication between scientists and lawmakers.
Or, you could copy and share the videos of the Milosevic trial.
All of these are available through links on Bard's front page.
" I think the more important news here is the death of two GNOME developers. I can't believe you took this oppurtunity to bitch about your dissatisfaction with software that they wrote and freely give away."
You need to save up the sentimental bullshit and spend it where appropriate. I assume Celorio and Perazzoli were commited to their work and had invested a considerable amount of their emotional/philosphical selves into Gnome. If so, they probably would rather have you and everyone else focus on the future of their work.
Offer their families and friends comfort. Let them know you appreciate what these two did. But show some respect and keep focusing on the work these guys cared about. You are not showing respect by focusing on their deaths instead of their lives. Quite the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
Call me paranoid. In a perfect world this would be the ideal situation.
If you are determined to get this fixed ( as you should be ), and you are
on friendly terms with both your system admins and your school's administration
then take the straight forward approach suggested by joelparker.
If they do not know you, I would attempt to be a little more anonymous.
If you point out laxaties in their security, you will be the first person
they think of when there is a problem. The security admin will probably
also get his ass chewed by his boss. The admin will remember you.
If you are still determined, do one of two things;
1. Compose anonymous snail mails. One to the school's admin, and
if this is a state school - one to the state's security admin at the
department of education.
2. If you have money, or can find an activist lawyer willing to do this
pro-bono - retain council and enter into a priveledged communication.
Have the lawyer communicate with the admins.
Just remember - no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Good points. I admit I was focused on "free" America. I can see where
anonymous reporting in repressive regimes would be very important. How do you
get around the suspicion that the anonymous reporter could be in the employ of
the oppressor? I guess I would have to view them as sources of info I need to
research myself.
I'm fairly ignorant about Freenet - and I'm sure it shows. Time to do my homework, I guess.
I agree. However, once the reputation of the key has been established
-and it has not been stolen or cracked- an organization or reporter
could post while on the run. If they kept another key, tied to the same ID
in a "data haven" somewhere, they could begin using that one and post a notice
that the old key had been compromised. No solution is perfect, but this
could be useful while trying to maintain a free press under, let's say, adverse conditions.
Anonymity is not the key though. I personally don't want my news reporters
to be anonymous. I want them to be accountable. A reputation tied to public keys
is what we need. I suppose an anonymous news reporter could eventually
build up a reputation as credible. That would be tough.
(The public key thing was discussed above, but seemed pertinent here.)
P2P news syndication would be the perfect venue for public keys and signatures.
Find a journalist you trust? An entire news organization maybe?
You could check the validity of source every time.
This may be a funny 4/1 joke and all, but I would not be suprised if
someday this happens. If Open Source takes a big enough chunk of
enterprise, governments will begin to notice the loss of revenue.
They will then begin imposing use taxes based on profitability per seat.
What can I say, I'm a cynic.
we have shifted context? People wanted to reprint the article here.
An argument concerning the legality/morality of this act began.
The article is _copyrighted_ and they did not want to pay or view a 20 second
ad to be able to view it. Simple.
Of course, I did not toe the party line so I was modded down and
called names. Just another day of "intellectual freedom" at Slashdot.
Newbie. Thats a good one. Why do you resort to a personal attack?
I understand your point, yet you continue to ignore mine.
I clearly stated that I understood infringement, to be infringement not theft.
I also explained how infringement can be, and often is, tantamount to theft
because you are depriving someone else of the fruit of their labors.
Again and again on Slashdot, people try to make reasoned replys on
on this subject, only to be modded down as trolls or flamebaiters and
insulted as if they were arguing with children on the playground.
You tout freedom as your primary motivation, and demonstrate the opposite.
"Take you and your multi-national media corporatation inspired
propoaganda elsewhere... My opinion is my own. I am an educated
and thoughtful person. I have been making a stand against multinationals
and corrupt law longer than a good deal of slashdotters have been
alive. Am I seeking some sort of "cred?" No. This is an anonymous
forum. A forum where debate has died, and where people claiming to
espouse intellectual freedom shout down anyone who counters them. Very free,
that.
Mod me down just like last time. Go ahead. It matters so little in
the real world.
Oh, before I leave; "Nice troll, newbie." *sigh* What is that?
I suppose you think that an opinion you disagree with is a troll.
Well, not being big into the whole moral relativism scene,
let me say this; You are wrong.
I have deleted the longish reasoned reply I was about to make.
I'll keep this short. One observation and one assertion.
You quote the very section of copyright law that would allow you to
make three personal copies of an article you had compensated the
copyright holder for. Just in-case you don't realize this, that
quote is not very supportive of your notion that re-printing a copyrighted
article in a public forum is ok to do.
I expect to be compensated for my efforts. You expect to consume the
efforts of others as though they were your servants.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
"Copyright infrement doesnt change the intent of the copyright owner."
That is the self-serving rhetoric of a 12 year old child. Twisting meaning
and context to justify breaking the spirit of a law while supposedly
not breaking the letter of the law makes you look stupid and foolish.
It also casts a dubious light on any future legitimate work you may do.
Stop acting like a corrupt politician or corporate hack.
If you want to read an article, watch the damn 20 second ad
or go do the interviews and research yourself. If you are good enough
at it, someone may actually pay you for your efforts. Salon did,
after all, pay people to generate the content. That is what those
of us not sponging off of mommy and daddy or welfare agencies do.
have the potential for many. If your project is not in demand you will
have few. As soon as there is a need another developer, shop, or
corporation is free to contribute bug fixes or features. That code
is then returned to the base and quality is improved.
Allow me to clarify what I mean by "standards." I mean popularly agreed
upon, openly developed, non-proprietary codecs, formats, and structures.
I now realize I did not properly describe who is made to
adhere to these standards.
Adherence to standards is indeed a part of Open Source. With Open
Source, standards battles become fights over utility and quality.
They cease being a struggle between a corporation hoping to create a cash cow
and everyone else. A closed source agent, unless they have been allowed to
establish a closed source software or hardware monopoly can never
hijack a standard if that standard is open.
Fights over UI are nothing more than turf wars. Unless and until someone
actually comes up with something revolutionary in toolbar design, we will
have to read rants about which one is better.
You are referring to the Mozilla logos? You, I, and everyone else are
free to distribute Mozilla products. You cannot print the logos on t-shirts
and sell them. You cannot emblazon coffee mugs with the Mozilla head,
weave flags, or print decals and sell them. Until we live in a world where
the Mozilla people can get their food and clothing from a matter compiler
and hook into the free feed and grow their houses, we are just going to have to
buckle down and buy $10 coffee mugs in exchange for $50, $100, and $1,000
software packages.
Even ignoring the fact that AOL does not own Mozilla;
1. We want large corporations to be involved in Open Source.
They use their resources to grow the project, then return the
code to the community.
2. Open Source is about ensuring quality, adherence to standards,
and defence against hoarders (monopolies).
3. Open Source is _not_ about impoverishing coders and their companies.
You may not get rich from selling packaged versions of your project,
t-shirts, mugs, and books. You might be able to support yourself
and your shop, though. Successfuly defending a trademarked logo
might be the difference between life and death for a project.
"Slashdot: where racism against Indians is OK..."
/. poster of implied Indian descent. You know, India. Where discrimination against anyone not of Indian descent, not of your caste, not of your religion is not only OK but part of the fabric of daily life. What? You don't like being lumped in with a bunch of people you don't even know?.
The sig of a
Now how about you address the topic of the article. The increasingly totalitarian behavior of the American government. Without the smug "hahaha" I'm here on a work visa bullshit.
He may be a freaking idiot, but he's an amazingly /hands you a clue
insightful freaking idiot.
Maybe the point in making it, was in the making. Maybe the interest is rooted in appreciation for a cool hack. Why, by the way, can't you imagine anyone ever using it?
Parent probably the most accurate post in this thread, and moderated off-topic.
Looks like Island was acquired by someone else.
This works though;
Here
It would be interesting to know how many outstanding orders exist to buy SCOX at one dollar or less.
+ Management in corporate America used to be seeded with people
who were motivated to think, invent, and build.
- Management in corporate America today is mostly composed of people
who are primarily motivated by power.
We had a glut of people who wanted the glory and cash
but were not quite bright enough to actually invent anything.
So we built up the mangement class to give the personable yet
otherwise untallented, positions of power. The inventors thought this was great!
They got to spend all of their time in the labs and workshops.
Living for the moment of dicovery was suddenly unfashionable in
corporate America. After that, its all easy math. A labor market of billions,
or a labor market of millions? Not a hard choice when your only goal is
lining your pockets with cash.
We gave away the store. We call it a natural process of free markets,
but that is just to make ourselves feel better. The facts are; we built
the premier educational, scientific, and manufacturing
base in all of history. As we maximised consumer use we exported manufacturing
and made the items disposable. We raised taxes and tuitions to support
our university systems, and granted students from other countries full scholarships.
We returned the newly educated to high population low wage markets. This was not
accidental you know.
And now we pay untallented power-mongers millions a year to export millions
of jobs, and give them millions in severance when we discover they stole
millions from the till.
they entered into those treaties with in the first place.
The contrast being the French government's willingness to
accept terms until it becomes inconvenient. Not to say that most
nations ( including the US, Germany, Britain... ) are any better.
But, the only two options listed in the article were Japan and
France.
I only have one problem with building this reactor in France.
It has got to be the 1st or 2nd most militarily defeated territory
in modern Europe. Probably the 4th or 5th in the world.
Japan is an island nation, and in contemporary terms at least,
much more faithful to the treaties it pledges itself to uphold.
The problem is not with karma whores in general. The ones known as karma whore _trolls_ are the problem. Karma whores are just out to gain karma as kind of a game. The trolls are out for karma to get mod points, with which to muck things up.
That is why it is a good idea to click on the "see in context" link when you are meta-modding.
There is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness. What I wonder is,
how far you are willing to take it. Are you saying the benefits
of rule-of-law are yours to enjoy, and yours to dispense or withhold
as you see fit? I checked out your new homepage. Very heady stuff.
Quite an impressive academic career you have had.
Are you planning on making your research and implementations
available for unencumbered public dissemination? Assuming that you
someday will leave academia, do you plan to place your company's or agency's
research and implementations in the public domain? I am wondering how you,
your associates, your employees/employers plan to pay the rent and buy food
under this model.
I call bullshit. You are trying to style yourself
others who are ripping off other peoples' work as high
minded revolutionaries. What a crock
If you actually gave a damn, about preserving the right to free access to information, you would
be accumulating and sharing suppressed political thought. Or, accumulating and sharing little known
or suppressed scientific data. Stealing others' property, that they put their time and efforts into,
is not a noble endeavor. Do you view artists as servants that should perform at your feet for your pleasure
and be happy about it?
I notice your personal link leads to a nonexistent student page at Bard College.
Assuming you actually attend Bard, or did, you might want to ask such artists as writer Monique Truong,
and novelist Bradford Morrow if they would mind if you stole their stuff.
Or you could check out Bard's efforts to improve communication between scientists and lawmakers.
Or, you could copy and share the videos of the Milosevic trial.
All of these are available through links on Bard's front page.
" I think the more important news here is the death of two GNOME developers. I can't believe you took this oppurtunity to bitch about your dissatisfaction with software that they wrote and freely give away."
You need to save up the sentimental bullshit and spend it where appropriate. I assume Celorio and Perazzoli were commited to their work and had invested a considerable amount of their emotional/philosphical selves into Gnome. If so, they probably would rather have you and everyone else focus on the future of their work.
Offer their families and friends comfort. Let them know you appreciate what these two did. But show some respect and keep focusing on the work these guys cared about. You are not showing respect by focusing on their deaths instead of their lives. Quite the opposite.