French Imperialist!1111!!!!111!!! - Maybe France just needs to come to grip with free speech.
Oh yeah, because America is so innocent? Like how the FBI lures child pornographers from countries where it's not illegal, or the age laws are different, and then arrests them and detains them indefinitely? Oh, child pornographers are evil, so that's okay...
Let's not forget the famous Skylarov case. We've also done it with Russian hackers in general, luring them over just to arrest them.
No, it's not right, but get off your damn high horse and start bitching about the wrong act in your own country before we take this fight to theirs. (And this was sanctioned by a US court, idiot...)
As I'm sure many of you noticed, Microsoft has been making some 'Open Source' pushes as of late. They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.
For those of you not in the know, the key distinction between CPL and the GPL, is that I can incorporate a CPL'ed project into my code, whole, without contributing back, as long as I don't modify the CPL'ed code. If I do, I have to publish modifications to the CPL code in the same way I would for the GPL.
I'm of the opinion that the CPL has two serious flaws:
Transparency
Free rides
First, the transparency. How often have we all seen companies violating the GPL? I can assure you, it's a whole lot more frequent than even we hear about. I've known many Windows developers, who had no clue about, or respect for, the GPL, and would download bits of code from anywhere to incorporate if it made their lives easier. (Often because they didn't understand the task at hand, and they just wanted to get it to work.) It's not normally a matter of policy, but I've definitely seen it knowingly overlooked at companies I've worked for previously.
Right now, if we find a company using GPL'ed source, we have a smoking gun we can use to ensure license compliance. When someone incorporates CPL code, there's no way to prove that they modified it themselves, and so CPL compliance is based entirely on the goodwill of corporations, and we've seen how generous that goodwill is...
Second, there's the free rides. The CPL is designed so that companies can take advantage of the work of open source developers without having to compensate them in any way. With proprietary code, developers receive fiduciary compensation, and, traditionally, with Open Source, the developers receive the source for their project, and any derivative works.
With the CPL, companies get a free ride, which in the end screws the developers out of any benefit of their hard work.
Now, the reason why I bring this all up is that, as mentioned above, Microsoft has been hiring prominent open source developers, having them release their source under the CPL. It is my belief that Microsoft wishes undermine the Open Source movement. They hope to get the CPL to be popular, so that they can freely incorporate works developed by others without having to contribute back. They've hired 'evangelists' to show the benefits of CPL, without showing the downsides. (Because, of course, Microsoft is currently releasing software, and they want us to believe that's not going to change.)
So, in conclusion, Microsoft, what I'd like to see is Microsoft projects released under the GPL as well, so that we can see a benefit to the Open Source movement, not just to you.
it....said the worker peon to the self-made billionaire
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but have you tried going to broadcast.com lately? Oh, that's right, you can't, it's just another link to yahoo at this point. Mark is rich because he was lucky enough to sell at the right time when everyone was buying miracle cures, not because he created a viable business model.
In my eyes, that makes him rich, and lucky, but not any sort of authority...
It's enough to make a grown man cry... Six more hours of Jar-Jar... It means they'll have to do a whole new 4, 5, and 6 so that they can edit it whatever new story details Lucas feels are necessary....and Greebo will still shoot first...
He believes that the solution to movie piracy is bigger file formats
He's obviously someone that just doesn't get it. He must of missed out on the whole MP3 thing. In his rant, he talks about how no one he's run into has ever uploaded or downloaded an HD movie from the net. He fails to ask, however, if anyone's ever uploaded or downloaded a movie that came from HDTV sources.
Sure, while bandwidth is low, people won't be downloading HDTV content, but once there's fiber to the door that will change.
There's an ISP in my area (Free) that I'm switching to when I change apartments in two months. They offer a combo TV/DSL package that's 5Mbps down normally, and 2Mbps down when you're watching TV. A friend has it, and he says you can't tell the difference. (This is on PAL, which has a higher resolution, but a slightly slower refresh rate than NTSC.)
If I can stream regular quality content at 3Mbps, by the time we get to 30Mbps and up to the home, this guy's entire premise will be destroyed. I hate to bust his bubble, but the media kiosk has been tried, and tried again. No one's been able to get it to work, and with good reason. There are no consumer electronics players that take a standard format external drive.
If we could see hard drives that fit the new slot based version of PCIe, this might change (assuming you could get disk-based players like PVRs that use those instead of an internal hard drive), then you could ramp into the market, by providing added functionality to those already in need of disk space (easy upgrades), and service after you had seeded the market.
that crossover has managed to overcome. When will the code be incorporated back into Wine?
Sorry to break your preconceptions, but for sometime now Crossover has been very diligent in submitting their improvements upstream into WINE. Photoshop compatibility should already be checked in...
Well, if you're on a PPC architecture already, there's Mac-On-Linux. Though, I'm sure that by the tone of your comment, you actually meant x86. Well, ask and you shall receive. For the x86 folks (or just about anyone on Linux), there's PearPC. And you know what? They're both open source...
I'm a paper folder, and I've got to say, right now is a really exciting time for folders. I'm a member of Origami USA which is an organization that, despite it's name, is open to people from all over the world. Every year there's a convention held in New York at the end of June where about 1000 people come together to learn new models, to socialize. and to have fun.
I said it's an exciting time, and that's because for the first time, folders are really starting to explore the bounds of the craft. You've got people like Robert Lang who have been exploring the mathematics and geometry behind origami, and teaching the secrets of creation to others.
You've got people like my friend, Daniel Robinson, who take animals, insects, etc. of a particular species, and instead of trying to create a generic representation, try to get the model to be exact, right down to the length and number of feelers on a frilled longhorn beetle, for example.
And as much as you might not believe it, there are some really hot origami chicks [though they are for the most part drowned out by the rest...;) ]
running at 4MHz. This is because it has to emulate an older processor
So what they're saying is, rather than porting their calculator software to a new platform, they found it easier to write an emulator that pretends to be the old processor? Sounds like a pretty crappy design decision to me.
Also, if customers are writing their own programs with a C compiler to get speed, why not just use something like the Zaurus running Linux, and one of the many, full featured, science/math software suites for Linux?
While your underlying product is forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism
I think this guy has it all wrong. The GPL isn't about altruism, it's about selfishness, and that's a good thing.
I must admit, I'm a bit cynical, and thus I have some trouble believing in altruism. I think Richard Stallman had a brilliant idea with the GPL. It was a way to turn the selfishness of every programmer, that desire to be able to look at how something was done, to both his advantage, and the advantage of people around the world.
What he's done is to create a system, whereby people with that programming itch (and you know what I mean if you've got it), will give away access to the product of their hearts and minds, just to be able to satisfy that itch when it comes to someone else's work, or someone else's improvements of their own work.
As a programmer, I think there can be no greater boon than to have people who want to use your software, and, even more so, people who want to see how it's written, and possibly improve it.
means striking pleasing postures for the investment community
I disagree completely. What it means is that you need to do right by your investors, not the investing community in general. If you're an open-source based company, your investors should realize that, and, if they are unhappy with the way you are treating your company, they have the option of selling it, or trying to force a hostile takeover.
An open-source company has to keep it's reputation, and it's actions towards the community as it's most important goal, because teamwork requires goodwill. The problem comes with all of the investment companies who buy into Redhat not because of who they are, but because of how much money people think they can make them. (It should be a little of both.)
Once that is accomplished, the rest should fall into place. The attitudes and actions of the company should determine the value of the company. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Okay, everyone seems to be missing the point of my post, so let me try to explain a little more clearly.
What's really at question here is whether or not having a P2P application open, with access to your files, is considered a violation of copyright.
It's vaguely akin to leaving a stack of CDs out in the front lawn. (Assuming you trust everyone to not take your CDs, just browse, listen to them, and then return them to you.) If If I want to do it, I feel that should be my prerogative. If someone wants to take those CDs and copy them, I feel that's an entirely different copyright issue, and based entirely on what is considered fair use.
What I think is a big problem with the targetted users is that many of them probably acquired the majority of their music without purchasing it, and think they are being taken to court for having copies of the songs they haven't paid for.
Now, you and I both know that what the RIAA is pursuing with these suits are people who are sharing music, and the question is whether that is legal or not.
So, my original proposition still stands. Someone who has a large music collection, and wants to fight this, should share their music collection on as many P2P networks as they can, so they can get a chance to find out once and for all whether just sharing music you own is considered an infringement of copyright.
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
A lot of the people who are doing this probably don't own copies of the songs to begin with, which makes it tough for them to stand up for themselves.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
What I want to know is, whatever happened to supply-side pricing. You know, figuring out your cost to supply, and charging a reasonable markup based on that?
It's because of this that companies have to create artificial market distinctions, and why there is the prevalance of after-market modification. (Things like overclocking.)
I know it's a bit of an anti-establishment thought, but I'm not sure demand-side pricing is ethical. The whole idea of trying to take your customers for everything you can sounds so much colder when you look at it from their side.
And on taop of that, if you're a publicly owned company, not doing so might be considered criminal...
Real's worn they're scarlet letter, and I'm starting to wonder if they've worn it long enough. I'm syncing my portage right now, and I'm going to install Helix. I think it may be time to give Real a second chance.
Now, I'm not saying I'm going to be happy, but I've decided to at least give them a shot.
Just found out that they're player does not run on amd64 yet... Oh well, I'll try the binary version... No wait, that doesn't work either.
2GB. That's nice and all, but when are they going to actually deliver on the 10MB they promised everyone? I don't use Hotmail, but my girlfriend does, and I'm unable to send her any attachments larger than about 500k because she keeps old emails...
Hmmm. Sounds like a really, really good idea now doesn't it?
We really can't have it both ways. This is a good thing, and the fact that there may be companies who will try to take advantage of it in reverse doesn't change that fact. The amount of money in reverse spam is sure to be lower than in normal SPAM, decreasing the number of people who are interested in it...
Talk about passing the buck. Some of the top problems in the article:
Microsoft employees were questioned by police in China, where it is an offence to refer to Taiwan as country or as the Republic of China. Now Taiwan is not referred to as country and all software worldwide avoids the issue by referring to places as "regions or districts".
Perhaps the best known, and one of the most expensive, errors was a colour-coded world map showing time zones, which showed the disputed Jammu-Kashmir region as not being in India - an offence under Indian law.
This isn't hapless employees. This is government oppression, and the bans on free speech necessary to pull them off.
I think we can definitely see this as good news. Anything that increases the amount of information to the end user is a good thing, as it allows for informed purchasing decisions, and anything that prevents consumers from getting what they want can generally be considered a bad thing.
This seems to give something to both camps. The educationally conservative will be able to avoid what they consider sensitive material, and the rest of us will be able to buy the next Grand Theft Auto game...
5 months later it'll be deemed that our eye sight can be tapped under the PATRIOT act and similar.
printf("%s",szDeity) that should have been modded insightful. It actually makes me think of Minority Report, and how it's illegal not to have your own eyeballs. This sort of stuff will happen if we let it...
Slashdot Mirror
French Imperialist!1111!!!!111!!! - Maybe France just needs to come to grip with free speech.
Oh yeah, because America is so innocent? Like how the FBI lures child pornographers from countries where it's not illegal, or the age laws are different, and then arrests them and detains them indefinitely? Oh, child pornographers are evil, so that's okay...
Let's not forget the famous Skylarov case. We've also done it with Russian hackers in general, luring them over just to arrest them.
No, it's not right, but get off your damn high horse and start bitching about the wrong act in your own country before we take this fight to theirs. (And this was sanctioned by a US court, idiot...)
Isn't "spam firewall" just a marketing term for "filter"?
A spam firewall? Don't they mean an SMTP proxy? Like ASSP
? Gosh, I hate marketing sometimes...As I'm sure many of you noticed, Microsoft has been making some 'Open Source' pushes as of late. They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.
For those of you not in the know, the key distinction between CPL and the GPL, is that I can incorporate a CPL'ed project into my code, whole, without contributing back, as long as I don't modify the CPL'ed code. If I do, I have to publish modifications to the CPL code in the same way I would for the GPL.
I'm of the opinion that the CPL has two serious flaws:
First, the transparency. How often have we all seen companies violating the GPL? I can assure you, it's a whole lot more frequent than even we hear about. I've known many Windows developers, who had no clue about, or respect for, the GPL, and would download bits of code from anywhere to incorporate if it made their lives easier. (Often because they didn't understand the task at hand, and they just wanted to get it to work.) It's not normally a matter of policy, but I've definitely seen it knowingly overlooked at companies I've worked for previously.
Right now, if we find a company using GPL'ed source, we have a smoking gun we can use to ensure license compliance. When someone incorporates CPL code, there's no way to prove that they modified it themselves, and so CPL compliance is based entirely on the goodwill of corporations, and we've seen how generous that goodwill is...
Second, there's the free rides. The CPL is designed so that companies can take advantage of the work of open source developers without having to compensate them in any way. With proprietary code, developers receive fiduciary compensation, and, traditionally, with Open Source, the developers receive the source for their project, and any derivative works.
With the CPL, companies get a free ride, which in the end screws the developers out of any benefit of their hard work.
Now, the reason why I bring this all up is that, as mentioned above, Microsoft has been hiring prominent open source developers, having them release their source under the CPL. It is my belief that Microsoft wishes undermine the Open Source movement. They hope to get the CPL to be popular, so that they can freely incorporate works developed by others without having to contribute back. They've hired 'evangelists' to show the benefits of CPL, without showing the downsides. (Because, of course, Microsoft is currently releasing software, and they want us to believe that's not going to change.)
So, in conclusion, Microsoft, what I'd like to see is Microsoft projects released under the GPL as well, so that we can see a benefit to the Open Source movement, not just to you.
it....said the worker peon to the self-made billionaire
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but have you tried going to broadcast.com lately? Oh, that's right, you can't, it's just another link to yahoo at this point. Mark is rich because he was lucky enough to sell at the right time when everyone was buying miracle cures, not because he created a viable business model.
In my eyes, that makes him rich, and lucky, but not any sort of authority...
It's enough to make a grown man cry... Six more hours of Jar-Jar... It means they'll have to do a whole new 4, 5, and 6 so that they can edit it whatever new story details Lucas feels are necessary. ...and Greebo will still shoot first...
He believes that the solution to movie piracy is bigger file formats
He's obviously someone that just doesn't get it. He must of missed out on the whole MP3 thing. In his rant, he talks about how no one he's run into has ever uploaded or downloaded an HD movie from the net. He fails to ask, however, if anyone's ever uploaded or downloaded a movie that came from HDTV sources.
Sure, while bandwidth is low, people won't be downloading HDTV content, but once there's fiber to the door that will change.
There's an ISP in my area (Free) that I'm switching to when I change apartments in two months. They offer a combo TV/DSL package that's 5Mbps down normally, and 2Mbps down when you're watching TV. A friend has it, and he says you can't tell the difference. (This is on PAL, which has a higher resolution, but a slightly slower refresh rate than NTSC.)
If I can stream regular quality content at 3Mbps, by the time we get to 30Mbps and up to the home, this guy's entire premise will be destroyed. I hate to bust his bubble, but the media kiosk has been tried, and tried again. No one's been able to get it to work, and with good reason. There are no consumer electronics players that take a standard format external drive.
If we could see hard drives that fit the new slot based version of PCIe, this might change (assuming you could get disk-based players like PVRs that use those instead of an internal hard drive), then you could ramp into the market, by providing added functionality to those already in need of disk space (easy upgrades), and service after you had seeded the market.
Come one, come all, for the greatest dupe on earth... It's not the exact same article, but it's the exact same source materiel...
If I was low on Karma, I'm sure I could Karma Whore and just copy high scoring posts from the previous article...
that crossover has managed to overcome. When will the code be incorporated back into Wine?
Sorry to break your preconceptions, but for sometime now Crossover has been very diligent in submitting their improvements upstream into WINE. Photoshop compatibility should already be checked in...
How about a way to run Max OSX apps in Linux???
Well, if you're on a PPC architecture already, there's Mac-On-Linux. Though, I'm sure that by the tone of your comment, you actually meant x86. Well, ask and you shall receive. For the x86 folks (or just about anyone on Linux), there's PearPC. And you know what? They're both open source...
I'm a paper folder, and I've got to say, right now is a really exciting time for folders. I'm a member of Origami USA which is an organization that, despite it's name, is open to people from all over the world. Every year there's a convention held in New York at the end of June where about 1000 people come together to learn new models, to socialize. and to have fun.
I said it's an exciting time, and that's because for the first time, folders are really starting to explore the bounds of the craft. You've got people like Robert Lang who have been exploring the mathematics and geometry behind origami, and teaching the secrets of creation to others.
You've got people like my friend, Daniel Robinson, who take animals, insects, etc. of a particular species, and instead of trying to create a generic representation, try to get the model to be exact, right down to the length and number of feelers on a frilled longhorn beetle, for example.
And as much as you might not believe it, there are some really hot origami chicks [though they are for the most part drowned out by the rest... ;) ]
running at 4MHz. This is because it has to emulate an older processor
So what they're saying is, rather than porting their calculator software to a new platform, they found it easier to write an emulator that pretends to be the old processor? Sounds like a pretty crappy design decision to me.
Also, if customers are writing their own programs with a C compiler to get speed, why not just use something like the Zaurus running Linux, and one of the many, full featured, science/math software suites for Linux?
While your underlying product is forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism
I think this guy has it all wrong. The GPL isn't about altruism, it's about selfishness, and that's a good thing.
I must admit, I'm a bit cynical, and thus I have some trouble believing in altruism. I think Richard Stallman had a brilliant idea with the GPL. It was a way to turn the selfishness of every programmer, that desire to be able to look at how something was done, to both his advantage, and the advantage of people around the world.
What he's done is to create a system, whereby people with that programming itch (and you know what I mean if you've got it), will give away access to the product of their hearts and minds, just to be able to satisfy that itch when it comes to someone else's work, or someone else's improvements of their own work.
As a programmer, I think there can be no greater boon than to have people who want to use your software, and, even more so, people who want to see how it's written, and possibly improve it.
means striking pleasing postures for the investment community
I disagree completely. What it means is that you need to do right by your investors, not the investing community in general. If you're an open-source based company, your investors should realize that, and, if they are unhappy with the way you are treating your company, they have the option of selling it, or trying to force a hostile takeover.
An open-source company has to keep it's reputation, and it's actions towards the community as it's most important goal, because teamwork requires goodwill. The problem comes with all of the investment companies who buy into Redhat not because of who they are, but because of how much money people think they can make them. (It should be a little of both.)
Once that is accomplished, the rest should fall into place. The attitudes and actions of the company should determine the value of the company. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Okay, everyone seems to be missing the point of my post, so let me try to explain a little more clearly.
What's really at question here is whether or not having a P2P application open, with access to your files, is considered a violation of copyright.
It's vaguely akin to leaving a stack of CDs out in the front lawn. (Assuming you trust everyone to not take your CDs, just browse, listen to them, and then return them to you.) If If I want to do it, I feel that should be my prerogative. If someone wants to take those CDs and copy them, I feel that's an entirely different copyright issue, and based entirely on what is considered fair use.
What I think is a big problem with the targetted users is that many of them probably acquired the majority of their music without purchasing it, and think they are being taken to court for having copies of the songs they haven't paid for.
Now, you and I both know that what the RIAA is pursuing with these suits are people who are sharing music, and the question is whether that is legal or not.
So, my original proposition still stands. Someone who has a large music collection, and wants to fight this, should share their music collection on as many P2P networks as they can, so they can get a chance to find out once and for all whether just sharing music you own is considered an infringement of copyright.
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
A lot of the people who are doing this probably don't own copies of the songs to begin with, which makes it tough for them to stand up for themselves.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
What I want to know is, whatever happened to supply-side pricing. You know, figuring out your cost to supply, and charging a reasonable markup based on that?
It's because of this that companies have to create artificial market distinctions, and why there is the prevalance of after-market modification. (Things like overclocking.)
I know it's a bit of an anti-establishment thought, but I'm not sure demand-side pricing is ethical. The whole idea of trying to take your customers for everything you can sounds so much colder when you look at it from their side.
And on taop of that, if you're a publicly owned company, not doing so might be considered criminal...
Real's worn they're scarlet letter, and I'm starting to wonder if they've worn it long enough. I'm syncing my portage right now, and I'm going to install Helix. I think it may be time to give Real a second chance.
Now, I'm not saying I'm going to be happy, but I've decided to at least give them a shot.
Just found out that they're player does not run on amd64 yet... Oh well, I'll try the binary version... No wait, that doesn't work either.
Oh well, I guess Real sucks... ;)
2GB. That's nice and all, but when are they going to actually deliver on the 10MB they promised everyone? I don't use Hotmail, but my girlfriend does, and I'm unable to send her any attachments larger than about 500k because she keeps old emails...
Hmmm. Sounds like a really, really good idea now doesn't it?
We really can't have it both ways. This is a good thing, and the fact that there may be companies who will try to take advantage of it in reverse doesn't change that fact. The amount of money in reverse spam is sure to be lower than in normal SPAM, decreasing the number of people who are interested in it...
Now, I want to know, is this Longhorn rock a symptom of this? And if so, is Microsoft giving money to OSDN, or have they gone straight to NASA to participate in "the growing trend of inserting ads more directly into online content"
It's funny... laugh... Please...?
hapless company employees
Talk about passing the buck. Some of the top problems in the article:
This isn't hapless employees. This is government oppression, and the bans on free speech necessary to pull them off.
I remember Cisco used to be about 85$
And it will be again. Make sure you get in now, while there's still a profit to be made!
This ad^H^Hcomment brought to you by E*TRADE
This Headline is Not For Sale
How amusing... I just subsribed, and this is the first headline I paid to see before anyone else...
In addition, with all the astrotufing at Slashdot lately, I don't think it has to be for sale, because we're eager to see see it for free...
I think we can definitely see this as good news. Anything that increases the amount of information to the end user is a good thing, as it allows for informed purchasing decisions, and anything that prevents consumers from getting what they want can generally be considered a bad thing.
This seems to give something to both camps. The educationally conservative will be able to avoid what they consider sensitive material, and the rest of us will be able to buy the next Grand Theft Auto game...
5 months later it'll be deemed that our eye sight can be tapped under the PATRIOT act and similar.
printf("%s",szDeity) that should have been modded insightful. It actually makes me think of Minority Report, and how it's illegal not to have your own eyeballs. This sort of stuff will happen if we let it...