Right off that bat, you admit a bias. Since when is anyone who works for a corporation going to say "our product sucks"? Corporations and those who work for them (except in union issues) will do what is best for the corporation. Period. Thus, you cannot trust anything that someone working at a corporation says about their product, nor anything that the corporation says about their product.
SPAM claims that their ham-like product tastes good. This, of course, is bullshit.
Whether or not your product is good is a issue of debate; the fact that you didn't name your company or the product it makes hardly helps your case, though.
No-one is implying that every corporation is evil. However, few if any corporations are "good". A corporation's only interest is to maximize profits using all legal means (indeed, that's its legal obligation). Thus, most corporations aren't moral or immoral, but amoral: they do whatever they can to maximize profits while obeying the law. Of corse, some corporations are "evil": Microsoft, Enron, and Global Crossing, for example. A very very few corporation are "good"; I'd suggest Google off-hand as an example.
So, the point is, we can't trust what you say about your software product. You make a living based on that software product. This neither makes you good nor bad, but simply not credible in reference to that product.
You also seem to have missed the point. The point is that scientists need to know how something does what it does. If they don't, there's an unknown variable. Scientists and human rights groups can't take your word that your product works right. They can't take your word that the product works right for the very reasons I mentioned above: you or your company will never say anything negative about your product.
Where are all of TiVo's competitors? I don't see them. TiVo is the only company that offers what they offer in so far as I've seen.
They have a good name associated in the public's mind with excellence. Anyone who owns a TiVo will tell you its great. They also have excellent customer relations; refusing to cave in to he MPAA's demands and standing up for their customer's right to skip commercials endeared them to their customers.
I don't see TiVo failing anytime soon. Yes, they haven't made a profit...yet. Being realistic, its only a matter of time before such devices begin to become common-place. They'll be sold with TV's standard and in computers. And as that starts to hapen, TiVo will be the one who's products will be used for it. Why TiVo as opposed to MS' products? Because TiVo has a name associated with excellence, and a good reputation.
There is no such thing as first-comers disadvantage. Quite the opposite, there's a finder's reward for the company that comes up with an innovative and original idea or product. Eidos sold 30-million copies of Tomb Raider games (from their introduction till today) off of such a finder's reward, because no one else had a product which even compared.
There is, however, such a thing as a startup disadvantage, because you have nothing to fall back on and have to claw your way up from the bottom. TiVo may be an upstart, but they have a viable business model which will rake in plenty of money soon enough.
Firstly, support on newsgroups, forums, odcs, manuals, google, etc, is not compulsory. No one has to help you.
But many people do. And the help they provide is very superior to that offered by standard support services. They tell you how to fix something, how to do what YOU want. They don't tell you, "oh, well what did you install last? uninstall that. That didn't work? Ok, reinstall the entire OS".
Standard support services (like the support you receive upon buying MS windows) only support you if you pretty much stick with the defaults, and their solutions are always something that's blatantly obvious yet unnecessary. I.e., uninstalling entire programs to resolve a conflict rather than getting to the bottom of that conflict and fixing it.
As someone who uses WinME for my gaming OS, I'll tell you that every time I've called technical support, I've talked to idiots. I know more than anyone I've ever talked to on technical support. They obviously don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and just read from a cookbook. Oh, you can't get your sound-card working even after trying all these steps proscribed, so the only other thing we're authorized to do is make you reinstall the OS.
Also, if call-up support is so important to you, you can purchase it. Though if you have any brains about you, you'll know everything that any "technical support" service will tell you.
What really makes Linux more affordable and better for corporations is that you don't have to burden the cost of a BSA investigation, raid, and lawsuite.
Dealing with the BSA alone costs companies an enormous amount of money, especially if they have to deal with an audit and lawsuite. Even if not that, all of the work to ensure compliance is very costly. You don't have to bother with such for Linux.
BSA-related costs alone make Windows more expensive than Linux.
Irrelevant of where the crime was committed, the punishment should be determined by the nation the criminal was in when (s)he committed the crime, whether (s)he crosses borders or not afterwards.
If someone in Mexico shoots someone in the US, then travels to the US, (s)he should be arrested, because murder is illegal in Mexico just as it is in the US. However, the punishment should in accord with Mexican law, not US law. In this case I doubt there's any difference, between the punishment for murder in Mexico and that for it in Texas.
Upskirt cams are no different in terms of privacy violations than sticking a camera down someone's pants.
It's not harassment either as harassment requires a direct command to cease an activity. (Ie "Please stop filming my breasts, you are making me uncomfortable".)
An unreasonable standard, as upskirt cam-cording is usually unknown by the victim. If the victim knew the camera was there, (s)he'd undoubtedly demand the other person stop.
No court in the nation is going to enforce those kind of EULA terms.
It would be like MS saying you can't use MS Word if your using it to write up a document critical of MS, or to write up source code for something competing with an MS product.
Most of these EULA terms are either unenforcible practically, or simply would not be upheld in a court of law. I believe the anti-competitive terms in this EULA are both. Firstly, as I said before, no court is going to enforce such non-sense. To do so would usher forth an era where every product includes a license forbidding you to use it if you work for or help a competitor. Secondly, this is simply unenforcible, or largely so. Why should anyone abide by this? There are no consequences if they don't, except perhaps being forced to stop using it. This is not a case where any financial damage enters the picture, so there's no potential cost to violating the license. Third, even if it is enforcible within the US, that can easily be side-stepped by hosting one's project outside of the US, where the US has no jurisdiction.
What really annoys me about this BitKeeper people is their audacity to say that they are actually trying to help the community. No, they are not. They are doing this to make money, not to help the community. Its fine that they want to make money, but its not fine that they try to say that a Free Software project isn't trying to help the community, and that they are. The Ben Collins was right not to help BitKeeper, as BitKeeper has now proven by these draconian licensing terms. Helping non-free projects will invariably harm the Open Source (OSI-compliant) and Free Software (FSF-compliant) communities, in several regards. Firstly, it will encourage people to use non-free software. Secondly, as non-free software will become more popular and universal, the community will become more vulnerable to draconian EULA licenses like BitKeeper's.
That aside, this is just proof that Stallman was right. You can't rely on a product with a EULA. They will always include draconian licensing terms. We should be switching over to Subversion and supporting that.
Supporting non-free software will always hurt the cause of Free Software, and will ultimately hurt development of Free Software (which includes the GNU/Hurd; GNU/Linux; and the Free-, Open-, and Net -BSDs.
So, according to you, the rights gauranteed by the amendments are only gauranteed against the government? Our right to life isn't violated if someone other than the government kills us?
The right to privacy protects us against the government and other citizens. The founding father's weren't dumb enough to think that the only threat to our rights is the government.
I completely disagree. Fast games require insight and innovation (and fastly-changing strategies), something which computers simply can't do. Computers play by trying to figure out all the possible moves for so many steps ahead.
Kramnick is a master of defense, an immovable object, so to speak; he proved that by beating Kasparov, an irresistable force.
Kramnick will play the defense and wait for his opportunity -- for the critical mistake -- to take the win. And, unlike this score-calculating computer, once Kramnick has won one game, he won't bother taking any risks; he'll just play solid defense every match, aiming for the draw; whereas the computer would foolishly (if it wins) try to win each successive game.
Also, if I recall correctly, this isn't a strictly timed match; its not a 5 minute game. Don't expect a computer to ever win a blitz match, because computer's just don't have the insight to play well in those circumstances, which is where human innovation shows through.
Yes, they would. It occured in Mexico. Mexico -- NOT THE US -- would have sovereignty over it.
Its really simple, you have to obey the laws of whatever nation you're in, and only the nation you were in at the time you committed an action can bring charges against you for that action, because you were in that nation, thus under that nation's sovereignty.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if a person performs a certain action while located in country X, but that action is in or partly in country Y, that person can be arrested in country Y should he go there.
This violates sovereignty for several reasons. I'll explain how by stating a simple definition of when a nation has the sovereignty to charge someone with a crime. If all of the following criteria are met, then nation X has the right to charge person A with a crime:
1. If person A was within nation X at the time of the incident.
[If person A wasn't within nation X at the time of the incident, nation X has no sovereignty as person A must have been in another nation, thus obliged only to follow that nation's laws]
2. If person A's actions took place in nation X.
[If the action's don't take place in nation X, then nation X has no sovereignty over those actions.]
3. If person A's actions affected nation X.
[If person A's actions don't affect nation X, they are of no concern to nation X.]
4. If person A is in nation X presently (at the time (s)he's to be charged with a crime).
[If the person is within another nation, then nation X has not the sovereignty to bring that person to trial]
Why should he be arrested? He was in Russia, thus subject to RUSSIA's laws, NOT OURS.
If he, however, offers to offer such espionage services, his citizenship in the US should be cancelled, and he should be deported/exiled upon returning, and banned from ever coming to the US.
Try to get this through your head. When a citizen is in nation X, (s)he is obligated to obey the laws of nation X and ONLY nation X, not any other nation, including his/her homeland.
Simply because something does or doesn't "seem" right/wrong to you is NO REASON to violate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a very simple concept. The US government is sovereign over the US. The Russian government is sovereign over Russia. Individual's in Russia are obligated to obey the laws of Rusia ONLY, and not those of the US. Individual's in the US are obligated to obey the laws of the US ONLY and not those of Russia.
Your insistance that a US citizen vistiting Russia obey both Russian laws and US laws is as unreasonable as it is short-sighted and ignorant of sovereignty issues.
A person should obey the laws of whatever nation they're in. But if someone's in China and (while in China) does something which is illegal by US law, then comes to the US, (s)he shouldn't be arrested for that. However, if while in the US, they break US law, they should be arrested.
What I'm talking about is person of nationality X in country X doing something which is illegal in country Y, then travelling to country Y and being arrested. This is a violation of sovereignty and human rights.
If person X of nationality X travels to nation Y, they should obey the laws of nation Y, and not be expected to follow any of the laws of nation X. We can not ask a person to obey the laws of two nations, because those two laws may conflict.
The laws of the US shouldn't follow its citizens wherever they go. When US citizens leave US territory, they are no longer obliged to obey US laws, but only the laws of whatever nation they're on.
Quite frankly, I have zero sympathy for this guy. He assists in stealing millions of dollars, credit-card fraud, etc. He's just as bad as the executives of Enron and Global Crossings (i.e., Gary Wennig). His actions cost people their life savings.
So, quite frankly, I feel little pity for him.
But there are important issues of Sovereignty that arise here, as well as other human rights issues.
The person of one nation should be subject ONLY to that nations laws. If he does nothing illegal by that nation's laws, he should not be arrested in another nation he visited simply because he did something in his homeland which violated that nations laws. However, when a law violated was one which was common between the two nations, then it does make slightly more sense (to be explained and extrapolated on earlier).
Consider if China can arrest a US visitor who visits China because that visitor violated Chinese law while in the US. Lets say that the visitor had more than one child, or criticized the Chinese government online, while in the US. Its would be outrageous for the Chinese government to arrest that person; and, if they did, the US government would undoubtedly protest adamently. We wouldn't tolerate that crap. Firstly, this constitutes what is effectively analagous to RETROACTIVE application of the law; it is unconsciable to punish someone for violating a law which they knew not existed and had no obligation to obey in another country.
There are certain *narrow* cases where international law should allow one nation to arrest the citizens of another while visiting: only in cases where the law that foreigner broke were common to both nations. If a person in Russia arranges for a murder to be committed in the US and travels to the US, we should have the right to arrest him, because what he did is illegal both in the US and in Russia. However, in such cases where nation A arrests a citizen of nation B, that citizen must be trialed by the laws of nation B.
Thus, Gorshkov very well can be arrested in the US. However, he should be trialed in accord with Russian law, not US law, for good or bad. This means that he gets the same rights (or lack thereeof) that he would get in Russia if he were accused of the same crime, and shall face the same punishment as he'd face in Russia.
But if a Russian citizen like Skylarov breaks US law while in Russia, and its an activity that the laws of both nations to not ban, then the US shouldn't have authority to trial that person in the US. We should, however, have the right to hold him a reasonable period of time to interrogate him and learn anything we can to prevent such activities in the future (i.e., if he's a member of a mafia ring), and we should have the right to exile him from coming or returning to the US. If he returns, the punishment should be whatever it is we do to those exiled who return.
This is all very simple and obviously common sense. Apparently, the US government doesn't get it. A government only has sovereignty over its own nation. The US has no sovereignty over what goes on in Russia or anyplace else in the world. We certainly wouldn't want our citizens travelling to China to be arrested and trialed by Chinese law. There's also very simple human rights issues at stake. It is unreasonable (and in some cases impossible) to ask any one person to obey the laws of several different nations at once, while only residing in one. It is a human rights violation to trial someone under a law which he had no obligation to find out existed (i.e., Russians have no obligation to know US law).
On a similar vein, a person (while in a nation) should obey the laws of that nation, and the laws of his homeland shall not follow him to other nations. That would be asking someone to obey the laws of two nations at once, something which is unreasonable and in some cases impossible. However, if someone violates a law in one nation and there's no corresponding law in his homeland, he should be deported (exiled) and sent back to his homeland. We wouldn't want a US citizen being put in jail for life in China because while in China he said something critical of the Chinese government.
Because the right to privacy supercedes laws, and laws which do not adequately respect or protect it are in error. The Supreme Court has a long history of affirming the right to privacy, most notably in Roe v. Wade.
As for IRIX, thanks but no thankx. The prospect of paying many thousands of dollars to use IRIX doesn't exactly turn me on.
The ultimate solution, of course, is to make your own system. There is nothing magical about SGI systems. They're made out of parts, just like any other computer system. The difference is, they're made out of better parts. If you want that kind of performance at a reasonable price, you'd best figure out how to make your own computer; and, quite frankly, that's not too difficult. Simplified, you buy the power, buy the hard drive, the RAM, the mother-board, the CPU, the graphics card, the sound card, the network card, and so on and so forth and put them in their slots. If you want SGI-level performance, you buy MIPS chips. You also, of course, have to get other parts that are high quality. You'll probably want a 15,000 RPM hard drive, and good RAM. Currently, the best RAM to get is DDR RAM. But SLD RAM and MRAM might be the way of the future. As for graphics cards, currently, I'd say bo with the Radeon 9500Pro. But Nvidia's Quadro4 is a nice professional graphics card. In short, if you know what you're doing, you can build your own system to exactly meet your needs, and get it at a decent price.
Think about it. You will necessarily get a better price if you build your own system, as opposed to buy one from a OEM. OEM's have to make money; they can't sell you the systems at the cost they paid for them -- if they did, they wouldn't make any money.
So anyways, I say if you really want what SGI has to offer, make your own system; don't spend 10 grand. Then put Debian GNU/Linux on it (Debian now can be installed on a MIPS architecture).
Best of all, you'll be able to choose your own Window Manager. If you want something that's really great overall, you can go with WindowMaker (I don't see why GNOME and KDE get so much attention, while WindowMaker gets none; wmaker is light years ahead of anything else in terms of usability). On the other hand, if you want something light and spartan, you can go with PWM. Meanwhile, you can use the nice Xfce desktop environment.
(1) Giving away a ISO for download is all good and fine for non-profit Linux distributions like Debian. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense, however, for a corporation trying to make money off of it to do that. The Linux community is not going to chastise the company because they don't offer ISO downloads. Think the path of least resistance. If you want to sell a product, you shouldn't also make it available for free.
(2) I stand by my earlier assertion that this isn't worth the extra $60 as opposed to downloading Debian. Almost all the additional software apps it has can be downloaded. And there's a reason why Debian doesn't always include the latest greatest software -- because it usually has problems. Debian prefers to let other distros walk through that minefield and benefit from the knowledge gained.
(3) For those of you talking about how much more "resource hungry" one distro is as opposed to another (i.e., many saying Debian more resource hungry than Slackware), do try to remember that they're all based around the same thing. You can remove anything you don't like, and if you remove enough stuff, Debian eventually looks like Slackware.
(4) For those of you whining about having to say all those extra syllables in GNU/Linux. Get over it. Its three extra letters to write, and if your giving a speech you don't have to say it every time. Distributions can simply be referred to by their distribution name (i.e., Debian) for short. But when something is written formally or said for the first time, it should be "Debian GNU/Linux" or "Redhat GNU/Linux" or whatever it is. Because that's what it is. Most of the tools and utilities and programs you use in a distribution are GNU stuff. Its only appropriate to say Debian GNU/Linux when speaking (at least upon any introduction; it need not be said more than once upon entering a new topic, after which simply Debian suffice's). It is not that hard to type in Debian GNU/Linux at the beginning of a paragraph.
Credit should be given where it is due. If your going to mention the kernel of an OS like Debian, you should also mention all the software around it. Hence, formally, Debian GNU/Linux.
I get sick of hearing how the FSF and Stallman are so greedy and unreasonable by expecting us to (at least formally) call a distribution like Debian "Debian GNU/Linux". Asking for due credit is not greedy or unreasonable. And, quite frankly, the reason they're asking isn't because of vanity, but because few new Linux users have any idea about Free Software and what it means to them.
Stallman was right when he said that he was being written out of history. GNU/Linux supporters don't want to bother telling new users about that wierd, long-haird, hippie guy who's always talking about this silly notion called Freedom. People afraid to talk about Freedom in the context of software because they think it makes them seem weak and foolish.
I'm still not sold on this new Debian-based distribution. I'm not an idiot newbie user, so i can handle Debian's text-based approach to installation, administration, and customization.
So why should I shell out $60 dollars for Libranet? All of these applications it has can be downloaded and installed in Debian. The one major exception appears to be Adminimenu, which you can only get (to my knowledge) by ordering the Libranet CD or downloading the ISO. If you really want the program that bad, just download the ISO and burn it on a CD. Then find it in the CD.
But there's a reason (a good one) why Debian is always "behind the times" and doesn't include the latest software. Stability and continuity. Are all of these latest applications really that essential to get? No, most of them aren't. So let other users and other distributions struggle with their bugs.
This guy is obviously an idiot and loser who doesn't know wtf he's doing.
You can't sue people for stating their opinion, or even for criticizing you or your services harshely or unfairly.
You can only sue people for defamation if they knowingly state a stark falsity about you or your company. Saying the service sucks -- which it probably does -- is a matter of opinion, not a factual statement.
If someone said that something as a matter of fact about him or his company that he can prove is false, that may be grounds for a defamation lawsuite. However, unless he can show that such statement caused him a loss of business, he has little or no grounds for any punative damages.
The fact that this guy seems to be making his living by suing people without grounds and hoping they settle seems statement enough about the quality of his services.
Though I'm not sure that he accurately represented his bill, as I haven't read his bill. I believe one lowers one's intelligence and writing level by reading legal documents; they're all poorly written, and I don't want to subjugate myself to that. However, after posting this message, for the befit of/. [I'm sure all of you want my words of wisdom (;-)], I'll read the bill. I'll post a commentary on the bill later.
Firstly, I don't support this type of bill. Let it be known off the bat and out front that I support file-sharing services, no matter what files are being shared. I believe in the freedom of information. However, I would accept some limitations, were copyrighted music to be limited to only 10 years.
But, assuming we go with this law, I have some serious concerns with it. All of his safegaurds will prove irrelevant if we have to PROVE that the copyright owners stepped outside of the protected bounds. The bill should state that copyright owners have to PROVE that they were within the protected bounds.
I am also concerned about an escalation of counter-efforts between P2P developers and the Intellectual Property industry. Invariably, P2P developers will win, as we develop under either OSS or FS models, which allow for problems to be rapidly fixed. However, its still a problem. More and more layers of code will be added as P2P developers code to counter the IP-industry's attacks. This will contribute towards hyper-bloatation of software code, and lots of wasted effort in which will amount to a futile cycle.
I'm also concerned about the minimal amount of damage that IP owners can be held liable for, something like $200 dollars worth. I may not have $200 dollars worth of software on my computer, since I've downloaded it for free from Debian.org, and you couldn't put an $200 dollar market price on the data-files I own (things I've written, pictures, icons, etc). But to ME, its worth a lot. To me, the information I have on my computer is worth more than my car.
Aside from that, even if this bill implements the protections I suggest to punish all transgressions by IP interests, more users would still be harmed (many) by the attacks of IP interests than are today (nearly none, as no IP interest dares launch such an attack).
No, if your wearing a shirt, someone can't use a mini-camera and look up it.
Taking pictures of anything visible on a person in public (which does not include up her skirt) is fine. Prying for things which aren't ordinarily visible is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Right off that bat, you admit a bias. Since when is anyone who works for a corporation going to say "our product sucks"? Corporations and those who work for them (except in union issues) will do what is best for the corporation. Period. Thus, you cannot trust anything that someone working at a corporation says about their product, nor anything that the corporation says about their product.
SPAM claims that their ham-like product tastes good. This, of course, is bullshit.
Whether or not your product is good is a issue of debate; the fact that you didn't name your company or the product it makes hardly helps your case, though.
No-one is implying that every corporation is evil. However, few if any corporations are "good". A corporation's only interest is to maximize profits using all legal means (indeed, that's its legal obligation). Thus, most corporations aren't moral or immoral, but amoral: they do whatever they can to maximize profits while obeying the law. Of corse, some corporations are "evil": Microsoft, Enron, and Global Crossing, for example. A very very few corporation are "good"; I'd suggest Google off-hand as an example.
So, the point is, we can't trust what you say about your software product. You make a living based on that software product. This neither makes you good nor bad, but simply not credible in reference to that product.
You also seem to have missed the point. The point is that scientists need to know how something does what it does. If they don't, there's an unknown variable. Scientists and human rights groups can't take your word that your product works right. They can't take your word that the product works right for the very reasons I mentioned above: you or your company will never say anything negative about your product.
Where are all of TiVo's competitors? I don't see them. TiVo is the only company that offers what they offer in so far as I've seen.
They have a good name associated in the public's mind with excellence. Anyone who owns a TiVo will tell you its great. They also have excellent customer relations; refusing to cave in to he MPAA's demands and standing up for their customer's right to skip commercials endeared them to their customers.
I don't see TiVo failing anytime soon. Yes, they haven't made a profit...yet. Being realistic, its only a matter of time before such devices begin to become common-place. They'll be sold with TV's standard and in computers. And as that starts to hapen, TiVo will be the one who's products will be used for it. Why TiVo as opposed to MS' products? Because TiVo has a name associated with excellence, and a good reputation.
There is no such thing as first-comers disadvantage. Quite the opposite, there's a finder's reward for the company that comes up with an innovative and original idea or product. Eidos sold 30-million copies of Tomb Raider games (from their introduction till today) off of such a finder's reward, because no one else had a product which even compared.
There is, however, such a thing as a startup disadvantage, because you have nothing to fall back on and have to claw your way up from the bottom. TiVo may be an upstart, but they have a viable business model which will rake in plenty of money soon enough.
Firstly, support on newsgroups, forums, odcs, manuals, google, etc, is not compulsory. No one has to help you.
But many people do. And the help they provide is very superior to that offered by standard support services. They tell you how to fix something, how to do what YOU want. They don't tell you, "oh, well what did you install last? uninstall that. That didn't work? Ok, reinstall the entire OS".
Standard support services (like the support you receive upon buying MS windows) only support you if you pretty much stick with the defaults, and their solutions are always something that's blatantly obvious yet unnecessary. I.e., uninstalling entire programs to resolve a conflict rather than getting to the bottom of that conflict and fixing it.
As someone who uses WinME for my gaming OS, I'll tell you that every time I've called technical support, I've talked to idiots. I know more than anyone I've ever talked to on technical support. They obviously don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and just read from a cookbook. Oh, you can't get your sound-card working even after trying all these steps proscribed, so the only other thing we're authorized to do is make you reinstall the OS.
Also, if call-up support is so important to you, you can purchase it. Though if you have any brains about you, you'll know everything that any "technical support" service will tell you.
What really makes Linux more affordable and better for corporations is that you don't have to burden the cost of a BSA investigation, raid, and lawsuite.
Dealing with the BSA alone costs companies an enormous amount of money, especially if they have to deal with an audit and lawsuite. Even if not that, all of the work to ensure compliance is very costly. You don't have to bother with such for Linux.
BSA-related costs alone make Windows more expensive than Linux.
Irrelevant of where the crime was committed, the punishment should be determined by the nation the criminal was in when (s)he committed the crime, whether (s)he crosses borders or not afterwards.
If someone in Mexico shoots someone in the US, then travels to the US, (s)he should be arrested, because murder is illegal in Mexico just as it is in the US. However, the punishment should in accord with Mexican law, not US law. In this case I doubt there's any difference, between the punishment for murder in Mexico and that for it in Texas.
Upskirt cams are no different in terms of privacy violations than sticking a camera down someone's pants.
It's not harassment either as harassment requires a direct command to cease an activity. (Ie "Please stop filming my breasts, you are making me uncomfortable".)
An unreasonable standard, as upskirt cam-cording is usually unknown by the victim. If the victim knew the camera was there, (s)he'd undoubtedly demand the other person stop.
No court in the nation is going to enforce those kind of EULA terms.
It would be like MS saying you can't use MS Word if your using it to write up a document critical of MS, or to write up source code for something competing with an MS product.
Most of these EULA terms are either unenforcible practically, or simply would not be upheld in a court of law. I believe the anti-competitive terms in this EULA are both. Firstly, as I said before, no court is going to enforce such non-sense. To do so would usher forth an era where every product includes a license forbidding you to use it if you work for or help a competitor. Secondly, this is simply unenforcible, or largely so. Why should anyone abide by this? There are no consequences if they don't, except perhaps being forced to stop using it. This is not a case where any financial damage enters the picture, so there's no potential cost to violating the license. Third, even if it is enforcible within the US, that can easily be side-stepped by hosting one's project outside of the US, where the US has no jurisdiction.
What really annoys me about this BitKeeper people is their audacity to say that they are actually trying to help the community. No, they are not. They are doing this to make money, not to help the community. Its fine that they want to make money, but its not fine that they try to say that a Free Software project isn't trying to help the community, and that they are. The Ben Collins was right not to help BitKeeper, as BitKeeper has now proven by these draconian licensing terms. Helping non-free projects will invariably harm the Open Source (OSI-compliant) and Free Software (FSF-compliant) communities, in several regards. Firstly, it will encourage people to use non-free software. Secondly, as non-free software will become more popular and universal, the community will become more vulnerable to draconian EULA licenses like BitKeeper's.
That aside, this is just proof that Stallman was right. You can't rely on a product with a EULA. They will always include draconian licensing terms. We should be switching over to Subversion and supporting that.
Supporting non-free software will always hurt the cause of Free Software, and will ultimately hurt development of Free Software (which includes the GNU/Hurd; GNU/Linux; and the Free-, Open-, and Net -BSDs.
So, according to you, the rights gauranteed by the amendments are only gauranteed against the government? Our right to life isn't violated if someone other than the government kills us?
The right to privacy protects us against the government and other citizens. The founding father's weren't dumb enough to think that the only threat to our rights is the government.
I completely disagree. Fast games require insight and innovation (and fastly-changing strategies), something which computers simply can't do. Computers play by trying to figure out all the possible moves for so many steps ahead.
Kramnick is a master of defense, an immovable object, so to speak; he proved that by beating Kasparov, an irresistable force.
Kramnick will play the defense and wait for his opportunity -- for the critical mistake -- to take the win. And, unlike this score-calculating computer, once Kramnick has won one game, he won't bother taking any risks; he'll just play solid defense every match, aiming for the draw; whereas the computer would foolishly (if it wins) try to win each successive game.
Also, if I recall correctly, this isn't a strictly timed match; its not a 5 minute game. Don't expect a computer to ever win a blitz match, because computer's just don't have the insight to play well in those circumstances, which is where human innovation shows through.
Yes, they would. It occured in Mexico. Mexico -- NOT THE US -- would have sovereignty over it.
Its really simple, you have to obey the laws of whatever nation you're in, and only the nation you were in at the time you committed an action can bring charges against you for that action, because you were in that nation, thus under that nation's sovereignty.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if a person performs a certain action while located in country X, but that action is in or partly in country Y, that person can be arrested in country Y should he go there.
This violates sovereignty for several reasons. I'll explain how by stating a simple definition of when a nation has the sovereignty to charge someone with a crime. If all of the following criteria are met, then nation X has the right to charge person A with a crime:
1. If person A was within nation X at the time of the incident.
[If person A wasn't within nation X at the time of the incident, nation X has no sovereignty as person A must have been in another nation, thus obliged only to follow that nation's laws]
2. If person A's actions took place in nation X.
[If the action's don't take place in nation X, then nation X has no sovereignty over those actions.]
3. If person A's actions affected nation X.
[If person A's actions don't affect nation X, they are of no concern to nation X.]
4. If person A is in nation X presently (at the time (s)he's to be charged with a crime).
[If the person is within another nation, then nation X has not the sovereignty to bring that person to trial]
Why should he be arrested? He was in Russia, thus subject to RUSSIA's laws, NOT OURS.
If he, however, offers to offer such espionage services, his citizenship in the US should be cancelled, and he should be deported/exiled upon returning, and banned from ever coming to the US.
Try to get this through your head. When a citizen is in nation X, (s)he is obligated to obey the laws of nation X and ONLY nation X, not any other nation, including his/her homeland.
Simply because something does or doesn't "seem" right/wrong to you is NO REASON to violate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a very simple concept. The US government is sovereign over the US. The Russian government is sovereign over Russia. Individual's in Russia are obligated to obey the laws of Rusia ONLY, and not those of the US. Individual's in the US are obligated to obey the laws of the US ONLY and not those of Russia.
Your insistance that a US citizen vistiting Russia obey both Russian laws and US laws is as unreasonable as it is short-sighted and ignorant of sovereignty issues.
Obviously, you did NOT read what I said.
A person should obey the laws of whatever nation they're in. But if someone's in China and (while in China) does something which is illegal by US law, then comes to the US, (s)he shouldn't be arrested for that. However, if while in the US, they break US law, they should be arrested.
What I'm talking about is person of nationality X in country X doing something which is illegal in country Y, then travelling to country Y and being arrested. This is a violation of sovereignty and human rights.
If person X of nationality X travels to nation Y, they should obey the laws of nation Y, and not be expected to follow any of the laws of nation X. We can not ask a person to obey the laws of two nations, because those two laws may conflict.
The laws of the US shouldn't follow its citizens wherever they go. When US citizens leave US territory, they are no longer obliged to obey US laws, but only the laws of whatever nation they're on.
Call it computational bioinformatics.
Quite frankly, I have zero sympathy for this guy. He assists in stealing millions of dollars, credit-card fraud, etc. He's just as bad as the executives of Enron and Global Crossings (i.e., Gary Wennig). His actions cost people their life savings.
So, quite frankly, I feel little pity for him.
But there are important issues of Sovereignty that arise here, as well as other human rights issues.
The person of one nation should be subject ONLY to that nations laws. If he does nothing illegal by that nation's laws, he should not be arrested in another nation he visited simply because he did something in his homeland which violated that nations laws. However, when a law violated was one which was common between the two nations, then it does make slightly more sense (to be explained and extrapolated on earlier).
Consider if China can arrest a US visitor who visits China because that visitor violated Chinese law while in the US. Lets say that the visitor had more than one child, or criticized the Chinese government online, while in the US. Its would be outrageous for the Chinese government to arrest that person; and, if they did, the US government would undoubtedly protest adamently. We wouldn't tolerate that crap. Firstly, this constitutes what is effectively analagous to RETROACTIVE application of the law; it is unconsciable to punish someone for violating a law which they knew not existed and had no obligation to obey in another country.
There are certain *narrow* cases where international law should allow one nation to arrest the citizens of another while visiting: only in cases where the law that foreigner broke were common to both nations. If a person in Russia arranges for a murder to be committed in the US and travels to the US, we should have the right to arrest him, because what he did is illegal both in the US and in Russia. However, in such cases where nation A arrests a citizen of nation B, that citizen must be trialed by the laws of nation B.
Thus, Gorshkov very well can be arrested in the US. However, he should be trialed in accord with Russian law, not US law, for good or bad. This means that he gets the same rights (or lack thereeof) that he would get in Russia if he were accused of the same crime, and shall face the same punishment as he'd face in Russia.
But if a Russian citizen like Skylarov breaks US law while in Russia, and its an activity that the laws of both nations to not ban, then the US shouldn't have authority to trial that person in the US. We should, however, have the right to hold him a reasonable period of time to interrogate him and learn anything we can to prevent such activities in the future (i.e., if he's a member of a mafia ring), and we should have the right to exile him from coming or returning to the US. If he returns, the punishment should be whatever it is we do to those exiled who return.
This is all very simple and obviously common sense. Apparently, the US government doesn't get it. A government only has sovereignty over its own nation. The US has no sovereignty over what goes on in Russia or anyplace else in the world. We certainly wouldn't want our citizens travelling to China to be arrested and trialed by Chinese law. There's also very simple human rights issues at stake. It is unreasonable (and in some cases impossible) to ask any one person to obey the laws of several different nations at once, while only residing in one. It is a human rights violation to trial someone under a law which he had no obligation to find out existed (i.e., Russians have no obligation to know US law).
On a similar vein, a person (while in a nation) should obey the laws of that nation, and the laws of his homeland shall not follow him to other nations. That would be asking someone to obey the laws of two nations at once, something which is unreasonable and in some cases impossible. However, if someone violates a law in one nation and there's no corresponding law in his homeland, he should be deported (exiled) and sent back to his homeland. We wouldn't want a US citizen being put in jail for life in China because while in China he said something critical of the Chinese government.
Complaints about poor service do not constitute statements of fact; they constitute opinions.
Because the right to privacy supercedes laws, and laws which do not adequately respect or protect it are in error. The Supreme Court has a long history of affirming the right to privacy, most notably in Roe v. Wade.
As for IRIX, thanks but no thankx. The prospect of paying many thousands of dollars to use IRIX doesn't exactly turn me on.
The ultimate solution, of course, is to make your own system. There is nothing magical about SGI systems. They're made out of parts, just like any other computer system. The difference is, they're made out of better parts. If you want that kind of performance at a reasonable price, you'd best figure out how to make your own computer; and, quite frankly, that's not too difficult. Simplified, you buy the power, buy the hard drive, the RAM, the mother-board, the CPU, the graphics card, the sound card, the network card, and so on and so forth and put them in their slots. If you want SGI-level performance, you buy MIPS chips. You also, of course, have to get other parts that are high quality. You'll probably want a 15,000 RPM hard drive, and good RAM. Currently, the best RAM to get is DDR RAM. But SLD RAM and MRAM might be the way of the future. As for graphics cards, currently, I'd say bo with the Radeon 9500Pro. But Nvidia's Quadro4 is a nice professional graphics card. In short, if you know what you're doing, you can build your own system to exactly meet your needs, and get it at a decent price.
Think about it. You will necessarily get a better price if you build your own system, as opposed to buy one from a OEM. OEM's have to make money; they can't sell you the systems at the cost they paid for them -- if they did, they wouldn't make any money.
So anyways, I say if you really want what SGI has to offer, make your own system; don't spend 10 grand. Then put Debian GNU/Linux on it (Debian now can be installed on a MIPS architecture).
Best of all, you'll be able to choose your own Window Manager. If you want something that's really great overall, you can go with WindowMaker (I don't see why GNOME and KDE get so much attention, while WindowMaker gets none; wmaker is light years ahead of anything else in terms of usability). On the other hand, if you want something light and spartan, you can go with PWM. Meanwhile, you can use the nice Xfce desktop environment.
A few comments.
(1) Giving away a ISO for download is all good and fine for non-profit Linux distributions like Debian. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense, however, for a corporation trying to make money off of it to do that. The Linux community is not going to chastise the company because they don't offer ISO downloads. Think the path of least resistance. If you want to sell a product, you shouldn't also make it available for free.
(2) I stand by my earlier assertion that this isn't worth the extra $60 as opposed to downloading Debian. Almost all the additional software apps it has can be downloaded. And there's a reason why Debian doesn't always include the latest greatest software -- because it usually has problems. Debian prefers to let other distros walk through that minefield and benefit from the knowledge gained.
(3) For those of you talking about how much more "resource hungry" one distro is as opposed to another (i.e., many saying Debian more resource hungry than Slackware), do try to remember that they're all based around the same thing. You can remove anything you don't like, and if you remove enough stuff, Debian eventually looks like Slackware.
(4) For those of you whining about having to say all those extra syllables in GNU/Linux. Get over it. Its three extra letters to write, and if your giving a speech you don't have to say it every time. Distributions can simply be referred to by their distribution name (i.e., Debian) for short. But when something is written formally or said for the first time, it should be "Debian GNU/Linux" or "Redhat GNU/Linux" or whatever it is. Because that's what it is. Most of the tools and utilities and programs you use in a distribution are GNU stuff. Its only appropriate to say Debian GNU/Linux when speaking (at least upon any introduction; it need not be said more than once upon entering a new topic, after which simply Debian suffice's). It is not that hard to type in Debian GNU/Linux at the beginning of a paragraph.
Credit should be given where it is due. If your going to mention the kernel of an OS like Debian, you should also mention all the software around it. Hence, formally, Debian GNU/Linux.
I get sick of hearing how the FSF and Stallman are so greedy and unreasonable by expecting us to (at least formally) call a distribution like Debian "Debian GNU/Linux". Asking for due credit is not greedy or unreasonable. And, quite frankly, the reason they're asking isn't because of vanity, but because few new Linux users have any idea about Free Software and what it means to them.
Stallman was right when he said that he was being written out of history. GNU/Linux supporters don't want to bother telling new users about that wierd, long-haird, hippie guy who's always talking about this silly notion called Freedom. People afraid to talk about Freedom in the context of software because they think it makes them seem weak and foolish.
I'm still not sold on this new Debian-based distribution. I'm not an idiot newbie user, so i can handle Debian's text-based approach to installation, administration, and customization.
So why should I shell out $60 dollars for Libranet? All of these applications it has can be downloaded and installed in Debian. The one major exception appears to be Adminimenu, which you can only get (to my knowledge) by ordering the Libranet CD or downloading the ISO. If you really want the program that bad, just download the ISO and burn it on a CD. Then find it in the CD.
But there's a reason (a good one) why Debian is always "behind the times" and doesn't include the latest software. Stability and continuity. Are all of these latest applications really that essential to get? No, most of them aren't. So let other users and other distributions struggle with their bugs.
This guy is obviously an idiot and loser who doesn't know wtf he's doing.
You can't sue people for stating their opinion, or even for criticizing you or your services harshely or unfairly.
You can only sue people for defamation if they knowingly state a stark falsity about you or your company. Saying the service sucks -- which it probably does -- is a matter of opinion, not a factual statement.
If someone said that something as a matter of fact about him or his company that he can prove is false, that may be grounds for a defamation lawsuite. However, unless he can show that such statement caused him a loss of business, he has little or no grounds for any punative damages.
The fact that this guy seems to be making his living by suing people without grounds and hoping they settle seems statement enough about the quality of his services.
Though I'm not sure that he accurately represented his bill, as I haven't read his bill. I believe one lowers one's intelligence and writing level by reading legal documents; they're all poorly written, and I don't want to subjugate myself to that. However, after posting this message, for the befit of /. [I'm sure all of you want my words of wisdom (;-)], I'll read the bill. I'll post a commentary on the bill later.
Firstly, I don't support this type of bill. Let it be known off the bat and out front that I support file-sharing services, no matter what files are being shared. I believe in the freedom of information. However, I would accept some limitations, were copyrighted music to be limited to only 10 years.
But, assuming we go with this law, I have some serious concerns with it. All of his safegaurds will prove irrelevant if we have to PROVE that the copyright owners stepped outside of the protected bounds. The bill should state that copyright owners have to PROVE that they were within the protected bounds.
I am also concerned about an escalation of counter-efforts between P2P developers and the Intellectual Property industry. Invariably, P2P developers will win, as we develop under either OSS or FS models, which allow for problems to be rapidly fixed. However, its still a problem. More and more layers of code will be added as P2P developers code to counter the IP-industry's attacks. This will contribute towards hyper-bloatation of software code, and lots of wasted effort in which will amount to a futile cycle.
I'm also concerned about the minimal amount of damage that IP owners can be held liable for, something like $200 dollars worth. I may not have $200 dollars worth of software on my computer, since I've downloaded it for free from Debian.org, and you couldn't put an $200 dollar market price on the data-files I own (things I've written, pictures, icons, etc). But to ME, its worth a lot. To me, the information I have on my computer is worth more than my car.
Aside from that, even if this bill implements the protections I suggest to punish all transgressions by IP interests, more users would still be harmed (many) by the attacks of IP interests than are today (nearly none, as no IP interest dares launch such an attack).
The beginning of the universe, galaxies 10^100 light years away...yada yada yada.
All I care about is can it see the pornography on the nearest planet inhabited by intelligent perverts like us?
No, if your wearing a shirt, someone can't use a mini-camera and look up it.
Taking pictures of anything visible on a person in public (which does not include up her skirt) is fine. Prying for things which aren't ordinarily visible is not.