Let's see, the FBI is chartered for which type of surveillence..
a) domestic
b) international
for those of you who guessed 'b' go watch Sneakers again, the FBI is only chartered for DOMESTIC surveillance
Yes, but they were accessing a computer inside the US, therefor the FBI can get involved.
Granted this isn't a true CIA type of operation but then again maybe it is. We aren't in the Cold War with Russia anymore because it doesn't exist!
Um, yes, Russia does exist, you're thinking of the USSR.
If Russia were still unified and had a ton of nuke's still pointed at us with a grim determination to preserve it's stance we would be scared shiteless right now.
They do have a ton of nukes, and they are pointed mostly at us. We do the same thing. We're truely a few hours away from complete annihilation every moment. Most people would rather not think about it though.
No search and seizure protection in your country?? well we have it so by default it should apply to you guys.
Just wait until this same scenario happens an it's China on the other side, then GW will be over there pretending not to apologize while politely apologizing as our stealth recon planes scan to make sure a hailstorm of ICBM's aren't suddenly heading our way.
Actually, these things are done for national security. You bet that we're watching the world and that they, if they're smart, are watching us. We don't need spy planes to see an ICBM launch, we have satellites that tell us if one's in the air. I just hope one never is, because that would be the end of everything.
Isn't this exactly why people support the case for DeCSS to be legal? One buys a DVD and a player but can't use them as they want when they want. Now here's a program that is doing the same thing. How could this be good at all? At the very least it makes it non-free software. =/
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
So, I can produce a (non-GPL) dll which is linked to your Windows GPL program whenever the program makes a system API call on a machine with my dll installed. So, your GPL program now uses propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler... but that (as you say) is not allowed...
Yes, but if I had written it so that it uses a standard Win32API or COM object that is normally shipped with Windows and your component replaces that, at what fault am I? I intended it to use the o/s lib, but you, the user, decided that you wanted to use some other. You (the user) can't make me (the developer) break the GPL.
Re:The Problem With Abbreviations ...
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, it was originally named the "Library GPL", but was changed to "Lesser GPL" because it could be applied to things besides libraries.
Re:I just realized I'm in infraction
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
That's fine, it's just not okay if a) the binaries and source are different version, or b) the code is there today and gone tomorrow.
I doubt you'd have to mirror the gcc source, unless you think that the FSF is going to drop their server in the near future. <g>
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
In one case, dynamically linking to external code is permitted. In the other case, the same thing is not permitted. The GPL contradicts itself in two different areas. It will never hold up in court. In addition, this essentially forbits the creation of Windows software. If I make an API call (a function call), then I am dynamically linking to external code; the GPL explicitly forbids this.
To quote from another section of the FAQ:
If the libraries that you link with falls within the following exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.
then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them.
In your example, the API is probably part of the Win32 API set, which is distributed in every copy of Windows 9x/NT/2000. Since it's part of the operating system the source doesn't have to be released.
The case where the function call would *not* be permitted, is if you used propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler. An example whould be an mp3 decoding library. Since this isn't part of the compiler used and isn't part of the o/s, if the library's code could not be distributed, you'd have to either make an exception in the license, or use something else.
I don't really think this is a hole, only a misunderstanding. <g>
I know it's kind of late, but how does this work for a common lib, such as glibc? glibc, afaik, is GPL, but non-gpl programs use it. When does the functionality provided by a library bring it up to the level of forcing programs using it to be GPL'ed?
If you make a library and release it under GPL and I use it in such a way that my code can stand alone, then it does not have to be released under the GPL. If, however, the core functionality of my program depends on your GPL code, then mine must also be release GPL.
The example I could think of would be an audio program. Say that I wrote code to play voc files, and included a GPL library to play mp3s. Since my audio player don't require the GLP code to do it's thing (you don't *need* to play mp3s, it's just a nice bonus), the code doesn't have to be GPLed.
What's really the point for "Open Source" software? Is my GPL'ed program any better or worse than someone's BSD or APSL program? If it is, it certainly isn't the license that makes it better. No offense to the Open Source Initiative group, but having them say your license is open source doesn't seem to be that important.
Lets face it. People that like the BSD license think that the GPL is too restrictive. People who like the GPL think the APSL is too restrictive. Not everyone will agree that a certain license is that best and applicable to everything. It all depends on how you want your source code controlled.
Evolution cannot be observed. Since we can never observe the event, it is impossible to prove that man evolved from apes. Scientists must accept it on faith.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that the Catholic Church has no stand on the issue, meaning that either theory could be correct and neither side has proven its case.
Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!
Actually, if a fossil is x years old, the rock cannot be x years old because that would mean the two events happened simultaniously. The rocks are, more than likely, going to be older. And you can tell hold old they are based upon a certain sample of some radioactive material that decomposes at an obserable, constant rate.
It is easly to close one's mind and reject what is contrary to what someone else says is true. It's more difficult to look at the evidence and make an objective stance. The bible doesn't talk about any planets. Why? Because the fact that Venus is there doesn't impact the prime objective of the books. This objective is, of course, to lead humans to salvation. Remember this when you read it and think that maybe, just *maybe*, the stories shouldn't be taken litterally. (Do you think eating a piece of fruit really got them thrown out of the garden, or was it something else...)
Ah, my dear friend. Where would the world be if we abandoned science? Remember what Einstein was quoted with. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Yes, I realize that bad things can happen if you don't patch security holes in Linux, but, AFAIK, most of the updates in the 2.4.3 kernel aren't security fixes, whereas most of the updates for Windows *are* for security issues.
The GPL doesn't restrict one from installing a single copy of software on thousands of computers. It doesn't prevent you from distributing it yourself. You can modify the code. You can use it in your applications. The only thing you *can't* do is steal someone else's work, and that seems pretty logical to me.
The M$ EULA prevents you from installing it on more than 1 computer, having more than 1 person use it at the same time. You can't modify it. You can't distribute it. And now, you have to prove to a bunch of wannabe FBI agents that you really care complying with these terms?
You missed the point, though. What if I did buy all of the copies legally, but something happened to the licenses? Maybe the person who kept track of them quit, etc... Now, a few months/years later, M$ wants us to show proof for ever copy that we have? Even if you *did* have them, the amount of time that it would take to prove it. How can you quickly show that computer X and computer Y's are really using 2 different licenes? And what about remotely accessed stuff? How do you show that the 200 IIS licences you paid for hasn't been exceeded?
The GPL is very easy to comply with compared to M$'s EULA.
Microsoft's stradegy: Make software for OSes you can control, eliminate software that you can't, and squeeze ever cent out of those who depend on your products.
You're exactly right. There is usually verly little reason to download, and install, the newest version of the kernel. The difference between kernel updates and M$ security updates, is that, most of the time, if one doesn't download it, nothing bad will happen. Most people who *do* download the newest kernel are doing it to help test it. Your average user probably wouldn't have much problem keeping a 2.2.x kernel.
On the same hand, if you don't care about Linux, just go into your preferences and check the 'exclude topics' for Linux. Then, when 2.4.4 comes out, you won't have to be subjected to the fanfair.;)
If you are going to state something like this, back it up. What rise? What study? What method used to collect data, etc? Give us something to look at so we can draw our own conclusions.
You can find the CDC's data on "Youth Risk Behavior Trends" Here. Though, you'll notice that it doesn't suggest a rise in suicide.
Another document, which is here(pdf) also doesn't support the trend suggested. It should be noted that this does not include data from 1999 or 2000, but from the information in the prior link, it doesn't seem that the rate jumped as dramatically as was speculated.
The main thing is the money, as always. One can get a good donwstream connection, and decent upstream with ADSL. To get the real speed, one needs to get SDSL which is significantly more money. Also, whereas ADSL doesn't guarantee the bitrate or uptime, SDSL is guaranteed (to an extent).
Of course, I happen to have the benefit of living in Santa Clara County, CA.
to install Windows XP. I guess you could attach a USB floppy drive to save.
Re:Changing of the role?
on
NSA Inside?
·
· Score: 1
I'm obviously leaning onto a thin limb when I say this, but I believe that the NSA is going to become more concerned with protecting
computer systems than cracking them over the next few years. After all, the aim of the govenment is to do what is most effective,
and it looks like securing data may help things out more than stealing it...
You're right, in a way. The NSA does want to secure systems more tightly, but don't confuse that with not cracking security at the same time. Remember, the ideal situation would be a world where everything that we own is perfectly secured in a way that only the NSA can crack it.
Your analogy is self defeating... don't you want the transmission to work? It's much more important than having a CD player... regardless of whether two different teams work on each component. Perhaps the CD player team was diverted to improve the transmission to make sure it works...
No, you missed the point. The two have *nothing* to do with each other. The guy who creates the transmission might never meet the guy who makes the CD player. Both of them should work. The same goes for OS X. The group that writes the DVD software is a completely different group from those that write the OS9 stuff, so why shouldn't they *both* work?
I would not be happy if I heard "Yeah, some older applications won't run under the Classic environment, but we do have DVD!"
No, that's not the point that's being made. Apple is a "large" software company. They've spent, or should have, a large amount of time designing, developing, and testing OS X. The functionality to read the DVD filesystem *should* have been in those specs, which would have created a DVD fs team. Having a working DVD player shouldn't conflict with OS 9 compatability. They're (or should be) handled by two completely different teams. This analogy is something to the effect of saying that installing a CD system in a new Porche isn't that important, because I really need to make sure the transmission works.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISBN is 0066620724.
a) domestic
b) international
for those of you who guessed 'b' go watch Sneakers again, the FBI is only chartered for DOMESTIC surveillance
Yes, but they were accessing a computer inside the US, therefor the FBI can get involved.
Granted this isn't a true CIA type of operation but then again maybe it is. We aren't in the Cold War with Russia anymore because it doesn't exist!
Um, yes, Russia does exist, you're thinking of the USSR.
If Russia were still unified and had a ton of nuke's still pointed at us with a grim determination to preserve it's stance we would be scared shiteless right now.
They do have a ton of nukes, and they are pointed mostly at us. We do the same thing. We're truely a few hours away from complete annihilation every moment. Most people would rather not think about it though.
No search and seizure protection in your country?? well we have it so by default it should apply to you guys. Just wait until this same scenario happens an it's China on the other side, then GW will be over there pretending not to apologize while politely apologizing as our stealth recon planes scan to make sure a hailstorm of ICBM's aren't suddenly heading our way.
Actually, these things are done for national security. You bet that we're watching the world and that they, if they're smart, are watching us. We don't need spy planes to see an ICBM launch, we have satellites that tell us if one's in the air. I just hope one never is, because that would be the end of everything.
Isn't this exactly why people support the case for DeCSS to be legal? One buys a DVD and a player but can't use them as they want when they want. Now here's a program that is doing the same thing. How could this be good at all? At the very least it makes it non-free software. =/
Yes, but if I had written it so that it uses a standard Win32API or COM object that is normally shipped with Windows and your component replaces that, at what fault am I? I intended it to use the o/s lib, but you, the user, decided that you wanted to use some other. You (the user) can't make me (the developer) break the GPL.
IIRC, it was originally named the "Library GPL", but was changed to "Lesser GPL" because it could be applied to things besides libraries.
I doubt you'd have to mirror the gcc source, unless you think that the FSF is going to drop their server in the near future. <g>
To quote from another section of the FAQ:
If the libraries that you link with falls within the following exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them.
In your example, the API is probably part of the Win32 API set, which is distributed in every copy of Windows 9x/NT/2000. Since it's part of the operating system the source doesn't have to be released.
The case where the function call would *not* be permitted, is if you used propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler. An example whould be an mp3 decoding library. Since this isn't part of the compiler used and isn't part of the o/s, if the library's code could not be distributed, you'd have to either make an exception in the license, or use something else.
I don't really think this is a hole, only a misunderstanding. <g>
I know it's kind of late, but how does this work for a common lib, such as glibc? glibc, afaik, is GPL, but non-gpl programs use it. When does the functionality provided by a library bring it up to the level of forcing programs using it to be GPL'ed?
The example I could think of would be an audio program. Say that I wrote code to play voc files, and included a GPL library to play mp3s. Since my audio player don't require the GLP code to do it's thing (you don't *need* to play mp3s, it's just a nice bonus), the code doesn't have to be GPLed.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Wonder if someone could post Mundie's e-mail address. ;)
Lets face it. People that like the BSD license think that the GPL is too restrictive. People who like the GPL think the APSL is too restrictive. Not everyone will agree that a certain license is that best and applicable to everything. It all depends on how you want your source code controlled.
No no no... You just have to use the right browser. lynx - Use it for good health under Unix, Linux, and Mac OS X.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that the Catholic Church has no stand on the issue, meaning that either theory could be correct and neither side has proven its case.
Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!
Actually, if a fossil is x years old, the rock cannot be x years old because that would mean the two events happened simultaniously. The rocks are, more than likely, going to be older. And you can tell hold old they are based upon a certain sample of some radioactive material that decomposes at an obserable, constant rate.
It is easly to close one's mind and reject what is contrary to what someone else says is true. It's more difficult to look at the evidence and make an objective stance. The bible doesn't talk about any planets. Why? Because the fact that Venus is there doesn't impact the prime objective of the books. This objective is, of course, to lead humans to salvation. Remember this when you read it and think that maybe, just *maybe*, the stories shouldn't be taken litterally. (Do you think eating a piece of fruit really got them thrown out of the garden, or was it something else...)
Ah, my dear friend. Where would the world be if we abandoned science? Remember what Einstein was quoted with. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Am I just pulling this out of my a...
Yes, I realize that bad things can happen if you don't patch security holes in Linux, but, AFAIK, most of the updates in the 2.4.3 kernel aren't security fixes, whereas most of the updates for Windows *are* for security issues.
The M$ EULA prevents you from installing it on more than 1 computer, having more than 1 person use it at the same time. You can't modify it. You can't distribute it. And now, you have to prove to a bunch of wannabe FBI agents that you really care complying with these terms?
Sounds a little sick to me.
The GPL is very easy to comply with compared to M$'s EULA.
Microsoft's stradegy: Make software for OSes you can control, eliminate software that you can't, and squeeze ever cent out of those who depend on your products.
On the same hand, if you don't care about Linux, just go into your preferences and check the 'exclude topics' for Linux. Then, when 2.4.4 comes out, you won't have to be subjected to the fanfair. ;)
You can find the CDC's data on "Youth Risk Behavior Trends" Here. Though, you'll notice that it doesn't suggest a rise in suicide.
Another document, which is here(pdf) also doesn't support the trend suggested. It should be noted that this does not include data from 1999 or 2000, but from the information in the prior link, it doesn't seem that the rate jumped as dramatically as was speculated.
The main thing is the money, as always. One can get a good donwstream connection, and decent upstream with ADSL. To get the real speed, one needs to get SDSL which is significantly more money. Also, whereas ADSL doesn't guarantee the bitrate or uptime, SDSL is guaranteed (to an extent).
Of course, I happen to have the benefit of living in Santa Clara County, CA.
to install Windows XP. I guess you could attach a USB floppy drive to save.
You're right, in a way. The NSA does want to secure systems more tightly, but don't confuse that with not cracking security at the same time. Remember, the ideal situation would be a world where everything that we own is perfectly secured in a way that only the NSA can crack it.
No, you missed the point. The two have *nothing* to do with each other. The guy who creates the transmission might never meet the guy who makes the CD player. Both of them should work. The same goes for OS X. The group that writes the DVD software is a completely different group from those that write the OS9 stuff, so why shouldn't they *both* work?
No, that's not the point that's being made. Apple is a "large" software company. They've spent, or should have, a large amount of time designing, developing, and testing OS X. The functionality to read the DVD filesystem *should* have been in those specs, which would have created a DVD fs team. Having a working DVD player shouldn't conflict with OS 9 compatability. They're (or should be) handled by two completely different teams. This analogy is something to the effect of saying that installing a CD system in a new Porche isn't that important, because I really need to make sure the transmission works.