Re:Interesting flash-based captcha
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 1
So now not only do you descriminate against blind people, you prevent people without Flash from getting to whatever you are protecting.
I got a flawless algorithm to prevent bots from accessing resources... chmod 000.
At least then you don't tease people into thinking they might be able to use your site when in reality you lock out a good 1-2% of people for arbitrary and probably illegal reasons.
It's not about patents, but it's about the same bait-and-switch tactics used by submarine patent people.
You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.
I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux"
Because this LMI crap does nothing to prevent malicious use of the mark. Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.
So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
The mark is extremely weak as it is because of this. What "Linux" is, isn't well defined.
don't even need to request a sublicense even if you create BadCompany Linux.
Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is.
MS is just using tactics they are good at... bundling.
Remember, you don't have to have even a majority of the market to be engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices... one of which is bundling products people don't want with one that they do.
Just like companies that register stupid patents to try to extract sliding scale fees from companies... that's an operating expense too right?
I'm just saying the argument doesn't defend the actions in any way, because if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.
Centos is "made of" Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It *is* RHEL, with some very minor changes.
It's like taking your Intel chip, soldering over some pads to multiply unlock it, and then selling it. I doubt Intel would be very happy with you using their trademark to sell thier modified chips. And you'd probably get a C+D letter if you sold them as "Powered by Intel, Whizzbang 3000+ CPUs"
It's the same with distros. None of them use a vanilla linux kernel, they all modify it in small ways and sell it.
You can't tell me that Intel has the right to tell you to stop using their name with your modified Intel chips, Centos has no right to use the RH name to distribute their modified RHEL version, but somehow distro makers will be free to say "Powered by Linux" without any fear of legal repercussions??
It's not the end of the world, but it isn't cheap either.
And there's other problems.
Sure the distros might be able to get away with not having Linux in their names.
But one test of whether an action is ethical is whether everyone else could do the same thing and everyone would still win. This test is often failed by actions that game the system, like pyramid schemes, etc.
Suppose all Free Software took the same stance, you have to pay a small fee to use their name. We'd suddenly have hundreds of software applications going under up to 5 or 6 different names each, for the exact same software. It'll be our own self-imposed tower of babel.
Free software should have free names. Take up a collection, do whatever, but don't discourage legitimate users and distro makers from using the correct name for your software, or we all lose in the end.
If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change.
Bullshit.
1 million in revenue means 10k is a good 1% profit. Such a company has to give up 0.5% of their profits for the year just to license something they thought was free.
A distro agnostic packaging format like autopackage might help. It doesn't replace your distro's package system, it's in addition to it. Lets third party software writers not have to worry about distro specific crap, and gives the end users a consistant way to install packages that don't come with their distro.
Those resources have been diverted to arrest politicians in Canada that the US disagrees with, and to arrest people that like to have a joint after work.
The speed of light is becoming a factor in motherboard layouts. I mean technically the speed of electrical signals in copper, but that's a large fraction of the speed of light.
We've never had a problem filling space in the past.
Think of it this way. It's 1995 and you get a Terabyte drive dropped in your lap. You'd never be able to fill it up with the applications that were out then.
What are you going to do, download every application in AOL's software library? On every BBS? You still couldn't fill it.
The point is the applications grow with the space.
NASA's shift in ideology regarding spacecraft design
What shift? Last I checked they were using 40 year old designs (i.e. the shuttle).
And spending over half the mission tearing loose threads off the outside of the ship doesn't sound like accomplishing anything except wasting money to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So now not only do you descriminate against blind people, you prevent people without Flash from getting to whatever you are protecting.
I got a flawless algorithm to prevent bots from accessing resources... chmod 000.
At least then you don't tease people into thinking they might be able to use your site when in reality you lock out a good 1-2% of people for arbitrary and probably illegal reasons.
It's not about patents, but it's about the same bait-and-switch tactics used by submarine patent people.
You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.
I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux"
Because this LMI crap does nothing to prevent malicious use of the mark. Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.
So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.
What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.
The mark is extremely weak as it is because of this. What "Linux" is, isn't well defined.
don't even need to request a sublicense even if you create BadCompany Linux.
Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is.
MS is just using tactics they are good at... bundling.
Remember, you don't have to have even a majority of the market to be engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices... one of which is bundling products people don't want with one that they do.
OK, lets say they would have make 10k gross profit on 1 million revenue (it was a bad year). Lets also assume they pay 30% taxes.
After taxes they would have make 7k without this licensing.
With the licensing expensed and written off they make 5k gross and 3.5k after taxes. They are still out 3.5k.
So their profits were still reduced by 50%, even taking into account tax effects.
Funny how that works, eh? Taxes or no taxes, it still cost them the same percentage of net profits.
Just like companies that register stupid patents to try to extract sliding scale fees from companies... that's an operating expense too right?
I'm just saying the argument doesn't defend the actions in any way, because if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.
I shouldn't even have to say this, but this is Slashdot where the economic illiterate abound..
Expenses directly reduce profits!
Amazing insight eh?
Centos is "made of" Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It *is* RHEL, with some very minor changes.
It's like taking your Intel chip, soldering over some pads to multiply unlock it, and then selling it. I doubt Intel would be very happy with you using their trademark to sell thier modified chips. And you'd probably get a C+D letter if you sold them as "Powered by Intel, Whizzbang 3000+ CPUs"
It's the same with distros. None of them use a vanilla linux kernel, they all modify it in small ways and sell it.
You can't tell me that Intel has the right to tell you to stop using their name with your modified Intel chips, Centos has no right to use the RH name to distribute their modified RHEL version, but somehow distro makers will be free to say "Powered by Linux" without any fear of legal repercussions??
It's not the end of the world, but it isn't cheap either.
And there's other problems.
Sure the distros might be able to get away with not having Linux in their names.
But one test of whether an action is ethical is whether everyone else could do the same thing and everyone would still win. This test is often failed by actions that game the system, like pyramid schemes, etc.
Suppose all Free Software took the same stance, you have to pay a small fee to use their name. We'd suddenly have hundreds of software applications going under up to 5 or 6 different names each, for the exact same software. It'll be our own self-imposed tower of babel.
Free software should have free names. Take up a collection, do whatever, but don't discourage legitimate users and distro makers from using the correct name for your software, or we all lose in the end.
Again, BS.
Ask CentOS if they can put "Powered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux" on their web site, and you'll see how trademark law works.
What makes you think they would allow you to put "Powered by Linux" on there?
Actually at these rates, 40k/year would be paying $200/year. Half a percent of your income isn't "pocket change" for anyone.
And if suddenly all the projects that have trademarked names want to start charging?
....
This is a mess waiting to happen.
Guy: "Hi, I'm using Ubuntu OS"
Otherguy: "What's that?"
Guy: "It's this OS, it's kinda like Red Hat OS and BSD, but different"
Otherguy: "Well what are you doing with it?"
Guy: "I'm using this image editing program called Cripple, it's like Retard is on Red Hat OS, and Amputee from Debian"
You can see how this can be very damaging to the entire open source movement.
If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change.
Bullshit.
1 million in revenue means 10k is a good 1% profit. Such a company has to give up 0.5% of their profits for the year just to license something they thought was free.
A scam is a scam no matter who is running it.
Such a dongle would be illegal under the DMCA.
A distro agnostic packaging format like autopackage might help. It doesn't replace your distro's package system, it's in addition to it. Lets third party software writers not have to worry about distro specific crap, and gives the end users a consistant way to install packages that don't come with their distro.
The "meh" strategy can work under some circumstances. Look at maddox. Who knows how much money he makes, but he sure gets a lot of hits.
Running it through a filter, jpeg->jpeg (at the same compression level) wouldn't lose much, except maybe exif data.
Flickr doesn't advertise itself as a file backup service.
Read the names. Bet you wish you could edit posts now. :)
Sorry,
Those resources have been diverted to arrest politicians in Canada that the US disagrees with, and to arrest people that like to have a joint after work.
Definitely.
The speed of light is becoming a factor in motherboard layouts. I mean technically the speed of electrical signals in copper, but that's a large fraction of the speed of light.
We've never had a problem filling space in the past.
Think of it this way. It's 1995 and you get a Terabyte drive dropped in your lap. You'd never be able to fill it up with the applications that were out then.
What are you going to do, download every application in AOL's software library? On every BBS? You still couldn't fill it.
The point is the applications grow with the space.
Looks like they decoded just the title of the collection, it's "To Serve Man".
You do have to admire their determination, sticking with it even though NASA isn't accomplishing anything useful.
I'm sure any one of them could land very nice private sector jobs where their skills wouldn't be wasted.
NASA's shift in ideology regarding spacecraft design
What shift? Last I checked they were using 40 year old designs (i.e. the shuttle).
And spending over half the mission tearing loose threads off the outside of the ship doesn't sound like accomplishing anything except wasting money to me.
Hah! That's a very good question!
I guess they'll have to take it apart into many tiny pieces.
Is there news on why they landed at the alt instead of Florida?