Not so.. read my example again-- writing interfaces for hardware to use USB is going to look a lot alike. The same way code written to access a 16550 UART based modem on a serial port will look alike from coder to coder. There's only a handful of ways to do it, and as compiled code they'll certainly look like ripoffs. (Even if the code itself, be it C or assembler, has completely different 'styles' and comments.)
You're right about large chunks of code, but code that performs tasks (interfacing with hardware, converting between graphics formats, or other such redundant activities) isn't likely to be as different. This could even have applied to this situation, were it not for the company in question admitted outright that they used GPL'd code (and for the fact that their DLL kept the same imported names).
It'll be interesting to see how the GPL is used/abused as more and more people come across code that they believe is copied from their own GPL'd code. Again, thankfully this case was clear-cut, and even though I didn't 100% agree with the outcome, atleast it's been resolved. It's future situations like this, and the possibility of them increasing, that disturbs me.
Your take on copyright law is interesting, and something I hadn't thought about before. And this almost flies in the face of a lot of legal issues facing our community these days (eg: 2600 magazine, and their claim that the DeCSS code is "speech" and should be protected as such).
If the DeCSS code ends up being defined as free speech, or atleast protected speech (genie out of bottle, cannot place back in), and if copyright works as I believe it does (one person can write a story one way, but if someone else tries to write the same story, it's not legal), then perhaps defining code as speech isn't such a great idea afterall.
I think in an ideal legal world, the text making up code (eg: the C, C++, assembler, etc.) would be protected as speech, but the ability to stop someone else from writing the same code someone else already has written would work as patents do (if it's obvious, or in the case of USB, documented, then you can't make claims against it).
IANAL, and like you, would like some input from someone who's experienced in the subject, but it IS interesting, I think.
Plus this gets us into the nasty scenario of there being only one way to perform a task (or onr OPTIMAL way), and then having the code for that task (or the optimal method for said task) being GPL'd.
Example: USB code in the kernel for Linux. Someone at some embedded development company needs to make their device USB compatible, so they write their own code to work with USB-- they've never used Linux, they've never seen the source for the kernel, but the compiled binary (let's say they both run on an x86 architecture) are almost exactly the same.
Would we immediatly assume the worst as a community, ignoring the possibility that the company and/or developers wrote their own code to handle USB? Or would we assume the worst because some developer, not even on the same team as the embedded developers, ran Linux at home and was on the kernel mailing list?
I guess I'm afraid that at some point we'll start witch-hunts for people who use GPL code and demand they open the entire project. I do want the GPL enforced, but certain things are so common that they're bound to be copied (by copied, I mean duplicated through the same efforts and work as the other party) over time.
Like I said, if you're such a great wit and/or intelligent, provide a better solution. I'll take your lack of any better idea as something of an indicator that you're just a left-wing zealot bent on smearing a perfectly good President's agenda. Don't you morons have anything better to do?
Please don't reproduce, your kind are idiotic and without merit, as this thread has proven.
We are at peace with our allies, and they're our ALLIES, hence the reason why we don't sit around actively considering war with them or preparing for it. We have treaties and the MAD (mutually assured destruction) state of nuclear affairs to keep China and Russia in check-- this leaves the smaller countries that are either just emerging with nuclear weapons and/or ICBM capabilities, or that are actively pursueing it, or the individuals that have oodles of cash or backing and the ability to acquire nuclear weapons on the black market. The defense system proposed by this administration is the perfect solution for this ever increasing threat.
Here's a thought--
If you're of such a great wit and intelligence, why not propose a better solution? If you're not, step away from the soap box, and make room for people ready to take action and get the job done.
Maybe if you want to prove him wrong, you should go read up on the Congressional testimony taken around that time to see if those statements were really made before Congress by that KGB agent? You can probably find links to this kind of thing at www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.
To the topic at hand though-- I think getting a nuke into the US (be it van sized or suit-case sized) is FAR too easy, be it from Mexico, our own Pacific or Atlantic ports, or Canada. Never minding the thought of ICBM's raining down on us.. I do support Bush's push for a 'defense shield' however, because honestly it's the best solution for the current problem:
Rogue states, be it North Korea, Iraq, or any other, can purchase on the black market (or elsewhere) or manufacture ICBM nukes capable of reaching our shores, but only in SMALL quantities.
Now we're supposedly disarming anyways, right? That's what all of the treaties thus far are for, disarming and not proliferating new nuclear weapons, right? So why not allow the design and deployment of a 'shield' to defend against small-scale attacks (5-10 missiles, maybe a few more, but less than 100)?
It seems our greatest threat isn't from Russia or China (who either have treaties with us, or simply don't want to face a full reprisal if an attack is launched), but from smaller nations that use one of the tactics above to acquire nuclear weapons technology and a launcher that can hit our country. We need to defend against this, and I fully hope Bush plows ahead with it.
Now one thing that hasn't really been suggested by either the media or the President has been possibly quelling some of Russia's issues with the shield by sharing technology with them and perhaps even installing (or helping install) a similar shield in Russia. I think this would prove to be a good faith builder, and hell, maybe they'll like the idea enough to add their own expertise to the equation, making a more reliable and safer shield overall.
The only problem with this is the thought of Russia selling or sharing the technology with China and/or Iraq or any other nation we view as a 'rogue' state, or have set to an unfriendly status currently. Plus it doesn't help that Russia has this habit of having technology sold by it's scientists to the highest bidders behind their leaders backs..
Will it *really* play the DVD-Audio content, or is it actually playing the information stored in the video section of the DVD? Most DVD-Audio discs have Dolby 5.1 audio stored in the *video* section of the disc so that incompatible DVD players won't completely choke on the DVD-Audio only format.
And I was wrong, they want $6,000 for their first model right off the bat, but I'm sure the street price is probably half that (I can't find the first model I listed on StreetPrices though, so, shrug..).
Anyways, the reason I'm interested is 1) because I'm curious if DVD-Audio is possible on PC DVD-ROM drives and 2) I'm curious if there's cheaper solutions that still let you get at the real DVD-Audio and not the Dolby 5.1 stored in the Video area. Dolby 5.1 is probably a step above CD quality, but full blown DVD Audio (from what I've heard and read) is far better in quality than either of those alternatives.
BTW: To the other posters on this story-- thanks for your information, it's been educational and interesting. Thanks! =)
Read the other threads under this story-- there are ways to keep a DDoS attack from crippling a network, it just appears that some (all) of EFNet's hubs/servers aren't protected.
EFNet going down is indeed news, but I question how great of a loss it would be with the other networks still out there. Sure, losing EFNet is probably similar to losing BBSes for the internet, but in this situation, there are still other networks and new ones still pop up from time to time.
And before anyone takes this as a flame, I *LIKE* EFNet, but it won't kill me if they can't turn things around-- I'm intelligent enough to realize that there ARE alternatives.
You're right.;) I did seem to recall drinking it regularly as being something important though, but I don't have the movie anymore (damn the lack of Indiana Jones DVDs!) so I can't watch it to double check. [sigh] Thanks for pointing that out though, you're completely correct.
If you re-watch the flic you'll see that in order for the water to be effective, you have to keep drinking it over time, lest the effects wear off. As it so happens, Indie's dad got to drink it (and have it poured on him) once, and he never actually got to sip it or anything.
Thus, Indiana Jones is fully mortal, and his dad's small drink probably didn't buy him enough years to even matter or look out of place.
Right, but in the history of PERSONAL computers (not business systems) people bought one copy of their operating system and never gave it a thought again. Life is full of things you buy once but can share with the whole family-- hair brushes, hair dryers, toilets, plumbing, hell, your whole home, etc, etc.. To the un-educated, non-geek person, it's totally fair to install the OS as many times as needed. I can remember as far back as the MS-DOS days people would be doing this.
And you justify the reason Microsoft doesn't educate consumers with the excuse that they lose more money on businesses pirating than on consumers. And again, they give businesses incentives to purchase multiple copies-- consumers though, balk at the idea of paying $300-500 for upgrades for 3-5 PC's or as much as $$750-1250 for full installs.
Do I think pirating is right, no. Do I think they have a right to do this, yes. Do I agree with it though? Absolutely not. Nobody reads the EULA, and some even question the legality of it altogether.
So now Microsoft drops the bomb on consumers with this phone-home and registration crap. Now they'll acted surprised that people didn't know they were supposed to buy an individual copy per PC.
This is redundant, but I'll reply anyways since you missed the other posts-- Slashdot adds a space to keep trolls from screwing with text formatting. The extra space is automatically inserted when the poster hits "Submit" and apperently can't be avoided. Just keep an eye out for spaces in URL's or filenames.;)
Weird.. I burned it to CD using Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4.xx and it auto-runs when you start inside of Windows 9x/NT/2000 but it doesn't come up as bootable after the system POSTs.
Is it possible you downloaded a different version (I suppose not since you say you're in the Preview Program) than the build 2505 RC1 that's up on this site? I know some earlier builds were bootable, so, shrug.
You're wrong in the sense that Microsoft goes out of their way to insure businesses don't have single copies running on more than one PC-- they have seminars, educational flyers, etc, etc. But for consumers, eg: home users, they don't really do anything to educate them that they're only supposed to use one copy of their operating system per PC.
Plus as the article you quoted from says, there's no incentive to mass purchase copies for consumers as there is for businesses. A business can get a quantity discount, but a consumer buying the operating system for 3-4+ PC's in a large family still has to pay $100 per copy, not $150 total or $200. (You really only need one copy of the media, but multiple CD keys/activation codes.) Microsoft would do well to offer a 5 pack deal for the consumer edition of Windows XP for $250 (upgrade) or $500 (full install). This would also help small businesses cope with upgrading..
Wow, didn't know that.. just tried it (using comment preview) and sure enough, it re-inserted the space afterwards. Bleh. Thanks for clearing up how that happened. =)
Really.. =) Just go look in Usenet in alt.binaries.ms-beta (I think that's the full group name, I might be missing something between binaries and ms-beta). There's no less than 5 CD keys for this release, and links to websites with HowTo's for making the CD bootable (the ISO isn't bootable, don't ask me why it's not) and how to disable the "phone home" and X day limitations.
I've found the whole situation funny and ironic, myself.. first their issue with a leaked copy of SP2 for Windows 2000, now this. (Though this really beats the SP2 leak-- SP2 was free, WinXP RC1 most definately is not free.)
For people who are copying/pasting this guy's URL, make note of the fact that there's an extra space in his (eg:..._rc1. iso, note the space after the dot.. the real URL has no space). Also note that if you just try to download this file using IE or Netscape or [insert browser here] the file will fail to download because your User Agent won't be set to "Download Manager". You MUST set the User Agent correctly. 90% of people who say the link is broken or doesn't work are suffering from this problem.
They meant the binary distribution-- the leak of WinXP RC1 is in ISO format for burning it directly to a CD using any CD burning software that supports the format (most do, though some don't, shrug). You still need a CD key to install it with, and it does "phone home" once installed, but it's still funny as hell that they trusted "security through obscurity" and got nailed for it. (GEE, we'll change the USER AGENT to "Download Manager" and nobody will ever get the file then!)
A fair question, if slightly off-topic-- I use Red Hat Linux 7.1 in a dual-boot config with Windows 2000 Server. On my server system (dual Pentium III 800's, with 1.25GB PC133) I run Windows 2000 Server exclusivly. I usually find myself more in Windows than in Linux, but I use Linux to develop apps/etc.
There weren't any links in the story, so does anyone have any that take people to the new info on the Battlestar Galactica TV movie/show (be it fact or rumor, I don't care). Thanks!
I'm not even going to bother quoting you or trying to reply to you in a rational manner, since you're just twisting my words at this point; I'll leave you with this singular, final, statement of fact--
THE SEGA GENESIS IS DEAD, IT HAS BEEN DEAD, AND IT'S REMAINING DEAD.
Services were held and the obituary already written. I'll just never understand how you crazies can argue that the system is alive when it's absolutely clearly not..
Slashdot Mirror
Not so.. read my example again-- writing interfaces for hardware to use USB is going to look a lot alike. The same way code written to access a 16550 UART based modem on a serial port will look alike from coder to coder. There's only a handful of ways to do it, and as compiled code they'll certainly look like ripoffs. (Even if the code itself, be it C or assembler, has completely different 'styles' and comments.)
You're right about large chunks of code, but code that performs tasks (interfacing with hardware, converting between graphics formats, or other such redundant activities) isn't likely to be as different. This could even have applied to this situation, were it not for the company in question admitted outright that they used GPL'd code (and for the fact that their DLL kept the same imported names).
It'll be interesting to see how the GPL is used/abused as more and more people come across code that they believe is copied from their own GPL'd code. Again, thankfully this case was clear-cut, and even though I didn't 100% agree with the outcome, atleast it's been resolved. It's future situations like this, and the possibility of them increasing, that disturbs me.
Your take on copyright law is interesting, and something I hadn't thought about before. And this almost flies in the face of a lot of legal issues facing our community these days (eg: 2600 magazine, and their claim that the DeCSS code is "speech" and should be protected as such).
If the DeCSS code ends up being defined as free speech, or atleast protected speech (genie out of bottle, cannot place back in), and if copyright works as I believe it does (one person can write a story one way, but if someone else tries to write the same story, it's not legal), then perhaps defining code as speech isn't such a great idea afterall.
I think in an ideal legal world, the text making up code (eg: the C, C++, assembler, etc.) would be protected as speech, but the ability to stop someone else from writing the same code someone else already has written would work as patents do (if it's obvious, or in the case of USB, documented, then you can't make claims against it).
IANAL, and like you, would like some input from someone who's experienced in the subject, but it IS interesting, I think.
Plus this gets us into the nasty scenario of there being only one way to perform a task (or onr OPTIMAL way), and then having the code for that task (or the optimal method for said task) being GPL'd.
Example: USB code in the kernel for Linux. Someone at some embedded development company needs to make their device USB compatible, so they write their own code to work with USB-- they've never used Linux, they've never seen the source for the kernel, but the compiled binary (let's say they both run on an x86 architecture) are almost exactly the same.
Would we immediatly assume the worst as a community, ignoring the possibility that the company and/or developers wrote their own code to handle USB? Or would we assume the worst because some developer, not even on the same team as the embedded developers, ran Linux at home and was on the kernel mailing list?
I guess I'm afraid that at some point we'll start witch-hunts for people who use GPL code and demand they open the entire project. I do want the GPL enforced, but certain things are so common that they're bound to be copied (by copied, I mean duplicated through the same efforts and work as the other party) over time.
You're damn right I've been trolled, atleast you recognize your position for what it really is.
Like I said, if you're such a great wit and/or intelligent, provide a better solution. I'll take your lack of any better idea as something of an indicator that you're just a left-wing zealot bent on smearing a perfectly good President's agenda. Don't you morons have anything better to do?
Please don't reproduce, your kind are idiotic and without merit, as this thread has proven.
We are at peace with our allies, and they're our ALLIES, hence the reason why we don't sit around actively considering war with them or preparing for it. We have treaties and the MAD (mutually assured destruction) state of nuclear affairs to keep China and Russia in check-- this leaves the smaller countries that are either just emerging with nuclear weapons and/or ICBM capabilities, or that are actively pursueing it, or the individuals that have oodles of cash or backing and the ability to acquire nuclear weapons on the black market. The defense system proposed by this administration is the perfect solution for this ever increasing threat.
Here's a thought--
If you're of such a great wit and intelligence, why not propose a better solution? If you're not, step away from the soap box, and make room for people ready to take action and get the job done.
Maybe if you want to prove him wrong, you should go read up on the Congressional testimony taken around that time to see if those statements were really made before Congress by that KGB agent? You can probably find links to this kind of thing at www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.
To the topic at hand though-- I think getting a nuke into the US (be it van sized or suit-case sized) is FAR too easy, be it from Mexico, our own Pacific or Atlantic ports, or Canada. Never minding the thought of ICBM's raining down on us.. I do support Bush's push for a 'defense shield' however, because honestly it's the best solution for the current problem:
Rogue states, be it North Korea, Iraq, or any other, can purchase on the black market (or elsewhere) or manufacture ICBM nukes capable of reaching our shores, but only in SMALL quantities.
Now we're supposedly disarming anyways, right? That's what all of the treaties thus far are for, disarming and not proliferating new nuclear weapons, right? So why not allow the design and deployment of a 'shield' to defend against small-scale attacks (5-10 missiles, maybe a few more, but less than 100)?
It seems our greatest threat isn't from Russia or China (who either have treaties with us, or simply don't want to face a full reprisal if an attack is launched), but from smaller nations that use one of the tactics above to acquire nuclear weapons technology and a launcher that can hit our country. We need to defend against this, and I fully hope Bush plows ahead with it.
Now one thing that hasn't really been suggested by either the media or the President has been possibly quelling some of Russia's issues with the shield by sharing technology with them and perhaps even installing (or helping install) a similar shield in Russia. I think this would prove to be a good faith builder, and hell, maybe they'll like the idea enough to add their own expertise to the equation, making a more reliable and safer shield overall.
The only problem with this is the thought of Russia selling or sharing the technology with China and/or Iraq or any other nation we view as a 'rogue' state, or have set to an unfriendly status currently. Plus it doesn't help that Russia has this habit of having technology sold by it's scientists to the highest bidders behind their leaders backs..
Will it *really* play the DVD-Audio content, or is it actually playing the information stored in the video section of the DVD? Most DVD-Audio discs have Dolby 5.1 audio stored in the *video* section of the disc so that incompatible DVD players won't completely choke on the DVD-Audio only format.
As for where I retrieved those numbers, you can check out one of Pioneer's DVD-Audio player, the DV-AX10, at this URL: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/Home Products/HomeProductDetails/0,1422,2092,00.html or you can check out their "Elite" model DVD-Audio (and video) player, the DV-38A at this URL: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/Home Products/HomeProductDetails/0,1422,2060,00.html (and see prices via StreetPrices.com at http://www.streetprices.com/Computers/search.pl?qu ery=DV-38A, as of this writing, the price is $997, a fair shake off of the retail of $2,200).
And I was wrong, they want $6,000 for their first model right off the bat, but I'm sure the street price is probably half that (I can't find the first model I listed on StreetPrices though, so, shrug..).
Anyways, the reason I'm interested is 1) because I'm curious if DVD-Audio is possible on PC DVD-ROM drives and 2) I'm curious if there's cheaper solutions that still let you get at the real DVD-Audio and not the Dolby 5.1 stored in the Video area. Dolby 5.1 is probably a step above CD quality, but full blown DVD Audio (from what I've heard and read) is far better in quality than either of those alternatives.
BTW: To the other posters on this story-- thanks for your information, it's been educational and interesting. Thanks! =)
Read the other threads under this story-- there are ways to keep a DDoS attack from crippling a network, it just appears that some (all) of EFNet's hubs/servers aren't protected.
EFNet going down is indeed news, but I question how great of a loss it would be with the other networks still out there. Sure, losing EFNet is probably similar to losing BBSes for the internet, but in this situation, there are still other networks and new ones still pop up from time to time.
And before anyone takes this as a flame, I *LIKE* EFNet, but it won't kill me if they can't turn things around-- I'm intelligent enough to realize that there ARE alternatives.
Nevermind, you're right. It is bootable.. it must have been an older release I was thinking of. Sorry for the mix-up.
You're right. ;) I did seem to recall drinking it regularly as being something important though, but I don't have the movie anymore (damn the lack of Indiana Jones DVDs!) so I can't watch it to double check. [sigh] Thanks for pointing that out though, you're completely correct.
If you re-watch the flic you'll see that in order for the water to be effective, you have to keep drinking it over time, lest the effects wear off. As it so happens, Indie's dad got to drink it (and have it poured on him) once, and he never actually got to sip it or anything.
Thus, Indiana Jones is fully mortal, and his dad's small drink probably didn't buy him enough years to even matter or look out of place.
Right, but in the history of PERSONAL computers (not business systems) people bought one copy of their operating system and never gave it a thought again. Life is full of things you buy once but can share with the whole family-- hair brushes, hair dryers, toilets, plumbing, hell, your whole home, etc, etc.. To the un-educated, non-geek person, it's totally fair to install the OS as many times as needed. I can remember as far back as the MS-DOS days people would be doing this.
And you justify the reason Microsoft doesn't educate consumers with the excuse that they lose more money on businesses pirating than on consumers. And again, they give businesses incentives to purchase multiple copies-- consumers though, balk at the idea of paying $300-500 for upgrades for 3-5 PC's or as much as $$750-1250 for full installs.
Do I think pirating is right, no. Do I think they have a right to do this, yes. Do I agree with it though? Absolutely not. Nobody reads the EULA, and some even question the legality of it altogether.
So now Microsoft drops the bomb on consumers with this phone-home and registration crap. Now they'll acted surprised that people didn't know they were supposed to buy an individual copy per PC.
This is redundant, but I'll reply anyways since you missed the other posts-- Slashdot adds a space to keep trolls from screwing with text formatting. The extra space is automatically inserted when the poster hits "Submit" and apperently can't be avoided. Just keep an eye out for spaces in URL's or filenames. ;)
Weird.. I burned it to CD using Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4.xx and it auto-runs when you start inside of Windows 9x/NT/2000 but it doesn't come up as bootable after the system POSTs.
Is it possible you downloaded a different version (I suppose not since you say you're in the Preview Program) than the build 2505 RC1 that's up on this site? I know some earlier builds were bootable, so, shrug.
You're wrong in the sense that Microsoft goes out of their way to insure businesses don't have single copies running on more than one PC-- they have seminars, educational flyers, etc, etc. But for consumers, eg: home users, they don't really do anything to educate them that they're only supposed to use one copy of their operating system per PC.
Plus as the article you quoted from says, there's no incentive to mass purchase copies for consumers as there is for businesses. A business can get a quantity discount, but a consumer buying the operating system for 3-4+ PC's in a large family still has to pay $100 per copy, not $150 total or $200. (You really only need one copy of the media, but multiple CD keys/activation codes.) Microsoft would do well to offer a 5 pack deal for the consumer edition of Windows XP for $250 (upgrade) or $500 (full install). This would also help small businesses cope with upgrading..
Wow, didn't know that.. just tried it (using comment preview) and sure enough, it re-inserted the space afterwards. Bleh. Thanks for clearing up how that happened. =)
Really.. =) Just go look in Usenet in alt.binaries.ms-beta (I think that's the full group name, I might be missing something between binaries and ms-beta). There's no less than 5 CD keys for this release, and links to websites with HowTo's for making the CD bootable (the ISO isn't bootable, don't ask me why it's not) and how to disable the "phone home" and X day limitations.
I've found the whole situation funny and ironic, myself.. first their issue with a leaked copy of SP2 for Windows 2000, now this. (Though this really beats the SP2 leak-- SP2 was free, WinXP RC1 most definately is not free.)
For people who are copying/pasting this guy's URL, make note of the fact that there's an extra space in his (eg: ..._rc1. iso, note the space after the dot.. the real URL has no space). Also note that if you just try to download this file using IE or Netscape or [insert browser here] the file will fail to download because your User Agent won't be set to "Download Manager". You MUST set the User Agent correctly. 90% of people who say the link is broken or doesn't work are suffering from this problem.
They meant the binary distribution-- the leak of WinXP RC1 is in ISO format for burning it directly to a CD using any CD burning software that supports the format (most do, though some don't, shrug). You still need a CD key to install it with, and it does "phone home" once installed, but it's still funny as hell that they trusted "security through obscurity" and got nailed for it. (GEE, we'll change the USER AGENT to "Download Manager" and nobody will ever get the file then!)
A fair question, if slightly off-topic-- I use Red Hat Linux 7.1 in a dual-boot config with Windows 2000 Server. On my server system (dual Pentium III 800's, with 1.25GB PC133) I run Windows 2000 Server exclusivly. I usually find myself more in Windows than in Linux, but I use Linux to develop apps/etc.
The problem with your statement is that there aren't any new games for it.
Try again.
There weren't any links in the story, so does anyone have any that take people to the new info on the Battlestar Galactica TV movie/show (be it fact or rumor, I don't care). Thanks!
I'm not even going to bother quoting you or trying to reply to you in a rational manner, since you're just twisting my words at this point; I'll leave you with this singular, final, statement of fact--
THE SEGA GENESIS IS DEAD, IT HAS BEEN DEAD, AND IT'S REMAINING DEAD.
Services were held and the obituary already written. I'll just never understand how you crazies can argue that the system is alive when it's absolutely clearly not..