When a library opts not to purchase certain publications (perhaps pornographic magazines or books about unpopular political parties), they are saving taxpayer's dollars. When a library spends extra money to censor a publication they have already bought (by tearing out pages in an encyclopedia, or filtering certain Internet sites), they are spending taxpayer's dollars. The software, equipment, and time required to enforce Internet censorship all cost money.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the first type of censorship is OK under certain circumstances. They have also ruled (in the Loudoun County case) that the second type of censorship is not OK. Nobody should have to pay for censorship.
Mail abuse@mediaone.net with the hostname and IP address of the problem host. If the user dees not fix the problem promptly they will be disconnected from the network until it is fixed.
Head over to http://ians.978.org/ and grab yourself a copy of the Anti-Censorware Proxy. Set up as many mirrors as possible, and share them with friends who suffer from censorship.
Usually individuals are only liable for the first $50 of fraud. Everything thereafter is picked up by the card issuer (credit card) or FDIC (bank account).
There is no spinning read/write head like with helical-scan tape systems, but DLT tape does contact its read/write head. Plus it goes around 6 rollers and winds up on a temporary spool while in use.
The only thing the data side of the tape touches is the R/W heads. It's the back of the tape that touches the rollers and the takeup reel.
30 NT vs. 20 Linux Patches Since October 21, 1996
on
Linux 2.2.7 Released
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 has had 26 "HotFixes" for critical bugs since October 21, 1996. Combine this with the 4 service packs and multiple versions of vendor released drivers targeted at different subtle revision levels of NT for a confusing mess. In the same time span, Linux has been through 20 stable kernel releases. (2.0.24->36, 2.2.0->2.2.7) with almost every important device drives included in the standard kernel distribution.
The 20 GB tape capacity you reported and the 2.0 GB capacity of the ORB disks means that 10 disks would be required. 10 disks at $40 per disk is $400 not the $3,200 you claimed.
Whoops. Accidentally based my numbers on the 250mb removable media that was also discussed in the slashdot blurb. DLT4000 is still $360 cheaper than Orb as a backup medium. DLT7000 is even cheaper; it crams 35gb onto the same $50 tape.
Also magnetic media, be it tape or disk, does not last forever. There is a reliable life span of about 10 years and it can be usable after that for many years. Have you ever watched a video tape recorded in 1983? Listed to a cassette from 1975? You will see what I mean, loss in quality due to degradation.
This severe loss in sound/video quality is caused by two things: 1. the low quality of consumer grade cassettes, and 2. the nature of helical scan playback and recording devices, which wrap the tape through a complex path of capstains, pinch rollers and rotating heads. DLT has a straight tape path, and the only thing that touches the data side of the tape is a single, fixed head assembly.
Remember, your backup data wont degrade - it will be unuseable. And everytime you use the tape more iron oxide comes off of the tape lowering it's lifespan...
DLT tapes lose very few metal particulates during playback because the data side of the tape comes in contact only with the read/write head and nothing else. DLT is unlike an audio casette player, which squeezes the tape through rubber pinch rollers that touch both sides of the tape, or a VCR, which rubs the tape up agaist a rotating head. Also, the data on DLT tapes is protected by reid-solomon error correction which enables all but the most severely damaged tapes to be recovered.
Because of careful design and testing, DLT tapes are specified to last more than 30 years with less than 5% demagnetization and 15,000 backup/restore cycles. Tapes are protected by a lifetime limited warranty and will be replaced if they fail before the rating. See the DLT Data Sheet for details.
Perhaps you should have a look at the data sheet for DLT drives and tapes. The data sheet states that the tapes are good for at least 30 years and can be used for 15,000 backup/restore cycles involving up to 1,000,000 media passes. The data is additionally protected by reid-solomon encoding so that areas with small data loss or damage can be recovered. The media has a lifetime limited warranty -- if a tape breaks or loses data before the 30 years / 15,000 cycles is up you get a new one.
Even though access speed isn't as much of an issue for backup devices, a DLT4000 drive is by no means slow. It can move up to 1.5mB/sec, and seek to any position on the tape in aproximately 60 seconds. Higher end DLT7000 drives are faster and can record more data (35gB) onto the same tape.
If you can afford a real backup device, like a DLT drive, 8mm drive, or 4mm drive, you should get one. With DLT, for $50 you get a tape that can hold 20gb uncompressed and is guaranteed to last forever. To fit that much data on orb disks would cost you $3,200 in media alone, and there's no guarantee on how long it will last.
Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this.
MIT handles this situation for PGP and other cryptographic software by requiring users to complete and online affidavit before they can dowload the software. It is not neccessary to write the export restrictions into the software license, since they do not neccessarily apply to everyone. In particular, restrictions resulting from US export laws do not affect people outside the US who have rekeyed Apple's source code from printed books.
I seriously doubt MIT would be responsible if someone subsequently exported PGP in electronic form -- a highly prestigious school like MIT would not open itself to such liability if they knew it existed. Since a school with as much money as MIT has access to some of the finest lawyers, I doubt there is any liability that they are not aware of.
It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.
These restrictions are not part of the software license unless they are explicitly written there. MIT writes export restrictions into the license in a way that prevents it from applying outside of the US. While MIT's method is not optimal, it's better than Apple's method of requiring assurances to enfoce US law even outside of the US.
If I print out my cryptographic source code and snail-mail it to Germany, US crypto laws no longer apply to that copy unless it's imported back into the US.
But from a realistic point of view - does this effect any of us? No.
You wrongly assume all users of Free Software are in the US. The person you're replying to may very well be outside the US and thus affected unneccessarily by US laws written into the license. Writing laws into license agreements is unneccessary, often discriminatory, and can make otherwise Free Software non-free.
...but you miss the fact that the person in the US (the original exporter of the code) can still be held responsible if that code makes it's way to Iraq (or wherever).
Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?
If the US export laws are not written into the license, software that finds its way out of the US (for example, by being printed in a book and mailed -- very legal) can be used and distributed outside the US without being restricted by those laws. This is how PGP was legally exported from the United States without perpetuating the export restrictions present under US law.
The same situation could apply to Free Software. Software is not free if discriminatory laws are written into the license. Furthermore, writing _any_ law into the license of a software packages risks prepetuating that law for the purposes of of the software in question even if the law is found invalid or gets repealed.
Last time I checked, Red Hat employed a large number of full-time employees that worked only on the Linux Kernel, GNU tools, and other Free Software projects.
It is possible to make Free Software and make a living at the same time.
Both of these are great cards. The cs423x is present on Intel Pr440fx motherboards, and the Advanced Gravis Ultrasound Pro, PnP, and Viper MAX. The Ensoniq cards are now OEM'd by Creative Labs, and their very high quality is untypical of Creative Labs cards.
I spent a few extra bucks on good quality shielded cables RCA->RCA cables, and I use an adaptor right at the sound card to turn the 1/8 connector into something better.
Aside from real professional cards with optical outputs, I think this is the best you're gonna get. Since cards with optical outputs are about 10 times more expensive and recievers with optical inputs are a bit steep, I thing the tradeoffs are worth the money saved.
What percentage of the time did the filtering software block legitimate sites? Without having read the report myself, my impression is the Censorware Project is probably just as fanatical as those it's complaining about.
Perhaps if you read the report you'd understand. The report details individual instances where users attempted to access documents like The Declaration of Independance, The Bible, and other documents. This report isn't about potential or theoretical blockings, but about when actual "Access Denied" screens were displayed to students and library patrons.
Is it really impossible to access the Declaration of Independence from any site on the Internet, or was only one specfic site blocked?
It's nice that The Declaration of Independance is a popular document and is mirrored in many places. Unfortunately, other valuable documents that the censorware products may incorrectly block might appear only on one site.
And for what reason?
It might be unprofitable for the censorware companies to block at a finer level than per-hostname or per-domain. Consequentally, entire hosts, subnets, and domains can get blocked because of one document that person or some web crawling robot looking for keywords finds objectionable. A fine example of this is n2h2's bess censorware, which blocked every web site in ml.org.
The Palm 5000, Pro, and III run for about two months of normal use on two alkaline AAA batteries. The Palm V runs for about a month on its tiny internal Lithium Ion battery and recharges in just minutes, even automagically taking a small charge every time you link it with your PC. See 3com's Specs for details.
The betteries in the Everex Freestyle Windows CE handheld device are good for only about 8 hours.
PostgreSQL is already available under a Free Software license. Better still, it's a BSD/XFree86 style license that appears to be compatible with the GPL.
Source Code Alone Does Not Make it Open Source
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
Like it or not, Apple published its source code. This makes it open source regardless of whether or not you lie the license, whether or not you like the Mac, or whether or not you like Apple.
Availability of source code alone does not make a program Open Source. In order to be able to use the Open Source mark, Apple must make its license compatible with certain guidelines. See the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition for details.
The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, and ultimately the SPI board will decide whether or not Apple is permitted to use it.
Open Source trademark is not registered to OSI
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't the OSI own the trademark for "Open Source".
No.
Isn't Eric Raymond the president of the OSI?
Yes.
Didn't Eric Raymond validate the APSL as Open Source?
Yes.
If so, then what more is there?
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion. In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
As far as I'm concerned, if the OSI says it's Open Source (TM), then it's Open Source(TM)!!!
Entirely not true. OSI can not grant others the right to use the Open Source mark because this is something only the registrant can do. The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, not OSI.
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion. In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
I've been very happy with the built-in cs4232 sound, 100baseTX ethernet, and ultra-wide SCSI on my pr440fx board.
Video, however, is where I'd draw the line. Video stuff changes too fast these days and will probably be obsolete long before your motherboard will. For $30 you can get a cheapie S3 ViRgE card at a computer show and save yourself a lot of trouble.
EDO Buffered DIMMS work on many Sun Ultra's. If you go shopping for surplus Sun hardware, you can pick up cheap modules or 64-bit SPARC's to use them in.
Recent versions of FreeBSD have SMP support. A friend of mine runs a system nearly identical to my dual ppro200 (except he's got FreeBSD instead of Linux) with good results.
Slashdot Mirror
When a library opts not to purchase certain publications (perhaps pornographic magazines or books about unpopular political parties), they are saving taxpayer's dollars. When a library spends extra money to censor a publication they have already bought (by tearing out pages in an encyclopedia, or filtering certain Internet sites), they are spending taxpayer's dollars. The software, equipment, and time required to enforce Internet censorship all cost money.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the first type of censorship is OK under certain circumstances. They have also ruled (in the Loudoun County case) that the second type of censorship is not OK. Nobody should have to pay for censorship.
My bank runs their online banking system on Microsoft Windows NT and IIS! Looks like it might be time to move my money somewhere else...
Mail abuse@mediaone.net with the hostname and IP address of the problem host. If the user dees not fix the problem promptly they will be disconnected from the network until it is fixed.
Head over to http://ians.978.org/ and grab yourself a copy of the Anti-Censorware Proxy. Set up as many mirrors as possible, and share them with friends who suffer from censorship.
Usually individuals are only liable for the first $50 of fraud. Everything thereafter is picked up by the card issuer (credit card) or FDIC (bank account).
There is no spinning read/write head like with helical-scan tape systems, but DLT tape does contact its read/write head. Plus it goes around 6 rollers and winds up on a temporary spool while in use.
The only thing the data side of the tape touches is the R/W heads. It's the back of the tape that touches the rollers and the takeup reel.
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 has had 26 "HotFixes" for critical bugs since October 21, 1996. Combine this with the 4 service packs and multiple versions of vendor released drivers targeted at different subtle revision levels of NT for a confusing mess. In the same time span, Linux has been through 20 stable kernel releases. (2.0.24->36, 2.2.0->2.2.7) with almost every important device drives included in the standard kernel distribution.
The 20 GB tape capacity you reported and the 2.0 GB capacity of the ORB disks means that 10 disks would be required. 10 disks at $40 per disk is $400 not the $3,200 you claimed.
Whoops. Accidentally based my numbers on the 250mb removable media that was also discussed in the slashdot blurb. DLT4000 is still $360 cheaper than Orb as a backup medium. DLT7000 is even cheaper; it crams 35gb onto the same $50 tape.
Also magnetic media, be it tape or disk, does not last forever. There is a reliable life span of about 10 years and it can be usable after that for many years. Have you ever watched a video tape recorded in 1983? Listed to a cassette from 1975? You will see what I mean, loss in quality due to degradation.
This severe loss in sound/video quality is caused by two things: 1. the low quality of consumer grade cassettes, and 2. the nature of helical scan playback and recording devices, which wrap the tape through a complex path of capstains, pinch rollers and rotating heads. DLT has a straight tape path, and the only thing that touches the data side of the tape is a single, fixed head assembly.
Remember, your backup data wont degrade - it will be unuseable. And everytime you use the tape more iron oxide comes off of the tape lowering it's lifespan...
DLT tapes lose very few metal particulates during playback because the data side of the tape comes in contact only with the read/write head and nothing else. DLT is unlike an audio casette player, which squeezes the tape through rubber pinch rollers that touch both sides of the tape, or a VCR, which rubs the tape up agaist a rotating head. Also, the data on DLT tapes is protected by reid-solomon error correction which enables all but the most severely damaged tapes to be recovered.
Because of careful design and testing, DLT tapes are specified to last more than 30 years with less than 5% demagnetization and 15,000 backup/restore cycles. Tapes are protected by a lifetime limited warranty and will be replaced if they fail before the rating. See the DLT Data Sheet for details.
Perhaps you should have a look at the data sheet for DLT drives and tapes. The data sheet states that the tapes are good for at least 30 years and can be used for 15,000 backup/restore cycles involving up to 1,000,000 media passes. The data is additionally protected by reid-solomon encoding so that areas with small data loss or damage can be recovered. The media has a lifetime limited warranty -- if a tape breaks or loses data before the 30 years / 15,000 cycles is up you get a new one.
Even though access speed isn't as much of an issue for backup devices, a DLT4000 drive is by no means slow. It can move up to 1.5mB/sec, and seek to any position on the tape in aproximately 60 seconds. Higher end DLT7000 drives are faster and can record more data (35gB) onto the same tape.
20 Gig / 2 Gig = 10 10 * $40 = $400 Do you use an Intel-brand Calculator, or something? ;-p
I calculated my numbers based on $40 250mb removable media. Even for $40 2gb media, it's still $360 cheaper for a DLT tape.
If you can afford a real backup device, like a DLT drive, 8mm drive, or 4mm drive, you should get one. With DLT, for $50 you get a tape that can hold 20gb uncompressed and is guaranteed to last forever. To fit that much data on orb disks would cost you $3,200 in media alone, and there's no guarantee on how long it will last.
Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this.
MIT handles this situation for PGP and other cryptographic software by requiring users to complete and online affidavit before they can dowload the software. It is not neccessary to write the export restrictions into the software license, since they do not neccessarily apply to everyone. In particular, restrictions resulting from US export laws do not affect people outside the US who have rekeyed Apple's source code from printed books.
I seriously doubt MIT would be responsible if someone subsequently exported PGP in electronic form -- a highly prestigious school like MIT would not open itself to such liability if they knew it existed. Since a school with as much money as MIT has access to some of the finest lawyers, I doubt there is any liability that they are not aware of.
It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.
These restrictions are not part of the software license unless they are explicitly written there. MIT writes export restrictions into the license in a way that prevents it from applying outside of the US. While MIT's method is not optimal, it's better than Apple's method of requiring assurances to enfoce US law even outside of the US.
If I print out my cryptographic source code and snail-mail it to Germany, US crypto laws no longer apply to that copy unless it's imported back into the US.
But from a realistic point of view - does this effect any of us? No.
You wrongly assume all users of Free Software are in the US. The person you're replying to may very well be outside the US and thus affected unneccessarily by US laws written into the license. Writing laws into license agreements is unneccessary, often discriminatory, and can make otherwise Free Software non-free.
Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?
If the US export laws are not written into the license, software that finds its way out of the US (for example, by being printed in a book and mailed -- very legal) can be used and distributed outside the US without being restricted by those laws. This is how PGP was legally exported from the United States without perpetuating the export restrictions present under US law.
The same situation could apply to Free Software. Software is not free if discriminatory laws are written into the license. Furthermore, writing _any_ law into the license of a software packages risks prepetuating that law for the purposes of of the software in question even if the law is found invalid or gets repealed.
Last time I checked, Red Hat employed a large number of full-time employees that worked only on the Linux Kernel, GNU tools, and other Free Software projects.
It is possible to make Free Software and make a living at the same time.
Both of these are great cards. The cs423x is present on Intel Pr440fx motherboards, and the Advanced Gravis Ultrasound Pro, PnP, and Viper MAX. The Ensoniq cards are now OEM'd by Creative Labs, and their very high quality is untypical of Creative Labs cards.
I spent a few extra bucks on good quality shielded cables RCA->RCA cables, and I use an adaptor right at the sound card to turn the 1/8 connector into something better.
Aside from real professional cards with optical outputs, I think this is the best you're gonna get. Since cards with optical outputs are about 10 times more expensive and recievers with optical inputs are a bit steep, I thing the tradeoffs are worth the money saved.
What percentage of the time did the filtering software block legitimate sites? Without having read the report myself, my impression is the Censorware Project is probably just as fanatical as those it's complaining about.
Perhaps if you read the report you'd understand. The report details individual instances where users attempted to access documents like The Declaration of Independance, The Bible, and other documents. This report isn't about potential or theoretical blockings, but about when actual "Access Denied" screens were displayed to students and library patrons.
Is it really impossible to access the Declaration of Independence from any site on the Internet, or was only one specfic site blocked?
It's nice that The Declaration of Independance is a popular document and is mirrored in many places. Unfortunately, other valuable documents that the censorware products may incorrectly block might appear only on one site.
And for what reason?
It might be unprofitable for the censorware companies to block at a finer level than per-hostname or per-domain. Consequentally, entire hosts, subnets, and domains can get blocked because of one document that person or some web crawling robot looking for keywords finds objectionable. A fine example of this is n2h2's bess censorware, which blocked every web site in ml.org.
The Palm 5000, Pro, and III run for about two months of normal use on two alkaline AAA batteries. The Palm V runs for about a month on its tiny internal Lithium Ion battery and recharges in just minutes, even automagically taking a small charge every time you link it with your PC. See 3com's Specs for details.
The betteries in the Everex Freestyle Windows CE handheld device are good for only about 8 hours.
PostgreSQL is already available under a Free Software license. Better still, it's a BSD/XFree86 style license that appears to be compatible with the GPL.
Like it or not, Apple published its source code. This makes it open source regardless of whether or not you lie the license, whether or not you like the Mac, or whether or not you like Apple.
Availability of source code alone does not make a program Open Source. In order to be able to use the Open Source mark, Apple must make its license compatible with certain guidelines. See the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition for details.
The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, and ultimately the SPI board will decide whether or not Apple is permitted to use it.
Doesn't the OSI own the trademark for "Open Source".
No.
Isn't Eric Raymond the president of the OSI?
Yes.
Didn't Eric Raymond validate the APSL as Open Source?
Yes.
If so, then what more is there?
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion. In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
As far as I'm concerned, if the OSI says it's Open Source (TM), then it's Open Source(TM)!!!
Entirely not true. OSI can not grant others the right to use the Open Source mark because this is something only the registrant can do. The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, not OSI.
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion.
In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
I've been very happy with the built-in cs4232 sound, 100baseTX ethernet, and ultra-wide SCSI on my pr440fx board.
Video, however, is where I'd draw the line. Video stuff changes too fast these days and will probably be obsolete long before your motherboard will. For $30 you can get a cheapie S3 ViRgE card at a computer show and save yourself a lot of trouble.
EDO Buffered DIMMS work on many Sun Ultra's. If you go shopping for surplus Sun hardware, you can pick up cheap modules or 64-bit SPARC's to use them in.
Recent versions of FreeBSD have SMP support. A friend of mine runs a system nearly identical to my dual ppro200 (except he's got FreeBSD instead of Linux) with good results.