"...a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
No, that's not what he said. He said that everyone (with one exception) said it was OK to quote them--not that it would be ethical to do so without permission.
As an example of the difference, consider my hypothetical email had I been a Hellmouth contributor: "Hey/., I'm glad you think my post is worthy of being put on paper and sold for money, but don't you think you should have gotten my permission first?"
See how I would have been FOR publishing of my comments but AGAINST the ethicality of doing so without permission?
-- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Tell that to the FreeBSD people, when they wish they could use Linux drivers.
I don't want to sound like I'm flaming, so read carefully.
That's not sharing--that's "helping yourself". Sharing is when I own something and I give it to you. Helping yourself is when I own something and you come and take it.
If the FreeBSD people want to use Linux drivers, they can ask the driver maintainer to share. The GPL puts no restrictions on the maintainer as to who he can share with. But FreeBSD people can't help themselves to GPL'd code. In the case of FreeBSD this is somewhat unfortunate, but it guards against the case of someone like Microsoft helping themselves. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Who said future revenue was intellectual property? Not me.
As for you distinction between copyright infringement and deprivation of revenue, I understand the difference but I don't understand your claim that one "doesn't factor at all" into the other. Are you saying that I could infringe the copyright WITHOUT depriving of future revenue?
"Future revenue is not protected as property under the law..."
Semi-correct, which is exactly why I am opposed to groups like MPAA and RIAA trying to make it seem that way. Why "semi"? Because SOME future revenue IS protected. For instance, if I were a concert pianist and you were an incompetent doctor attempting to remove a hangnail, I could sue you for lost revenue when you amputated my arm. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Alpha was doing poorly because of poor marketing. Compaq didn't can it because they want to remedy that.
I have seen more than x86's. I'm not saying Alphas suck--I'm saying they aren't popular.
"better products increase market share."
So conversely, poorer products decrease market share? I guess that explains why Microsoft is doing so poorly... -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
If you're such a hotshot web designer, why have you committed one of the cardinal sins of web design: Putting an "entry page" that does nothing but suck bandwidth and make it difficult to "back" out of a site? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Maybe the military was thinking in a game-theoretic manner, but it is hard to see how their doing so was anything more than an excuse for agressive, intimidating behavior...
"agressive, intimidating behavior" and "game theory" are not opposites. They are indepenent variables. That is, you can be using game theory and/or you can be using agression.
After all, the situation seems very remote from a game as it would ideally be defined.
Then you don't know diddly about game theory.
How do they make an argument that by choosing "rocket" their payoff is on average higher except by relying on their own *opinions* on Soviet behavior?
1) These "opinions" would have been the most well-researched and -funded in all of history up to that date. Remember we're talking about Cold War military intelligence 2) All decisions are based on opinions. You won't get anywhere waiting for absolute certitude. 3) They DIDN'T make an argument that the payoff was higher. Do YOU remember a nuke hitting the moon in the late 50's? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First of all, looking back on it nuking the moon seems really dumb.
However, "pissing match" is exactly what it was--and what it was intended to be. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that von Neumann was behind this idea (or at least supported it).
Military strategy since the mid-to-late 1940's has been less about "how many guns do we have" and more about "what moves can we make to force the opponents hand into playing to our strengths". In other words, game theory.
And game theory has a lot to say about bluffing's direct effects (like nuking the moon making the enemy think you are more powerful) or indirect effects (nuking the moon makes the [1950's] citizens more confident which in turn makes the enemy citizens less confidant, providing a nice vicious cycle).
In any case, there were probably some scientific benefits to doing this as well. Selenological research, ballistic stuff, maybe some astronomy, etc. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Good God/. has balls to post this quote after running a headline like "No More Unreal Ports For Linux?". -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source Guidelines?
ANSWER:
No. The Open Group Public License for Motif grants rights only to use the software on or with operating systems that are themselves Open Source programs. In restricting the applicability of the license to Open Source platforms this does not meet term 8 of the Open Software Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html).
QUESTION:
Will Motif be made Open Source in the future?
ANSWER:
Yes, we hope to be able to make a distribution under a license complying with the Open Source guidelines sometime in the future. For now this is as close as to Open Source as we could get.
-- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"What you are taking when you commit copyright infringement is intellectual property, but you are not depriving the ownder of the same."
No, what I'm taking when I commit copyright infringement is future revenue. And I am depriving him of same. I am STEALING a source of revenue. I have committed theft. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
To quote from the site in question: "...the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same."
The crux here is "felonious taking and removing".
So, is copying theft?
Felonious? Yes (currently) Taking and removing? Yes, if we think carefully. Let M be a band that derives it's revenue from the selling of CD C. A copy of C, C', totally displaces a copy of C in the marketplace but directs no revenue to M. Therefore the making of C' deprives M of the income from C. I suppose you could make a case that "taking a removing" is different from "diverting before it got there", but highway robbery is still robbery.
This is not to say that I think M is totally in the right and that the theives are totally in the wrong. But let us call a spade a spade and label the thieves "modern day Robin Hoods" rather than trying to re-define them out of existence. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
So when I say "black hole" to children born after 2001, it's going to sound like my grandfather saying "luminiferous aether" did 100 years ago. On the other hand, it was bound to happen. The name "'polka' dots" was cashing in on a polka (dance) craze. "'Radio' flyer" wagons had nothing to do with radio. "Internet ready" is probably today's equivalent. Or "i-", "e-" or "cyber-" anything. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1) "...a free forum that tends to bring the cream to the top of the chaos."
Well....as long as by "cream" you mean "most widely popular". And using that definition Windows is also the cream.
2) "I'm hoping that Andover.Net takes this to court."
Hoping? Hoping?? If there is even a smidgen of a chance that Andover and the/. Editorial Crew are split on this issue then all my fears about the Slashdot takeover(s) have come true. Even if Andover decided to do the right thing, the fact that the right answer wasn't obvious AND that Andover could veto Taco is evil itself. (yes, I meant to bold all of that) -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
This Kerberos "extension" was intended to lock Samba out of the server market. The other features of Win2k are easily emulated using LDAP and so forth. But if only Win2k can authenticate, Samba is relegated to second fiddle.
That's why everyone is making such a big deal about this extension. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Now I know that, deep down, the Slashdot editors (and owners) are anti-censorship and, specifically, anti-removing-the-comments.
BUT, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. That is, if Microsoft actual sues (or threatens to), Slashdot may cave for financial reasons.
So I propose the following: If Slashdot removes the comments without having been forced to by an actual court ruling, we boycott Slashdot. Hopefully that will provide the needed reverse financial pressure. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Starship Troopers was no good. Quite the opposite. I'm just contrasting ST general wholesomeness to Friday's...errrr....less than wholesomeness.
Of course, the ST movie wasn't for kids either... -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1) Find a story about technology (if your name is "Katz" this step is unneeded) 2) Skim the headline of said story to "get the gist". 3) Submit story to Slashdot, paying special attention to making it seem like this story is related to some hot topic.
For instance, if the story is about a misconfigured website allowing a security breach, make it seem like the story is related to a recent email worm by working "email" and "Visual Basic Scripting" in there somehow.
What's the effect of this exploit: In all the excitement of having another Microsoft bashing story will hurriedly type your submission onto the front page with plenty of spelling errors and word omissions. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I need to get on the bandwagon. Everyone is computing with molecules and here I am like a dolt, using pure energy. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Very good. "Friday" was the first Heinlein I ever read (that I know of anyway). Starship Troopers was still kind of kid-oriented, Friday definitely is not. Still, I personally would recommend it down to around 13/14. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I'm not all that old, but nearly all my SF reading was from small libraries with old collections. So I'm very familiar with, say, 40's-70's and less familiar with 80's and 90's.
Which leads me to my point: A lot of the ideas people are remembering as being from recent writers ("virtual reality" from Gibson and "corps more powerful than gov'ts" from Robinson) have actually been around for a LONG time.
In fact, both of these have precursors from Heinlein. And, as much as I like Heinlein and as inventive as he clearly was, I doubt he made up all these ideas himself.
I hope these researchers treat this search in true scholarly fashion: Give credit to the first author to have written down a given idea. I'd hate to see, say, Gerrold get credit for inventing the time machine instead of Wells (or Twain, or ???). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple Puts Off Joining 20th Century Until 2001.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
/., I'm glad you think my post is worthy of being put on paper and sold for money, but don't you think you should have gotten my permission first?"
No, that's not what he said. He said that everyone (with one exception) said it was OK to quote them--not that it would be ethical to do so without permission.
As an example of the difference, consider my hypothetical email had I been a Hellmouth contributor: "Hey
See how I would have been FOR publishing of my comments but AGAINST the ethicality of doing so without permission?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Tell that to the FreeBSD people, when they wish they could use Linux drivers.
I don't want to sound like I'm flaming, so read carefully.
That's not sharing--that's "helping yourself". Sharing is when I own something and I give it to you. Helping yourself is when I own something and you come and take it.
If the FreeBSD people want to use Linux drivers, they can ask the driver maintainer to share. The GPL puts no restrictions on the maintainer as to who he can share with. But FreeBSD people can't help themselves to GPL'd code. In the case of FreeBSD this is somewhat unfortunate, but it guards against the case of someone like Microsoft helping themselves.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The GPL enforces sharing. You can't even troll right.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Who said future revenue was intellectual property? Not me.
As for you distinction between copyright infringement and deprivation of revenue, I understand the difference but I don't understand your claim that one "doesn't factor at all" into the other. Are you saying that I could infringe the copyright WITHOUT depriving of future revenue?
"Future revenue is not protected as property under the law..."
Semi-correct, which is exactly why I am opposed to groups like MPAA and RIAA trying to make it seem that way. Why "semi"? Because SOME future revenue IS protected. For instance, if I were a concert pianist and you were an incompetent doctor attempting to remove a hangnail, I could sue you for lost revenue when you amputated my arm.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Define over-engineered for me then.
Alpha was doing poorly because of poor marketing. Compaq didn't can it because they want to remedy that.
I have seen more than x86's. I'm not saying Alphas suck--I'm saying they aren't popular.
"better products increase market share."
So conversely, poorer products decrease market share? I guess that explains why Microsoft is doing so poorly...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
If you're such a hotshot web designer, why have you committed one of the cardinal sins of web design: Putting an "entry page" that does nothing but suck bandwidth and make it difficult to "back" out of a site?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Maybe the military was thinking in a game-theoretic manner, but it is hard to see how their doing so was anything more than an excuse for agressive, intimidating behavior...
"agressive, intimidating behavior" and "game theory" are not opposites. They are indepenent variables. That is, you can be using game theory and/or you can be using agression.
After all, the situation seems very remote from a game as it would ideally be defined.
Then you don't know diddly about game theory.
How do they make an argument that by choosing "rocket" their payoff is on average higher except by relying on their own *opinions* on Soviet behavior?
1) These "opinions" would have been the most well-researched and -funded in all of history up to that date. Remember we're talking about Cold War military intelligence
2) All decisions are based on opinions. You won't get anywhere waiting for absolute certitude.
3) They DIDN'T make an argument that the payoff was higher. Do YOU remember a nuke hitting the moon in the late 50's?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First of all, looking back on it nuking the moon seems really dumb.
However, "pissing match" is exactly what it was--and what it was intended to be. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that von Neumann was behind this idea (or at least supported it).
Military strategy since the mid-to-late 1940's has been less about "how many guns do we have" and more about "what moves can we make to force the opponents hand into playing to our strengths". In other words, game theory.
And game theory has a lot to say about bluffing's direct effects (like nuking the moon making the enemy think you are more powerful) or indirect effects (nuking the moon makes the [1950's] citizens more confident which in turn makes the enemy citizens less confidant, providing a nice vicious cycle).
In any case, there were probably some scientific benefits to doing this as well. Selenological research, ballistic stuff, maybe some astronomy, etc.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I think you get the point.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The Linux community??
/. has balls to post this quote after running a headline like "No More Unreal Ports For Linux?".
Good God
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Motif is a widget set built using the X primitives. Opening Motif has no effect on X.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Obviously you didn't even read my post.
"What you are taking when you commit copyright infringement is intellectual property, but you are not depriving the ownder of the same."
No, what I'm taking when I commit copyright infringement is future revenue. And I am depriving him of same. I am STEALING a source of revenue. I have committed theft.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First, let's provide a dictionary link
To quote from the site in question: "...the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same."
The crux here is "felonious taking and removing".
So, is copying theft?
Felonious? Yes (currently)
Taking and removing? Yes, if we think carefully. Let M be a band that derives it's revenue from the selling of CD C. A copy of C, C', totally displaces a copy of C in the marketplace but directs no revenue to M. Therefore the making of C' deprives M of the income from C. I suppose you could make a case that "taking a removing" is different from "diverting before it got there", but highway robbery is still robbery.
This is not to say that I think M is totally in the right and that the theives are totally in the wrong. But let us call a spade a spade and label the thieves "modern day Robin Hoods" rather than trying to re-define them out of existence.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
So when I say "black hole" to children born after 2001, it's going to sound like my grandfather saying "luminiferous aether" did 100 years ago. On the other hand, it was bound to happen. The name "'polka' dots" was cashing in on a polka (dance) craze. "'Radio' flyer" wagons had nothing to do with radio. "Internet ready" is probably today's equivalent. Or "i-", "e-" or "cyber-" anything.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1) "...a free forum that tends to bring the cream to the top of the chaos."
/. Editorial Crew are split on this issue then all my fears about the Slashdot takeover(s) have come true. Even if Andover decided to do the right thing, the fact that the right answer wasn't obvious AND that Andover could veto Taco is evil itself. (yes, I meant to bold all of that)
Well....as long as by "cream" you mean "most widely popular". And using that definition Windows is also the cream.
2) "I'm hoping that Andover.Net takes this to court."
Hoping? Hoping?? If there is even a smidgen of a chance that Andover and the
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
This Kerberos "extension" was intended to lock Samba out of the server market. The other features of Win2k are easily emulated using LDAP and so forth. But if only Win2k can authenticate, Samba is relegated to second fiddle.
That's why everyone is making such a big deal about this extension.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Now I know that, deep down, the Slashdot editors (and owners) are anti-censorship and, specifically, anti-removing-the-comments.
BUT, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. That is, if Microsoft actual sues (or threatens to), Slashdot may cave for financial reasons.
So I propose the following: If Slashdot removes the comments without having been forced to by an actual court ruling, we boycott Slashdot. Hopefully that will provide the needed reverse financial pressure.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Starship Troopers was no good. Quite the opposite. I'm just contrasting ST general wholesomeness to Friday's...errrr....less than wholesomeness.
Of course, the ST movie wasn't for kids either...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Here's the exploit:
1) Find a story about technology (if your name is "Katz" this step is unneeded)
2) Skim the headline of said story to "get the gist".
3) Submit story to Slashdot, paying special attention to making it seem like this story is related to some hot topic.
For instance, if the story is about a misconfigured website allowing a security breach, make it seem like the story is related to a recent email worm by working "email" and "Visual Basic Scripting" in there somehow.
What's the effect of this exploit: In all the excitement of having another Microsoft bashing story will hurriedly type your submission onto the front page with plenty of spelling errors and word omissions.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I need to get on the bandwagon. Everyone is computing with molecules and here I am like a dolt, using pure energy.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Very good. "Friday" was the first Heinlein I ever read (that I know of anyway). Starship Troopers was still kind of kid-oriented, Friday definitely is not. Still, I personally would recommend it down to around 13/14.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I'm not all that old, but nearly all my SF reading was from small libraries with old collections. So I'm very familiar with, say, 40's-70's and less familiar with 80's and 90's.
Which leads me to my point: A lot of the ideas people are remembering as being from recent writers ("virtual reality" from Gibson and "corps more powerful than gov'ts" from Robinson) have actually been around for a LONG time.
In fact, both of these have precursors from Heinlein. And, as much as I like Heinlein and as inventive as he clearly was, I doubt he made up all these ideas himself.
I hope these researchers treat this search in true scholarly fashion: Give credit to the first author to have written down a given idea. I'd hate to see, say, Gerrold get credit for inventing the time machine instead of Wells (or Twain, or ???).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Read "Friday" by Heinlein.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?