Which you are not. Computers are not as much a part of our lives as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Try this and then come back and talk to me.
Now, to the poster. Don't hurt yourself. Don't hurt them. You aren't a teacher, and don't know how to be one. So at least be a babysitter for a while. With the limited amount of time you have, there are only two possible goals to shoot for, depending on the kids in the class.
If the kids are scared of computers, a familiarity and comfort level with them is not bad after a few weeks. Playing solitaire, hitting a few sites.
If they are comfortable, best thing to do is teach 'em how to use the net. sorry, but any form of programming (even logo, and other languages that will give results quickly) is a waste of time. This is the old viewpoint that computer users also had to be computer mechanics. Doesn't wash in this day and age. They'll get just as much from learning WordPad as learning the same basic functions in Word. (and don't even think of giving them emacs. They'll definately never touch a 'puter again, and that's coming from someone who likes emacs)
You have no idea what you are going to get from the students. Some may be geniuses, others not. Aim for the least common denominator, and give some free reign to the ones who have a clue. Resign yourself to reinstallations. No big deal.
But if you get a kid who can't read or doesn't know his multiplication tables up to 10x10, don't waste his time or your time. He'd be much better off learning those than dicking around playing Doom.
I'm not hoity-toity enough for my opinions to matter to the Villiage Voice. I live on the border between the red states and the blue states;) But if you want to beat your head against the wall, send email to editor@villiagevoice.com or fill out the area at: http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/letters.shtml
Remember to be careful when feeding the trolls.
Here is my letter:
It seems that Mr. Dibbell has some sort of chip on his shoulder. Did some geek wipe out his bank account? Run off with his girl? Beat him in a game of StreetFighter?
I'm not certain what his article regarding Lord of the Rings is supposed to prove. An animus towards 'geeks' is the only common thread through his various ramblings. That and apparant jealousy that Mr. Tolkien (and Lucas) have achieved far more success than he ever will.
While many have referred to LOTR as literature, a great artistic work, and so forth, that is mostly in jest. Most people I know (and granted, the people with whom I have discussed LOTR are ensconsed neither in academia nor in the entertainment industry, thus invalidating their existence with respect to such as Mr. Dibbell) who have read the work accept it for what it is: an incredibly long series of children's stories set in a wholly imagined world.
So perhaps it is not high art. So what? Much of what we regard today as literature (Shakespeare, Chaucer, the greek tragedies, and so forth) are 'merely' entertainment. Or at least that is what they were originally.
The 'feature' fails in the most important respect: justifying its' own existence. It certainly adds nothing new to the discussion of the literary value (or lack thereof) of the LOTR series. It fails to properly cite any of the numerous references made to the original and intelligent criticisms made by others. There is a half-hearted attempt to denigrate modern society, the United States, and the internet. Even this fails, as the two points upon which these criticisms are based lack foundation. First that 'mere entertainment' is a bad thing. Second that there is anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the notion that a high percentage of those in technology, for instance, have read LOTR, view it as 'serious literature', and that this somehow indicates a flaw or at least a system to their thinking.
The lack of quality and direction of and in this feature leave me wanting to say much more. Unfortunately, there is so little of substance with which to argue.
There is a website called slashdot (from where I learned of this article) that contains areas for article discussion. When one writes commentary whose sole purpose is to incite argument, it is referred to as a 'troll'. In my estimation, Julian Dibbell has proven himself to be a troll. And one with much less to say than those who grace the pages of JRR Tolkien's works.
Fair enough. I would like to couch this however in terms that the original poster implied (somewhat circuitously) that this might be the case.
But maybe a more accurate assessment is that being in a community with such a large mormon population, similar people wind up in power structures throughout. So while there is no tacit collusion between parties, having a similar background lends the appearance.
Physical property is a limited resource. There are only so many acres of land, so many barrels of oil, so many bushels of grain, and so many tons of steel.
Ideas are limitless in quantity.
Limited items require more protection than unlimited items. Which requires more protection: the Hope diamond or 1000 tons of coal?
I have not decided whether or not I agree that IP is a legal fiction. Regardless, your arguments are not convincing.
They shouldn't have to censor Jon Katz any more than the Washington Post censors George Will on the editorial page. But most of JK's stories should be classified as 'editorial' or 'commentary', rather than a 'feature'. At least in a site that claims to be a NEWS site.
Some people would answer your second point with k5. I wouldn't. Just never liked it that much.
Finally, while JK retains copyright on his postings, it doesn't prevent the fair use copying and pasting of them to other sites in order to disseminate and discuss them. It should even be legal to deep-link directly to his stuff.
But yeah, given the lack of competition, there is no downside (that I'm aware of) to OCL'ing much of the content of Slashdot in general.
Felten is doing what is right and proper in the United States to change things: he is using the courts.
At least there is *something* here. Frequently, these type of suits are brought before there is ANY issue.
I don't give two shits whether this case is about money. If it means the DMCA is dumped like it should be, so be it.
This suit has a better chance of success than Corley's.
First, Corley is a bit of a wanker. Sure, Felton may look smug, but Corley IS smug.
Second, Felton and the gang are researchers, trying to publish their original work. There must be some legal terminology, but I have no doubt that the originator has greater rights than a reporter.
Third, Corley ignored (or intelligently skirted) an injunction.
Fourth, Corley's case had some weirdness involving to what extent code is speech. This case is much clearer.
Finally, Corley was/is a defendant, using the problems of the DMCA as a defense. Felten being a plaintiff changes the way the game is played. Much like the MPAA set the rules in the decss case, Felten et al. get to set the groundwork in this case.
It's clear that Corley's case is going poorly, and so now it is time to open up the second front. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the EFF has learned from that experience, and will apply those lessons to this case.
So, of course this lawsuit is a setup. That's the way the US legal system can work.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the 'founder's intent' is rarely relevant. In fact, the purpose of the US Supreme Court has largely evolved to determine what something may have meant, and what it should mean today.
Go back and reread the first amendment. It says nothing about political speech. It says speech. Furthermore, living conditions in a local area frequently form the basis of political speech in that same local area.
Maybe you are too far removed from campus life, but quality of life issues are biggies on campuses. Now please tell me how/where you draw the line between 'campus life' and 'political' speech. (Again, it doesn't matter, as speech is protected.)
Now that you have slapped yourself by actually reading something, go back and read the original article. He isn't whinging about the site being taken down. He seems rather accepting of that (moreso than I would be). The problems seem to be three:
First, the University pressed some bogus charge. Not sure of the nature of it (as it's not mentioned explicitly) but that goes far beyond getting rid of the site/servers.
Second, the University will likely deny him a degree. Why?
With these first two problems, we honestly need more details. Certainly there is a code of conduct at the University. What did he do to break this, thus causing the suspension and denial of degree. This seems to be his biggest issue (don't forget his responses on www.slash.com). But rather than stick up for him right away, I will say that we need more info. Ditto the criminal charges. What law(s) were allegedly broken? Finally, did the University attempt to notify him of the problems and potential infringements? If not, it's a pretty asinine policy.
The third problem is the one that is of most concern to me: the university stole and co-opted his intellectual property. Barring an agreement between him and the University, it is likely that the custom coding of slashcode (if any) the theming, the custom graphics, etc. are his. Similarly, if he posted stories (like on Slashdot) unless there is an agreement to the contrary (and this could easily be covered under the generic University code of conduct) these belong to the original poster. Same thing with the graphics. They took it from him, and got legal protection to do so. How? Likely the same Mormon racket owns both the university and the local judiciary.
It's fine that the local situation (politics, community, etc.) are different than from where I live. No problem. But there are certain laws that protect the rights of citizens. Even in Utah. And theft of IP doesn't sound like something that would be ok, even in Utah.
Your point about being able to host his site elsewhere is about 95% wrong. Since the University has decided that things that HE created belong to the University, he cannot take HIS graphics, HIS commentary, HIS user lists, and take them elsewhere without a big frickin' lawsuit (hence the reason I left a 5% chance of you being correct).
Try and get your facts straight and think a little bit before you post. Remember your SATs (and if you haven't taken them yet, here's something to study)? They had a section on finding the main topic of a reading. The main topic of this reading was not/is not 'they shut down my servers'. The main topic is 'they stole my intellectual property'.
Given your staggeringly high user number, I'll assume that you haven't heard this before:
Filter out Katz stories. Filter out Michael stories. Filter out whatever type of stories you don't like.
The story filters aren't perfect. But they work fairly well. Well enough that you shouldn't even notice the paranoid ramblings. As a matter of fact, you may want to disable everything except tech and hardware.
I think Jon works for himself (freelancer) but I'm not sure.
To answer your other points: I agree that corporations are a boon to tyranny. I see two problems (at least in the US. That's my POV, deal with it) with corporations that are somewhat related.
First, corporations are legal 'citizens' with rights. This is a new idea, and not the way corporations were intended. They were intended for the narrow purpose of surviving the owner of the corporation. This eventually got extended to include the 'right' to be taxed and the separation of liability (in some instances).
Now, the problem arises as courts and legislatures have continuously extended what it means for a corporation to be a 'person' under terms of law. Corporations have the right to free speech (including lobbying rights) they have various civil rights (absurd, since a corporation, if it is a person, is a slave, owned by one or more people). They also have the right to welfare (witness the level of protectionism on trade that exists in the US. Calling it welfare is perhaps unfair to the people who do need and deserve such a service.) This is the first big problem: corporations have tons of rights. They can do almost anything except vote. Due to their financial might, their voice carries more weight than the voice of a human person.
Combine this with point two: corporations have none of the responsibilities of a human person. They don't have to pay taxes (in theory, they do, but how many corporations pay taxes on a level anything like you and I?) They no longer have to be in the public interest (like their original mandates) and they certainly are in no way subject to criminal penalties.
This last is the most harmful. Civil penalties are incomplete, and allow the offender to continue their piss-poor behaviour. (Witness the behaviour of the baby bells and the behaviour of microsoft following civil 'penalties') Businesses must have criminal penalties (limiting their ability to do business, or simply to exist) and they must be used by the courts.
And about this, there is not one fucking thing the average citizen can do. Not one. Not voting, not killing people (see my post in this topic).
Personally, I'm thinking of moving to MT and stockpiling some large caliber weapons.
The death or incapacitation of Bill Gates would bring M$ to a screeching halt. Let us assume that he is 'only' the company visionary, and it's really being led by Ballmer. Doesn't matter. He is the Sun King, the royal emperor, King Arthur, the (dare I say it?) the Linus Torvalds.
Sure, things will go on, but without the fanaticism and cult-like tones (notice that this can be applied equally to Linux. Interesting.) No longer can the media speak of the 'boy genius programmer'.
Perhaps more importantly, Bill is there to provide focus, unity, and discipline. Look to Wal-Mart. Following the demise of Sam Walton, the formerly united management front became fractured and embroiled in legal bouts and in-fighting. Sure, the company is still quite successfuly, but it derailed them for a while.
Look at IBM. Following the death/resignation (forget which) of the guy who led the company from the 30's until?? they became rudderless and run by the buracrats (sp). Took a long time (until they found the current guy, with the power and charisma to unify the company) to get back into fighting shape.
Look at Apple. While getting rid of Jobs was the best thing they could do (and Amelio got a REALLY bad rap) because of his less than stellar management techniques, it turns out that his personality and drive were more important to the company.
And while Alan Cox could easily take over Linus' role from a technical standpoint, let's face it, the press loves Linus.
Which brings us back to Bill. If he were to meet with an unfortunate accident, M$ would be in shambles. Until someone could grab the reins. While Ballmer may be able to run the company, I'm not sure that he could rally the troops in the same way.
So while Gates et al. may know how to capture the world, he is thus far forgetting one thing: how to preserve his legacy. Great conquests (be they military, business, or whatever) frequently only last until the death of the figurehead.
I wouldn't advocate Bill's death. But I would advocate extraditing him to the former Soviet Union and have him sent to a gulag.
Good points. As usual, IANAL, but let me try to address a few that I don't quite agree with:
First, it would be difficult to prove damages, except for a few things. Let us say that Linus and Linus alone coded every single line of the Linux source code. He could easily choose to license code under the GPL, but make the code available to MicroSoft under a different license. Let's say that he wants $10 per copy of derivative works, or just a flat $1 million fee. M$ balks, and does the work anyway with the GPL code. There is a 'loss' right there.
Another situation: my project is available as GPL. I don't offer an additional license. M$ takes my code, compiles it, and sells it for $100 per copy. I get a copy of the software, and ask for my copy of the code. They refuse. I assume that they have made $1 million worth of improvements to the code. There is my loss. (I include purchasing it, because they have to distribute to violate the GPL).
The losses are not direct, but any creative lawyer/accountant/MBA should be able to contrive a scenario that equates to a loss. You may also ask for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
My biggest concern is the David vs. Goliath scenario that you mentioned and that was mentioned in the original article. That's why FSF is around. Sure, they aren't M$ big, but they are a hell of a lot bigger than I am. The only problem is that many people aren't going to assign the rights to their code to the FSF. I haven't read the agreement in over a year, but if I remember, it's not a bad one. The only loss I remember is that you would be unable to license your own code to M$ for a charge. This could matter to some projects, but it seems that these are very rare.
I agree that Free/Open Software CAN win on technical merits. But with the embrace and extend policy, it's going to be a constant battle, and frequently a defensive battle. I am truly amazed that the Samba team is still going. How can they (even in the face of fresh group members) keep updating to correct for Microsoft's protocol changes?
For the second edge of that sword, look at how patents seem to work in the US (and by extension, much of the western world). What is to stop Microsoft from extending... HTML5, creating a browser that only works with their codes, and then patenting every last bit of it? If you own the desktop and a good portion of the server space (hey, lots of people use Apache, but lots of people use IIS as well) alternatives are in it up to their eyeballs. (Of course, anti-trust litigation should take care of these sorts of things, but that is certainly a crap-shoot) Fair use and copyrights usually let things like Samba get by; patents can 'correct' that 'mistake'.
What right does the sys-admin have to monitor what programs are installed in/usr? Why should they be virus checking our email? What gives them the right to make sure that our software is properly licensed?
The computer is your employer's property, and the apartment (condo, whatever) is the property of the landlord. Your right to privacy begins and ends at your front door, and even that is somewhat limited (every lease I have seen for residential property allows the landlord access with either notice or under emergency situations.)
Now, this group that got the things installed may be small. But perhaps the 'silent majority' just doesn't care as much as you do. If they do, then it's time for you (plural) to stop being so quiet. Go bitch to the management. It may not do anything, but it beats whinging on/.
Finally, if none of this works, and you are still po'ed, move. Either move to a new place without the 'draconian' surveilance, or buy a house. I did the latter (for reasons largely unrelated to your dissatisfaction with your current situation. To whit, I couldn't fix cars or bikes in the parking lot without violating the terms of my lease.) It sucks in that I have to: mow my own lawn, fix my own plumbing, appliances, etc, I have to get my own security. But, I can fix stuff in the yard, punch holes in the drywall, cover the walls in shag carpet, or whatever I want. I also get a nifty break in my income tax (that doesn't cover the difference in costs, but oh well).
So, what have we learned:
If they don't have cameras inside your door, that's their right.
If you don't like it complain.
If they don't change, and you can't deal with it, move.
Sorry, but this sounds like something that the/. crowd should be against. Make your decision with your wallet like a good Libertarian.
I agree. Just calling it P2P does nothing except to make the arrangement 'buzzword compliant'. Setting up a coop or some similar arrangement is what it seems the poster really has in mind. And, as you say, the technical hurdles are insignificant WRT the socialogical and business hurdles in such a scheme.
Another thing to be wary of:
Customer: Do you have a flowering chestnut tree?
Shopkeep: No, but it seems that the guy in the next street/town/etc. has one. You could go over there and get it.
Customer: Jeez, I'll just go to the mega store and save myself the running around.
Many mom-and-pop shops have died by trying to go toe-to-toe with the biggies. Find out what you provide that they don't (service, service, service) and make sure that customers and POTENTIAL customers know about that.
Avoid the buzzwords, and answer the real questions.
I am sure that Joe Wanker is a real person. But given his behaviour in the whole thing, couldn't this be a pseudonym for Darren Reed? I mean seriously, Darren, you release your stuff under your license. Don't get huffy if Theo (who can quite frequently be an ass) doesn't like it, tough shit. Just like ipf is your baby, open is his. Deal with it.
And don't pretend that you just figured out that Theo can be an ass. Next thing you'll say that RMS is a bit rigid.
I recently read an interview with Mr. Steve Ballmer of MicroSoft (http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro 01.html) in which he and the interviewer make several unchallenged statements that should be clarified.
First the interviewer claims that Microsoft has never been in as strong a position financially. That is not true. Microsoft is down considerably from their highest stock price of less than 24 months ago, and their cash reserves are lower. Sales of Windows 2000 are much lower than predicted, forcing a slightly early rollout of Windows XP.
Mr. Ballmer defends recent changes in their licensing policy on the claims that it will be easier and possibly cheaper to consumers. This is not true, at least in my cases, professionally and personally. Under the current software I have under license, I can place and use one and only one copy of that software on any computer that I choose. I can define what a computer is, and I have that license in perpetuity. In addition, should I require a reinstall of software on an existing machine, I am in no way limited.
Under the new plan conceived of by Microsoft, I will be unable to transfer my license to a new machine; I will be forced to purchase a new license for that machine, whether or not I continue to use the old license on the old machine. Microsoft has a legitimate concern about this happening, but in any instance where my company has moved a license from one machine to another, the old machine has either been: stripped for parts, donated to a non-profit or employee AFTER the operating system has been removed, or it has had a version of Linux, BeOS, or BSD installed on it. In no way have I either violated the license, nor have I deprived Microsoft of income. Yet under the new scheme, I am to be considered a criminal, and not to be trusted to manage a simple license myself.
Another problem with the new licensing scheme is the time-limited feature. Currently, I run Windows 98 and Windows NT. Many of the 50 licenses (personal and business) that I manage are older than three years. Purchasing the hardware at the end of our leases provides perfectly functional machines for as long as the hardware holds up. The new functionality that Microsoft periodically develops may be of interest to some consumers, but rarely has it been of interest to my company.
As a taxpayer, I agree with Mr. Ballmer concerning government expenditures for software development. Any government developed software should be licensed under the public domain (which actually qualifies as no license). Unfortunately, I doubt that Mr. Ballmer shares my opinion. I believe that he would prefer that the government help fund software that is in no way open to the public. I can certainly understand his opinion, but I do not agree with it.
Similarly, I do not think that Mr. Ballmer has an accurate grasp of the nature of open source software. Through comments made by him and Messrs. Allchin and Mundie, they seem to have grouped all Open Source Software under the GPL license. While this is a very popular license, it is not the only license that most people would consider open source. IBM, Netscape, and Apple all have open source licenses of their own that are friendly to hobbyists, scientists, professors, and the companies themselves. There exists the LGPL which allows a company to use open source components in closed source projects. Of most interest is the BSD license. Several versions of Unix are released under this license, as are many programs, utilities, and drivers. In this instance, Microsoft has taken code released under the BSD license and used it in their own products. Specifically, I refer to the TCP/IP stack used in Windows 95, 98, and NT. Despite using open source code, Microsoft did not have to open source their operating system.
I would hope that in the future, you perform more hard hitting interviews, and that the interviewer be more aversed with the subject material he is discussing. I must say that I am impressed that the Linux question was raised, but the lack of a quality follow-up shows either editorial mis-discretion in shortening the story, or a basic misunderstanding (shared by Messrs. Ballmer, Allchin, and Mundie) of what exactly is open source (or Open Source, or Free Software).
I can appreciate some of Mr. Ballmer's points, and can even agree with them. Despite using a mixture of many computer products, I do not immediately villify Microsoft. However, I do feel that the arguments that they are trying to make would find more support by others in my situation were they not quite so intellectually bankrupt.
Exactly the point. M$ is deathly afraid that people will figure out that licenses are OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. That goes for M$ stuff as well. Don't like the 'only installable twice' routine? DON'T USE IT!
Slashdot Mirror
Which you are not. Computers are not as much a part of our lives as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Try this and then come back and talk to me.
Now, to the poster. Don't hurt yourself. Don't hurt them. You aren't a teacher, and don't know how to be one. So at least be a babysitter for a while. With the limited amount of time you have, there are only two possible goals to shoot for, depending on the kids in the class.
If the kids are scared of computers, a familiarity and comfort level with them is not bad after a few weeks. Playing solitaire, hitting a few sites.
If they are comfortable, best thing to do is teach 'em how to use the net. sorry, but any form of programming (even logo, and other languages that will give results quickly) is a waste of time. This is the old viewpoint that computer users also had to be computer mechanics. Doesn't wash in this day and age. They'll get just as much from learning WordPad as learning the same basic functions in Word. (and don't even think of giving them emacs. They'll definately never touch a 'puter again, and that's coming from someone who likes emacs)
You have no idea what you are going to get from the students. Some may be geniuses, others not. Aim for the least common denominator, and give some free reign to the ones who have a clue. Resign yourself to reinstallations. No big deal.
But if you get a kid who can't read or doesn't know his multiplication tables up to 10x10, don't waste his time or your time. He'd be much better off learning those than dicking around playing Doom.
"Every time someone asks when I will release slash to the public, I extend the date by one day."
I'm not hoity-toity enough for my opinions to matter to the Villiage Voice. I live on the border between the red states and the blue states;) But if you want to beat your head against the wall, send email to editor@villiagevoice.com or fill out the area at: http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/letters.shtml
Remember to be careful when feeding the trolls.
Here is my letter:
It seems that Mr. Dibbell has some sort of chip on his shoulder. Did some geek wipe out his bank account? Run off with his girl? Beat him in a game of StreetFighter?
I'm not certain what his article regarding Lord of the Rings is supposed to prove. An animus towards 'geeks' is the only common thread through his various ramblings. That and apparant jealousy that Mr. Tolkien (and Lucas) have achieved far more success than he ever will.
While many have referred to LOTR as literature, a great artistic work, and so forth, that is mostly in jest. Most people I know (and granted, the people with whom I have discussed LOTR are ensconsed neither in academia nor in the entertainment industry, thus invalidating their existence with respect to such as Mr. Dibbell) who have read the work accept it for what it is: an incredibly long series of children's stories set in a wholly imagined world.
So perhaps it is not high art. So what? Much of what we regard today as literature (Shakespeare, Chaucer, the greek tragedies, and so forth) are 'merely' entertainment. Or at least that is what they were originally.
The 'feature' fails in the most important respect: justifying its' own existence. It certainly adds nothing new to the discussion of the literary value (or lack thereof) of the LOTR series. It fails to properly cite any of the numerous references made to the original and intelligent criticisms made by others. There is a half-hearted attempt to denigrate modern society, the United States, and the internet. Even this fails, as the two points upon which these criticisms are based lack foundation. First that 'mere entertainment' is a bad thing. Second that there is anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the notion that a high percentage of those in technology, for instance, have read LOTR, view it as 'serious literature', and that this somehow indicates a flaw or at least a system to their thinking.
The lack of quality and direction of and in this feature leave me wanting to say much more. Unfortunately, there is so little of substance with which to argue.
There is a website called slashdot (from where I learned of this article) that contains areas for article discussion. When one writes commentary whose sole purpose is to incite argument, it is referred to as a 'troll'. In my estimation, Julian Dibbell has proven himself to be a troll. And one with much less to say than those who grace the pages of JRR Tolkien's works.
You are absolutely correct. Sorry if it wasn't clear originally.
Fair enough. I would like to couch this however in terms that the original poster implied (somewhat circuitously) that this might be the case.
But maybe a more accurate assessment is that being in a community with such a large mormon population, similar people wind up in power structures throughout. So while there is no tacit collusion between parties, having a similar background lends the appearance.
Physical property is a limited resource. There are only so many acres of land, so many barrels of oil, so many bushels of grain, and so many tons of steel.
Ideas are limitless in quantity.
Limited items require more protection than unlimited items. Which requires more protection: the Hope diamond or 1000 tons of coal?
I have not decided whether or not I agree that IP is a legal fiction. Regardless, your arguments are not convincing.
They shouldn't have to censor Jon Katz any more than the Washington Post censors George Will on the editorial page. But most of JK's stories should be classified as 'editorial' or 'commentary', rather than a 'feature'. At least in a site that claims to be a NEWS site.
Some people would answer your second point with k5. I wouldn't. Just never liked it that much.
Finally, while JK retains copyright on his postings, it doesn't prevent the fair use copying and pasting of them to other sites in order to disseminate and discuss them. It should even be legal to deep-link directly to his stuff.
But yeah, given the lack of competition, there is no downside (that I'm aware of) to OCL'ing much of the content of Slashdot in general.
I've been in the mood to feed the trolls today:
Felten is doing what is right and proper in the United States to change things: he is using the courts.
At least there is *something* here. Frequently, these type of suits are brought before there is ANY issue.
I don't give two shits whether this case is about money. If it means the DMCA is dumped like it should be, so be it.
This suit has a better chance of success than Corley's.
First, Corley is a bit of a wanker. Sure, Felton may look smug, but Corley IS smug.
Second, Felton and the gang are researchers, trying to publish their original work. There must be some legal terminology, but I have no doubt that the originator has greater rights than a reporter.
Third, Corley ignored (or intelligently skirted) an injunction.
Fourth, Corley's case had some weirdness involving to what extent code is speech. This case is much clearer.
Finally, Corley was/is a defendant, using the problems of the DMCA as a defense. Felten being a plaintiff changes the way the game is played. Much like the MPAA set the rules in the decss case, Felten et al. get to set the groundwork in this case.
It's clear that Corley's case is going poorly, and so now it is time to open up the second front. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the EFF has learned from that experience, and will apply those lessons to this case.
So, of course this lawsuit is a setup. That's the way the US legal system can work.
I haven't read the filing, but I believe that including Ashcroft is a formality to include the DOJ.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the 'founder's intent' is rarely relevant. In fact, the purpose of the US Supreme Court has largely evolved to determine what something may have meant, and what it should mean today.
Go back and reread the first amendment. It says nothing about political speech. It says speech. Furthermore, living conditions in a local area frequently form the basis of political speech in that same local area.
Maybe you are too far removed from campus life, but quality of life issues are biggies on campuses. Now please tell me how/where you draw the line between 'campus life' and 'political' speech. (Again, it doesn't matter, as speech is protected.)
Now that you have slapped yourself by actually reading something, go back and read the original article. He isn't whinging about the site being taken down. He seems rather accepting of that (moreso than I would be). The problems seem to be three:
First, the University pressed some bogus charge. Not sure of the nature of it (as it's not mentioned explicitly) but that goes far beyond getting rid of the site/servers.
Second, the University will likely deny him a degree. Why?
With these first two problems, we honestly need more details. Certainly there is a code of conduct at the University. What did he do to break this, thus causing the suspension and denial of degree. This seems to be his biggest issue (don't forget his responses on www.slash.com). But rather than stick up for him right away, I will say that we need more info. Ditto the criminal charges. What law(s) were allegedly broken? Finally, did the University attempt to notify him of the problems and potential infringements? If not, it's a pretty asinine policy.
The third problem is the one that is of most concern to me: the university stole and co-opted his intellectual property. Barring an agreement between him and the University, it is likely that the custom coding of slashcode (if any) the theming, the custom graphics, etc. are his. Similarly, if he posted stories (like on Slashdot) unless there is an agreement to the contrary (and this could easily be covered under the generic University code of conduct) these belong to the original poster. Same thing with the graphics. They took it from him, and got legal protection to do so. How? Likely the same Mormon racket owns both the university and the local judiciary.
It's fine that the local situation (politics, community, etc.) are different than from where I live. No problem. But there are certain laws that protect the rights of citizens. Even in Utah. And theft of IP doesn't sound like something that would be ok, even in Utah.
Your point about being able to host his site elsewhere is about 95% wrong. Since the University has decided that things that HE created belong to the University, he cannot take HIS graphics, HIS commentary, HIS user lists, and take them elsewhere without a big frickin' lawsuit (hence the reason I left a 5% chance of you being correct).
Try and get your facts straight and think a little bit before you post. Remember your SATs (and if you haven't taken them yet, here's something to study)? They had a section on finding the main topic of a reading. The main topic of this reading was not/is not 'they shut down my servers'. The main topic is 'they stole my intellectual property'.
c. You have regressed.
It's Jon Katz. He doesn't speak for Slashdot. He speaks for JK. (And sometimes he likes to speak for the downtrodden nerds in high schools)
Hmmm... Yeah, the only way to add programs to /usr is with explicit permission.
Sure you aren't one of them security experts? Hired by internetconnect maybe?
Given your staggeringly high user number, I'll assume that you haven't heard this before:
Filter out Katz stories. Filter out Michael stories. Filter out whatever type of stories you don't like.
The story filters aren't perfect. But they work fairly well. Well enough that you shouldn't even notice the paranoid ramblings. As a matter of fact, you may want to disable everything except tech and hardware.
Try this: http://slashdot.org/users.pl
I think Jon works for himself (freelancer) but I'm not sure.
To answer your other points: I agree that corporations are a boon to tyranny. I see two problems (at least in the US. That's my POV, deal with it) with corporations that are somewhat related.
First, corporations are legal 'citizens' with rights. This is a new idea, and not the way corporations were intended. They were intended for the narrow purpose of surviving the owner of the corporation. This eventually got extended to include the 'right' to be taxed and the separation of liability (in some instances).
Now, the problem arises as courts and legislatures have continuously extended what it means for a corporation to be a 'person' under terms of law. Corporations have the right to free speech (including lobbying rights) they have various civil rights (absurd, since a corporation, if it is a person, is a slave, owned by one or more people). They also have the right to welfare (witness the level of protectionism on trade that exists in the US. Calling it welfare is perhaps unfair to the people who do need and deserve such a service.) This is the first big problem: corporations have tons of rights. They can do almost anything except vote. Due to their financial might, their voice carries more weight than the voice of a human person.
Combine this with point two: corporations have none of the responsibilities of a human person. They don't have to pay taxes (in theory, they do, but how many corporations pay taxes on a level anything like you and I?) They no longer have to be in the public interest (like their original mandates) and they certainly are in no way subject to criminal penalties.
This last is the most harmful. Civil penalties are incomplete, and allow the offender to continue their piss-poor behaviour. (Witness the behaviour of the baby bells and the behaviour of microsoft following civil 'penalties') Businesses must have criminal penalties (limiting their ability to do business, or simply to exist) and they must be used by the courts.
And about this, there is not one fucking thing the average citizen can do. Not one. Not voting, not killing people (see my post in this topic).
Personally, I'm thinking of moving to MT and stockpiling some large caliber weapons.
The death or incapacitation of Bill Gates would bring M$ to a screeching halt. Let us assume that he is 'only' the company visionary, and it's really being led by Ballmer. Doesn't matter. He is the Sun King, the royal emperor, King Arthur, the (dare I say it?) the Linus Torvalds.
Sure, things will go on, but without the fanaticism and cult-like tones (notice that this can be applied equally to Linux. Interesting.) No longer can the media speak of the 'boy genius programmer'.
Perhaps more importantly, Bill is there to provide focus, unity, and discipline. Look to Wal-Mart. Following the demise of Sam Walton, the formerly united management front became fractured and embroiled in legal bouts and in-fighting. Sure, the company is still quite successfuly, but it derailed them for a while.
Look at IBM. Following the death/resignation (forget which) of the guy who led the company from the 30's until?? they became rudderless and run by the buracrats (sp). Took a long time (until they found the current guy, with the power and charisma to unify the company) to get back into fighting shape.
Look at Apple. While getting rid of Jobs was the best thing they could do (and Amelio got a REALLY bad rap) because of his less than stellar management techniques, it turns out that his personality and drive were more important to the company.
And while Alan Cox could easily take over Linus' role from a technical standpoint, let's face it, the press loves Linus.
Which brings us back to Bill. If he were to meet with an unfortunate accident, M$ would be in shambles. Until someone could grab the reins. While Ballmer may be able to run the company, I'm not sure that he could rally the troops in the same way.
So while Gates et al. may know how to capture the world, he is thus far forgetting one thing: how to preserve his legacy. Great conquests (be they military, business, or whatever) frequently only last until the death of the figurehead.
I wouldn't advocate Bill's death. But I would advocate extraditing him to the former Soviet Union and have him sent to a gulag.
Short of this, I don't see a solution.
No. You just have fewer friends;)
Good points. As usual, IANAL, but let me try to address a few that I don't quite agree with:
First, it would be difficult to prove damages, except for a few things. Let us say that Linus and Linus alone coded every single line of the Linux source code. He could easily choose to license code under the GPL, but make the code available to MicroSoft under a different license. Let's say that he wants $10 per copy of derivative works, or just a flat $1 million fee. M$ balks, and does the work anyway with the GPL code. There is a 'loss' right there.
Another situation: my project is available as GPL. I don't offer an additional license. M$ takes my code, compiles it, and sells it for $100 per copy. I get a copy of the software, and ask for my copy of the code. They refuse. I assume that they have made $1 million worth of improvements to the code. There is my loss. (I include purchasing it, because they have to distribute to violate the GPL).
The losses are not direct, but any creative lawyer/accountant/MBA should be able to contrive a scenario that equates to a loss. You may also ask for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
My biggest concern is the David vs. Goliath scenario that you mentioned and that was mentioned in the original article. That's why FSF is around. Sure, they aren't M$ big, but they are a hell of a lot bigger than I am. The only problem is that many people aren't going to assign the rights to their code to the FSF. I haven't read the agreement in over a year, but if I remember, it's not a bad one. The only loss I remember is that you would be unable to license your own code to M$ for a charge. This could matter to some projects, but it seems that these are very rare.
I agree that Free/Open Software CAN win on technical merits. But with the embrace and extend policy, it's going to be a constant battle, and frequently a defensive battle. I am truly amazed that the Samba team is still going. How can they (even in the face of fresh group members) keep updating to correct for Microsoft's protocol changes?
For the second edge of that sword, look at how patents seem to work in the US (and by extension, much of the western world). What is to stop Microsoft from extending... HTML5, creating a browser that only works with their codes, and then patenting every last bit of it? If you own the desktop and a good portion of the server space (hey, lots of people use Apache, but lots of people use IIS as well) alternatives are in it up to their eyeballs. (Of course, anti-trust litigation should take care of these sorts of things, but that is certainly a crap-shoot) Fair use and copyrights usually let things like Samba get by; patents can 'correct' that 'mistake'.
What right does the sys-admin have to monitor what programs are installed in /usr? Why should they be virus checking our email? What gives them the right to make sure that our software is properly licensed?
/.
/. crowd should be against. Make your decision with your wallet like a good Libertarian.
The computer is your employer's property, and the apartment (condo, whatever) is the property of the landlord. Your right to privacy begins and ends at your front door, and even that is somewhat limited (every lease I have seen for residential property allows the landlord access with either notice or under emergency situations.)
Now, this group that got the things installed may be small. But perhaps the 'silent majority' just doesn't care as much as you do. If they do, then it's time for you (plural) to stop being so quiet. Go bitch to the management. It may not do anything, but it beats whinging on
Finally, if none of this works, and you are still po'ed, move. Either move to a new place without the 'draconian' surveilance, or buy a house. I did the latter (for reasons largely unrelated to your dissatisfaction with your current situation. To whit, I couldn't fix cars or bikes in the parking lot without violating the terms of my lease.) It sucks in that I have to: mow my own lawn, fix my own plumbing, appliances, etc, I have to get my own security. But, I can fix stuff in the yard, punch holes in the drywall, cover the walls in shag carpet, or whatever I want. I also get a nifty break in my income tax (that doesn't cover the difference in costs, but oh well).
So, what have we learned:
If they don't have cameras inside your door, that's their right.
If you don't like it complain.
If they don't change, and you can't deal with it, move.
Sorry, but this sounds like something that the
I agree. Just calling it P2P does nothing except to make the arrangement 'buzzword compliant'. Setting up a coop or some similar arrangement is what it seems the poster really has in mind. And, as you say, the technical hurdles are insignificant WRT the socialogical and business hurdles in such a scheme.
Another thing to be wary of:
Customer: Do you have a flowering chestnut tree?
Shopkeep: No, but it seems that the guy in the next street/town/etc. has one. You could go over there and get it.
Customer: Jeez, I'll just go to the mega store and save myself the running around.
Many mom-and-pop shops have died by trying to go toe-to-toe with the biggies. Find out what you provide that they don't (service, service, service) and make sure that customers and POTENTIAL customers know about that.
Avoid the buzzwords, and answer the real questions.
>>Maybe their employees were extremely ugly or hideously deformed, and they were just trying to spare us the horrror.
I thought the slashdot crew was US based...
G13 technology. Like Emil's arm.
A pound of C4 located convniently to your neighborhood plant should take care of Qwest's plans (or lack thereof)
And don't pretend that you just figured out that Theo can be an ass. Next thing you'll say that RMS is a bit rigid.
I recently read an interview with Mr. Steve Ballmer of MicroSoft (http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro 01.html) in which he and the interviewer make several unchallenged statements that should be clarified.
First the interviewer claims that Microsoft has never been in as strong a position financially. That is not true. Microsoft is down considerably from their highest stock price of less than 24 months ago, and their cash reserves are lower. Sales of Windows 2000 are much lower than predicted, forcing a slightly early rollout of Windows XP.
Mr. Ballmer defends recent changes in their licensing policy on the claims that it will be easier and possibly cheaper to consumers. This is not true, at least in my cases, professionally and personally. Under the current software I have under license, I can place and use one and only one copy of that software on any computer that I choose. I can define what a computer is, and I have that license in perpetuity. In addition, should I require a reinstall of software on an existing machine, I am in no way limited.
Under the new plan conceived of by Microsoft, I will be unable to transfer my license to a new machine; I will be forced to purchase a new license for that machine, whether or not I continue to use the old license on the old machine. Microsoft has a legitimate concern about this happening, but in any instance where my company has moved a license from one machine to another, the old machine has either been: stripped for parts, donated to a non-profit or employee AFTER the operating system has been removed, or it has had a version of Linux, BeOS, or BSD installed on it. In no way have I either violated the license, nor have I deprived Microsoft of income. Yet under the new scheme, I am to be considered a criminal, and not to be trusted to manage a simple license myself.
Another problem with the new licensing scheme is the time-limited feature. Currently, I run Windows 98 and Windows NT. Many of the 50 licenses (personal and business) that I manage are older than three years. Purchasing the hardware at the end of our leases provides perfectly functional machines for as long as the hardware holds up. The new functionality that Microsoft periodically develops may be of interest to some consumers, but rarely has it been of interest to my company.
As a taxpayer, I agree with Mr. Ballmer concerning government expenditures for software development. Any government developed software should be licensed under the public domain (which actually qualifies as no license). Unfortunately, I doubt that Mr. Ballmer shares my opinion. I believe that he would prefer that the government help fund software that is in no way open to the public. I can certainly understand his opinion, but I do not agree with it.
Similarly, I do not think that Mr. Ballmer has an accurate grasp of the nature of open source software. Through comments made by him and Messrs. Allchin and Mundie, they seem to have grouped all Open Source Software under the GPL license. While this is a very popular license, it is not the only license that most people would consider open source. IBM, Netscape, and Apple all have open source licenses of their own that are friendly to hobbyists, scientists, professors, and the companies themselves. There exists the LGPL which allows a company to use open source components in closed source projects. Of most interest is the BSD license. Several versions of Unix are released under this license, as are many programs, utilities, and drivers. In this instance, Microsoft has taken code released under the BSD license and used it in their own products. Specifically, I refer to the TCP/IP stack used in Windows 95, 98, and NT. Despite using open source code, Microsoft did not have to open source their operating system.
I would hope that in the future, you perform more hard hitting interviews, and that the interviewer be more aversed with the subject material he is discussing. I must say that I am impressed that the Linux question was raised, but the lack of a quality follow-up shows either editorial mis-discretion in shortening the story, or a basic misunderstanding (shared by Messrs. Ballmer, Allchin, and Mundie) of what exactly is open source (or Open Source, or Free Software).
I can appreciate some of Mr. Ballmer's points, and can even agree with them. Despite using a mixture of many computer products, I do not immediately villify Microsoft. However, I do feel that the arguments that they are trying to make would find more support by others in my situation were they not quite so intellectually bankrupt.
Exactly the point. M$ is deathly afraid that people will figure out that licenses are OPTIONAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. That goes for M$ stuff as well. Don't like the 'only installable twice' routine? DON'T USE IT!