There can never truely be a "Microsoft of Linux," for one good reason: It takes more than distro utilities to lock you into a GNU/Linux Operating System.
If Red Hat wanted to, sure, they could very well go far enough in distorting the GNU/Linux Operating System, forcing people to keep using their stuff (for example, developing their own core utilities, compiler, etc). Red Hat has made sure they won't be viewed as a Linopoly^(TM), for example, their willingness to comply with Linux Standard Base.
Red Hat joined the dot-com era at the best possible time; this put them in a position of having the kind of wealth to develop as far as they have, both as a distro and as a company. Unless I hear, "You can't compile Gnome 2.x on Null," I can assure you that's not going to happen. Look at their utilities. Go ahead, take a look at them, what do you see? That's right, the same D* tools on the underside all of us are using: wvdial for rp3, pkg-config with rpm, linuxconf in *most things here* Manager. Hell, half of their GUIs could just be created in wish!
I know I'm usually the one hyping the sensationalization, but if I'm not at the beginning, I have to deFUD.
"Parents beware, Lihnucks is a gateway operating system."
Though it's unlikely anyone will have the chance to read it considering how far behind I am.
With the new digital technology out for broadcasting, combined with integrated technologies (tv meets web browser), one could do something similar to the product placement, however, far more subtle.
First, I'd like to show off a nice already existing example. When people by those magazines that are 85% ads and 12% articles (the remaining three percent includes picture layouts, context, covers, etc), there is a distinction in what people are interested in. A full page advertisement showing a dress gets attention, but no matter who's in it, it doesn't get too much pull from people that would be interested in it. However, when an article shows some model coincidentally (or so one might think, atleast) wearing clothing, be it the same dress, or jeans and a shirt) and she's doing whatever the picture and article relate to (growing her own herbs, for example), people are more likely to attempt purchase those items, as well as gain interest in their own indoor herb garden.
Now, expand this concept to television. Imagine the set having capabilities of many dvd systems, with a moveable pointer and what not. With extraneous data being streamed in the digital image identifying objects and people within the show, the broadcast really has three parts, objects&locations, image and sound. With how extensive much of modern production is, this would include a lot of stuff! Now, when you're watching "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and you see this nifty retro-eighties lamp in The Magic Box, you can either activate and move the cursor to that lamp, or wait until after the show, go back to the scene, and move it to the lamp and select it. You'd probably get a "research now or bookmark for later" option. When you finally choose "research now," you get what it is, whose it is and where you can get one, along with all the buyer's research data you'd be interested in. Chugging down a Mountain Dew wouldn't look right, as most people don't make sure you can see the product label, but selecting whatever was being drunk (or theoretically being drunk/represented) would be far more desirable.
To quote Microsoft, "Who wants a server on the desktop?"
You don't need Tux (the kernel module) and I'm making wild guesses that you have different hardware (though Chris' system isn't exactly "bleeding edge hardware for mass information service.")
Just a thought. What are you using? Some Mandrake was it? Pop open the kerneldrake or configdrake or whatever drake it went to (I swear it moves with every version) and click through the areas you need to redress and fix it that way.
If you can't find where Mandrake is hiding it's kernel utility, the kernel source comes with an "x-config" that you can use (not as purty, but it's just as good). And incase you forgot the obvious, you can get a copy at kernel.org and kernel.org.uk
I don't think you should do that, really
on
Gyroscopic Mouse
·
· Score: 1
If someone walked up to your computer, they might be frightened by seeing the cursor quickly moving up and down...they might think it was haunted or there was a flaw in the driver, and everyone would just be shocked by seeing an error on your non-compliant OS....
You know what this schlemiel needs? A hidden forum; you know, one where everyone who assists there can pre-review and suggest corrections before an article goes out.
Wow, that'd just be peachy.
I believe it's on the roadmap as "someday, in a distant future of a parallel universe."
In case "all'y'all" forgot; the supreme court already ruled "shrinkwrapped licenses" unenforcable.
Now, here's thought, break the "license agreement," and see if anyone dares to do anything. I will ensure funds for court-costs, but not for breaking of actual laws (i.e. putting a copy on KaZaA or MusicCity or gnutella or whatever you choose) that is to say, copyright laws and anything else actually enforcable.
Go nuts! I dare you!
If its unenforcable for software, you can bet it ain't gonna happen on books!
You can link to the post, copy and paste, do what you wish; harrass me at my abi-address, I know this is an easy promise to keep!
In 1998, Mandrake's GNU/Linux OS (6.0, was it?) gave you an option between the last X3 and the still in development X4...in the age of X6.6, why is MandrakeSoft (a subsidiary partner of Macmillian Software, which never ported its cool games to GNU/Linux systems, those bastards) still offering only 4?
Series 5 is fully developed, so, where the schmeck is it?
See the Apple Developers License for an idea of why the concept of "it's free for the taking" is incorrect. Eric and Dickie would both smack you for that one.
Two very useful things in releasing code that has made various projects successful.
First, in the tradition of Dilbert, make a "mission statement" to show the overall direction you want to go with the project and what steps you'll need to take to get there.
The second is to make a "schedual" of the specific tasks and requirements. Example of an email programme:
0.1.0: Initial release to the public 0.2.0: go from just commandline to optional GUI 0.3.0: parse html1 0.4.0: parse html4: limit to purely html 0.5.0: parse more extensive html (css/js) but include permissions for certain actions. 0.6.0: incorporate i18n 0.7.0: include extended MIME capabilities (more filetypes, encryption, md5, pgp etc) 0.8.0: add news protocols 0.9.0: add irc stuff 1.0.0: Clean stablized basic internet utility
Ok, that mutated horribly, and got pretty far in a very short period of time, but you get the idea. This gives people an idea of where to goto.
Additional ideas include making an Architecture and Framework document (a hacking howto, if you will). This way, people that want to develop with the project will no what you intend to do and what you prefer them to stick with.
An additional thought: be willing to let the project be organic; if you're not willing to swing just a li'l bit, you'll get more real hard detractors (whiners) than supporters.
I've been in lots of places (went back to re-reg the place, also got Aron's for amusement sakes)
Currently, I'm almost entirely ignored in Aussie-Land, though I thought about playing with DRicci and telling him I'm only an hour's drive away.
If you're in IRC space i'm at #abiword; learning, understanding, well, mostly, making jokes about Dom's system right now.
CC's out there, but unresponsive and Steven is poking around just to see what I know. Saturn's site is giving me trouble (pop over to roogroup to see YARenovation) I haven't even gotten my email...
Anywho, harrassing DRicci, trying to find a one seat couch, attempting to contact CC, and for an interesting side note, I was in Jail...AGAIN!
"I tell ya what," when I first used Windows, I considred that cryptic. A group? Open one to get to everything? Win3.x was MacNasty or a nasty mac(wannabe), I'm not sure which. Then, there was the Win9x+ME series that was a castrated nonesense version of CDE! If you needed to perform a scandisk (something I didn't understand the need for until this series) You had to go through, what, two or three things? In CDE, you just went up to "Utilities and Maintenance" (now just "utilities") and picked whichever application you needed. I have no intention of going back to Windows until massive changes are made...I hear China's doing a knockoff....
I find it ironic that "a lot of managers are going to equate free with a lack of quality" when, in 1998 and 1999, ither terms "open source" or "Linux" would be considered a good enough reason to invest in an IPO. I think what is occurring now is the shock of waking up from the snow jobs of the Dot[expletive deleted]ed era, which, just to be geeky, would be much like actually waking up in the world of "The Matrix" where the reality is so massively different from the dream. The major difference is the reality now fully exists.
I have read in the past week, through a series of coincidences, various reviews and thoughts about many aspects of Linux once thought unlikely. These various mentions include the easy to install Mandrake, the really decent ongoing support from RedHat and the fully developed applications from, well, too, too many to actually list, but any Linux user would probably recognise them, ranging from Nautilus to GNU Cash.
What I'm more interested in knowing, with the phrase "Linux is a gateway OS" still in my mind, how many more doors will this open as Free/Free and Open Source software and full operating systems develop. What's the GNU OS? Will that be its name? Will its mind-blowing innovations (you really should pop over to the hurd site) result in people giving it a decent eyeballing? With this and Macintosh Darwin Operating System in place, will people give another go at the BSD world?
If investigations into more than just one OS were to begin, Microsoft might be forced to consider POSIX-Compliance and a new business model (Why pay for a crash prone, resource hogging operating system when you can literally pickup a stable, goes almost anywhere operating system for free). In the end, I suppose this part won't happen to soon with the foolish notion of "The Operating System for the Internet." You can have "one degree of separation" in your own environments and joint ventures, why invest even more money into a third party that uses questionable and historically unsafe technology? I do believe third parties will cater to smaller groups (small business and schools) but Microsoft will probably lose a definitive hold on this market quite quickly (despite an inevitable lawsuit).
Of course, these are just my own ramblings; feel free to ignore them as you wish. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, yadda yadda yadda, history of GNU here, bio of Stallman here, marijuana was outlawed by request of cotton farmers, moderation of this topic will result in losing your soul and all that other stuff. VA this, that and the other are/is in no way responsible for how I code the HTML, as long as it doesn't crash slashbot.
First they make sure the problem hasnt already been covered in the Knowledge Base. Yeah, we don't do that.... First, we actually allow people, before filing a bug to check our database. Then, after filling out a form, we allow them to use a more intelligent search routine to check to see if any similar bugs have been encountered. After it's filed, the bugs are checked daily by at least one person to see if it's a duplication. Us open source whacks with our bugzillas and other tracking utilities have nothing like the "Microsoft Misfeatures, Misfits and Malicious Hackers and Pirates" database, in part because we wouldn't know how to use MSSQL with VB Scripting Support.
Then they make sure the problem isnt currently addressed by people working for/with MS. We could never do that; it's easier just to keep status values on these things, especially since it is part of that whole database submission thing.
Finally, they will assign somebody to work on it. Again, you know, we just don't have the ability to setup a bureaucracy of that size. We just have users vote which they think is most important and then see which developer(s) are interested in jumping on it by sending out newsletters and keeping track records and dev-mailing list.
You can use the sub-system clustering to shove the workload back on to the requesting utility if it has itsown processing tool, under the One Seat Couch additions to the abjournouis kernel.
"Deep linking," a term I don't consider in anyway viable, is not protected in the way library indexing is, not in any way. Infact, if you bother to review the DMCA, it is legally questionable, and the largest reason being context.
Let me give you the make believe example you might understand:
Rob puts up an article about Maxtor making a recall.
Rob adds a mention that his own Maxtor HD was making a highly irritating noise.
I link to that article elsewhere, and in that link, I say, "Even Slashdot thinks Maxtor's harddrives are total pieces of S*."
Now, if you aren't in this discussion just to be in some argument with a random/.-member, perhaps you'll be willing to consider the next part of this argument (and do forgive the mention of the Devil's Malevolent Control Aggression).
First off, as far as the article goes, it's just reporting third party news, so, as far as the article goes, it's Maxtor saying Maxtor's HD's are errand. Second, though Rob does represent the site, and though he did make a minor complaint, he did not necessarily suggest his Maxtor harddrive was of low quality. You may even concur that the statement is entirely unjustified and misrepresents Slashdot, Rob and even Maxtor. Now, you may be asking, "But how many people actually do that?" Honestly? Many. Porportionally compared to all other links, very few, but to those who have a vendetta against either Maxtor or Slashdot, too many. Where the DMCA comes in, along with Copyright and Amendments, is the right to protect against misrepresentative context.
Perhaps you would agree that NPR is quite well respected as a fair and objective source of news? If so, their misrepresentation could result in unfair tainting of a third party, just as slashdot is respected in the geek community (though anticipation of story slanting is expected). You may understandably believe that a person would visit a link and say, "Hey! That's not true!" However, in fair-mindedness, the context the link was used in may already set a person's mind in perceiving the article in the way the writer of the referring comment/editorial/article may want them to. People have this bad habit of skimming, and you know what they'll see? "Rob CmdrTaco Malda," "Maxtor recall" and "my maxtor hd has always made this irritating noise." Sure, someone who's pro-Maxtor will say, "But this is Maxtor trying to protect its customers," and "Everyone has their own idea of irritating; just how old is that harddrive anyhow?" If I recall my curves, somewhere around one-fifth will say that, another one-fifth will automatically assume that Slashdot agrees with them and that Maxtor "sucks rubber donkey dick," and that leaves three-fifths of varyingly tainted minds reading and possibly misinterpreting that article. You know how people add hidden psychology and secret reasoning...see any conspiracy theory for more details.
Now attempting to absolutely prevent "deep linking" may fail in court, but have you considered how request-based linking would work out? You really didn't, did you? Therein lies one major flaw of your argument: Linking isn't being prevented, it's being limited and for valid reasons of context supported from the dawn of Ben Franklin's Copyrights and Patents to the DMCA. To rephrase the very first statement you countered me with, "You are foolish, and I have told you why."
I concur that all properties of the government should be considered equally held by the governed; however, as you explained, the court makes a distinction, and this distinction must come from the closest thing to commonsense any government could have. I prefer to place the Supreme Court as government rather than legal system...the legal system has no commonsense.
The last sentence refers to the NPR reference.
The rest of the argument explains why you are foolish to think that Fair Use justifies any abuse of "intellectual property."
Commercialism is Not a Legal Requirment
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
Just as the United States Post Office can sue over abuse of its logo, and just as you can sue over someone taking an article you wrote out of context, NPR has the right to protect its work. If you review The Copyright and Amendments Act, you'll notice that "any party that produces an original work" is allowed to protect their work.
If you don't want to follow through with their requests, you don't have to use their site...
My only time at reviewing the income is during the donations period, in which, the only government funding directed to specific series came in at about somewhere around the average pledge, about $120. However, this was back at the time the National Institution for the Arts and Sciences (give or take some acronymnity) was still subsidized by the government...amazing what a Republican controlled legislative body can decide to be a waste of time.
Fair Use and the Freedom of Speech
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
Jefferson once explained that the Freedom of Speech ends at yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the concepts of Fair Use are given limitations.
Signet books include this with the copyright:
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. For information address Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 757 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
It is the intent of Fair Use that allows for Slashdot to link to various information within NPR's site, and it is Fair Use that allows you to release a GPL'd programme that use basic pieces of the Windows Operating System. However, it is the article "Intent and Fair Use" that prevents you from writing a Star Trek® novel without getting permission from Viacom/Paramount, and is the same article that prevents from taking public domain code and reselling at as your own. And don't think for a moment prophit is the all inclusive to the limitations of Fair Use.
Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.
Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.
Fair Use also precludes "conditions of release" which would include NPR's Terms of Use and related policies. Otherwise, I could put 1984 in its entirety on the Internet, but as explained as, "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form," which includes even quoting the first chapter. However, if I were reviewing the book and quoted a particular scene that relates to the reason why I gave it a particular review, that would be within Fair Use.
Anyone, like yourself, who treats Fair Use as a free for all must become all miffy about Google having lost the right to keep a particular article in its archive, and you probably don't understand why people are demanding that Star Trek® be made available as public domain on some level.
You obsess over the concept of "deep linking," as if, some how, this relates to anything discussed. They're not preventing linking, they're simply restricting excessive use of index referencing. This is not unlike the request by the Better Business Bureau to reduce excessive linking to their sites, particularly by those with no need to reference it at all. It was one thing to show your own record at the BBB, but just linking to it as a generic reference was unnecessary.
Half of Fair Use is dependant on commonsense and open interpretation. If Fair Use was absolute, the DeCSS wouldn't have been as large as an issue as it is.
"Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of 'right to copy' is granted, well, so be it."
This statement only shows how you attempt to apply what is allowed by Fair Use (the need for indexing) and then stretch it to where it does not apply, hyperlinking. Hyperlinking is a failed form of indexing, this is why a programmer releasing their work under the GPL is required to include it, verbatim, with their work:
Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.
It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.
The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.
Yea of DotHead Foolishness. I don't know where you think you've made sufficient argument, but if this were to goto court, you would find that Fair Use would be insufficient to uphold undesired linking.
Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you.
Additionally, there is a permit you may request for mirroring under most circumstance if you ever actually intend to go through with it (more so for those that actually would like to mirror, as I doubt you could).
Slashdot Mirror
There can never truely be a "Microsoft of Linux," for one good reason: It takes more than distro utilities to lock you into a GNU/Linux Operating System.
If Red Hat wanted to, sure, they could very well go far enough in distorting the GNU/Linux Operating System, forcing people to keep using their stuff (for example, developing their own core utilities, compiler, etc). Red Hat has made sure they won't be viewed as a Linopoly^(TM), for example, their willingness to comply with Linux Standard Base.
Red Hat joined the dot-com era at the best possible time; this put them in a position of having the kind of wealth to develop as far as they have, both as a distro and as a company. Unless I hear, "You can't compile Gnome 2.x on Null," I can assure you that's not going to happen. Look at their utilities. Go ahead, take a look at them, what do you see? That's right, the same D* tools on the underside all of us are using: wvdial for rp3, pkg-config with rpm, linuxconf in *most things here* Manager. Hell, half of their GUIs could just be created in wish!
I know I'm usually the one hyping the sensationalization, but if I'm not at the beginning, I have to deFUD.
"Parents beware, Lihnucks is a gateway operating system."
Though it's unlikely anyone will have the chance to read it considering how far behind I am.
With the new digital technology out for broadcasting, combined with integrated technologies (tv meets web browser), one could do something similar to the product placement, however, far more subtle.
First, I'd like to show off a nice already existing example. When people by those magazines that are 85% ads and 12% articles (the remaining three percent includes picture layouts, context, covers, etc), there is a distinction in what people are interested in. A full page advertisement showing a dress gets attention, but no matter who's in it, it doesn't get too much pull from people that would be interested in it. However, when an article shows some model coincidentally (or so one might think, atleast) wearing clothing, be it the same dress, or jeans and a shirt) and she's doing whatever the picture and article relate to (growing her own herbs, for example), people are more likely to attempt purchase those items, as well as gain interest in their own indoor herb garden.
Now, expand this concept to television. Imagine the set having capabilities of many dvd systems, with a moveable pointer and what not. With extraneous data being streamed in the digital image identifying objects and people within the show, the broadcast really has three parts, objects&locations, image and sound. With how extensive much of modern production is, this would include a lot of stuff! Now, when you're watching "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and you see this nifty retro-eighties lamp in The Magic Box, you can either activate and move the cursor to that lamp, or wait until after the show, go back to the scene, and move it to the lamp and select it. You'd probably get a "research now or bookmark for later" option. When you finally choose "research now," you get what it is, whose it is and where you can get one, along with all the buyer's research data you'd be interested in. Chugging down a Mountain Dew wouldn't look right, as most people don't make sure you can see the product label, but selecting whatever was being drunk (or theoretically being drunk/represented) would be far more desirable.
Random thoughts for random people.
To quote Microsoft, "Who wants a server on the desktop?" You don't need Tux (the kernel module) and I'm making wild guesses that you have different hardware (though Chris' system isn't exactly "bleeding edge hardware for mass information service.") Just a thought. What are you using? Some Mandrake was it? Pop open the kerneldrake or configdrake or whatever drake it went to (I swear it moves with every version) and click through the areas you need to redress and fix it that way. If you can't find where Mandrake is hiding it's kernel utility, the kernel source comes with an "x-config" that you can use (not as purty, but it's just as good). And incase you forgot the obvious, you can get a copy at kernel.org and kernel.org.uk
If someone walked up to your computer, they might be frightened by seeing the cursor quickly moving up and down...they might think it was haunted or there was a flaw in the driver, and everyone would just be shocked by seeing an error on your non-compliant OS....
You know what this schlemiel needs? A hidden forum; you know, one where everyone who assists there can pre-review and suggest corrections before an article goes out. Wow, that'd just be peachy. I believe it's on the roadmap as "someday, in a distant future of a parallel universe."
Now who would you know that help you load the appropriate modules...there must be atleast one person....
Aron from HRN and HRHN, or, in actuality NRH and NHRH.
Additionally, Aron's legal capabilities seem hindered by...something....
In case "all'y'all" forgot; the supreme court already ruled "shrinkwrapped licenses" unenforcable.
Now, here's thought, break the "license agreement," and see if anyone dares to do anything. I will ensure funds for court-costs, but not for breaking of actual laws (i.e. putting a copy on KaZaA or MusicCity or gnutella or whatever you choose) that is to say, copyright laws and anything else actually enforcable.
Go nuts! I dare you!
If its unenforcable for software, you can bet it ain't gonna happen on books!
You can link to the post, copy and paste, do what you wish; harrass me at my abi-address, I know this is an easy promise to keep!
In 1998, Mandrake's GNU/Linux OS (6.0, was it?) gave you an option between the last X3 and the still in development X4...in the age of X6.6, why is MandrakeSoft (a subsidiary partner of Macmillian Software, which never ported its cool games to GNU/Linux systems, those bastards) still offering only 4?
Series 5 is fully developed, so, where the schmeck is it?
See the Apple Developers License for an idea of why the concept of "it's free for the taking" is incorrect. Eric and Dickie would both smack you for that one.
Sorry if you got confused.
Two very useful things in releasing code that has made various projects successful.
First, in the tradition of Dilbert, make a "mission statement" to show the overall direction you want to go with the project and what steps you'll need to take to get there.
The second is to make a "schedual" of the specific tasks and requirements. Example of an email programme:
0.1.0: Initial release to the public
0.2.0: go from just commandline to optional GUI
0.3.0: parse html1
0.4.0: parse html4: limit to purely html
0.5.0: parse more extensive html (css/js) but include permissions for certain actions.
0.6.0: incorporate i18n
0.7.0: include extended MIME capabilities (more filetypes, encryption, md5, pgp etc)
0.8.0: add news protocols
0.9.0: add irc stuff
1.0.0: Clean stablized basic internet utility
Ok, that mutated horribly, and got pretty far in a very short period of time, but you get the idea. This gives people an idea of where to goto.
Additional ideas include making an Architecture and Framework document (a hacking howto, if you will). This way, people that want to develop with the project will no what you intend to do and what you prefer them to stick with.
An additional thought: be willing to let the project be organic; if you're not willing to swing just a li'l bit, you'll get more real hard detractors (whiners) than supporters.
I've been in lots of places (went back to re-reg the place, also got Aron's for amusement sakes)
Currently, I'm almost entirely ignored in Aussie-Land, though I thought about playing with DRicci and telling him I'm only an hour's drive away.
If you're in IRC space i'm at #abiword; learning, understanding, well, mostly, making jokes about Dom's system right now.
CC's out there, but unresponsive and Steven is poking around just to see what I know. Saturn's site is giving me trouble (pop over to roogroup to see YARenovation) I haven't even gotten my email...
Anywho, harrassing DRicci, trying to find a one seat couch, attempting to contact CC, and for an interesting side note, I was in Jail...AGAIN!
Send Cookies.
"I tell ya what," when I first used Windows, I considred that cryptic. A group? Open one to get to everything? Win3.x was MacNasty or a nasty mac(wannabe), I'm not sure which. Then, there was the Win9x+ME series that was a castrated nonesense version of CDE! If you needed to perform a scandisk (something I didn't understand the need for until this series) You had to go through, what, two or three things? In CDE, you just went up to "Utilities and Maintenance" (now just "utilities") and picked whichever application you needed. I have no intention of going back to Windows until massive changes are made...I hear China's doing a knockoff....
I find it ironic that "a lot of managers are going to equate free with a lack of quality" when, in 1998 and 1999, ither terms "open source" or "Linux" would be considered a good enough reason to invest in an IPO. I think what is occurring now is the shock of waking up from the snow jobs of the Dot[expletive deleted]ed era, which, just to be geeky, would be much like actually waking up in the world of "The Matrix" where the reality is so massively different from the dream. The major difference is the reality now fully exists.
I have read in the past week, through a series of coincidences, various reviews and thoughts about many aspects of Linux once thought unlikely. These various mentions include the easy to install Mandrake, the really decent ongoing support from RedHat and the fully developed applications from, well, too, too many to actually list, but any Linux user would probably recognise them, ranging from Nautilus to GNU Cash.
What I'm more interested in knowing, with the phrase "Linux is a gateway OS" still in my mind, how many more doors will this open as Free/Free and Open Source software and full operating systems develop. What's the GNU OS? Will that be its name? Will its mind-blowing innovations (you really should pop over to the hurd site) result in people giving it a decent eyeballing? With this and Macintosh Darwin Operating System in place, will people give another go at the BSD world?
If investigations into more than just one OS were to begin, Microsoft might be forced to consider POSIX-Compliance and a new business model (Why pay for a crash prone, resource hogging operating system when you can literally pickup a stable, goes almost anywhere operating system for free). In the end, I suppose this part won't happen to soon with the foolish notion of "The Operating System for the Internet." You can have "one degree of separation" in your own environments and joint ventures, why invest even more money into a third party that uses questionable and historically unsafe technology? I do believe third parties will cater to smaller groups (small business and schools) but Microsoft will probably lose a definitive hold on this market quite quickly (despite an inevitable lawsuit).
Of course, these are just my own ramblings; feel free to ignore them as you wish. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, yadda yadda yadda, history of GNU here, bio of Stallman here, marijuana was outlawed by request of cotton farmers, moderation of this topic will result in losing your soul and all that other stuff. VA this, that and the other are/is in no way responsible for how I code the HTML, as long as it doesn't crash slashbot.
Let's go through this together, shall we?
First they make sure the problem hasnt already been covered in the Knowledge Base.
Yeah, we don't do that.... First, we actually allow people, before filing a bug to check our database. Then, after filling out a form, we allow them to use a more intelligent search routine to check to see if any similar bugs have been encountered. After it's filed, the bugs are checked daily by at least one person to see if it's a duplication. Us open source whacks with our bugzillas and other tracking utilities have nothing like the "Microsoft Misfeatures, Misfits and Malicious Hackers and Pirates" database, in part because we wouldn't know how to use MSSQL with VB Scripting Support.
Then they make sure the problem isnt currently addressed by people working for/with MS.
We could never do that; it's easier just to keep status values on these things, especially since it is part of that whole database submission thing.
Finally, they will assign somebody to work on it.
Again, you know, we just don't have the ability to setup a bureaucracy of that size. We just have users vote which they think is most important and then see which developer(s) are interested in jumping on it by sending out newsletters and keeping track records and dev-mailing list.
You can use the sub-system clustering to shove the workload back on to the requesting utility if it has itsown processing tool, under the One Seat Couch additions to the abjournouis kernel.
"You are foolish, and let me tell you why..."
The full bitch-counter-bitch process explains why you are wrong and npr is right.
"Deep linking," a term I don't consider in anyway viable, is not protected in the way library indexing is, not in any way. Infact, if you bother to review the DMCA, it is legally questionable, and the largest reason being context.
Let me give you the make believe example you might understand:
Rob puts up an article about Maxtor making a recall.
Rob adds a mention that his own Maxtor HD was making a highly irritating noise.
I link to that article elsewhere, and in that link, I say, "Even Slashdot thinks Maxtor's harddrives are total pieces of S*."
Now, if you aren't in this discussion just to be in some argument with a random /.-member, perhaps you'll be willing to consider the next part of this argument (and do forgive the mention of the Devil's Malevolent Control Aggression).
First off, as far as the article goes, it's just reporting third party news, so, as far as the article goes, it's Maxtor saying Maxtor's HD's are errand. Second, though Rob does represent the site, and though he did make a minor complaint, he did not necessarily suggest his Maxtor harddrive was of low quality. You may even concur that the statement is entirely unjustified and misrepresents Slashdot, Rob and even Maxtor. Now, you may be asking, "But how many people actually do that?" Honestly? Many. Porportionally compared to all other links, very few, but to those who have a vendetta against either Maxtor or Slashdot, too many. Where the DMCA comes in, along with Copyright and Amendments, is the right to protect against misrepresentative context.
Perhaps you would agree that NPR is quite well respected as a fair and objective source of news? If so, their misrepresentation could result in unfair tainting of a third party, just as slashdot is respected in the geek community (though anticipation of story slanting is expected). You may understandably believe that a person would visit a link and say, "Hey! That's not true!" However, in fair-mindedness, the context the link was used in may already set a person's mind in perceiving the article in the way the writer of the referring comment/editorial/article may want them to. People have this bad habit of skimming, and you know what they'll see? "Rob CmdrTaco Malda," "Maxtor recall" and "my maxtor hd has always made this irritating noise." Sure, someone who's pro-Maxtor will say, "But this is Maxtor trying to protect its customers," and "Everyone has their own idea of irritating; just how old is that harddrive anyhow?" If I recall my curves, somewhere around one-fifth will say that, another one-fifth will automatically assume that Slashdot agrees with them and that Maxtor "sucks rubber donkey dick," and that leaves three-fifths of varyingly tainted minds reading and possibly misinterpreting that article. You know how people add hidden psychology and secret reasoning...see any conspiracy theory for more details.
Now attempting to absolutely prevent "deep linking" may fail in court, but have you considered how request-based linking would work out? You really didn't, did you? Therein lies one major flaw of your argument: Linking isn't being prevented, it's being limited and for valid reasons of context supported from the dawn of Ben Franklin's Copyrights and Patents to the DMCA. To rephrase the very first statement you countered me with, "You are foolish, and I have told you why."
I concur that all properties of the government should be considered equally held by the governed; however, as you explained, the court makes a distinction, and this distinction must come from the closest thing to commonsense any government could have. I prefer to place the Supreme Court as government rather than legal system...the legal system has no commonsense.
The last sentence refers to the NPR reference. The rest of the argument explains why you are foolish to think that Fair Use justifies any abuse of "intellectual property."
Just as the United States Post Office can sue over abuse of its logo, and just as you can sue over someone taking an article you wrote out of context, NPR has the right to protect its work. If you review The Copyright and Amendments Act, you'll notice that "any party that produces an original work" is allowed to protect their work.
If you don't want to follow through with their requests, you don't have to use their site...
My only time at reviewing the income is during the donations period, in which, the only government funding directed to specific series came in at about somewhere around the average pledge, about $120. However, this was back at the time the National Institution for the Arts and Sciences (give or take some acronymnity) was still subsidized by the government...amazing what a Republican controlled legislative body can decide to be a waste of time.
Jefferson once explained that the Freedom of Speech ends at yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In the same way, the concepts of Fair Use are given limitations.
Signet books include this with the copyright:
It is the intent of Fair Use that allows for Slashdot to link to various information within NPR's site, and it is Fair Use that allows you to release a GPL'd programme that use basic pieces of the Windows Operating System. However, it is the article "Intent and Fair Use" that prevents you from writing a Star Trek® novel without getting permission from Viacom/Paramount, and is the same article that prevents from taking public domain code and reselling at as your own. And don't think for a moment prophit is the all inclusive to the limitations of Fair Use.
Let me quote from the GPL FAQ on this subject:
Fair Use also precludes "conditions of release" which would include NPR's Terms of Use and related policies. Otherwise, I could put 1984 in its entirety on the Internet, but as explained as, "All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form," which includes even quoting the first chapter. However, if I were reviewing the book and quoted a particular scene that relates to the reason why I gave it a particular review, that would be within Fair Use.
Anyone, like yourself, who treats Fair Use as a free for all must become all miffy about Google having lost the right to keep a particular article in its archive, and you probably don't understand why people are demanding that Star Trek® be made available as public domain on some level.
You obsess over the concept of "deep linking," as if, some how, this relates to anything discussed. They're not preventing linking, they're simply restricting excessive use of index referencing. This is not unlike the request by the Better Business Bureau to reduce excessive linking to their sites, particularly by those with no need to reference it at all. It was one thing to show your own record at the BBB, but just linking to it as a generic reference was unnecessary.
Half of Fair Use is dependant on commonsense and open interpretation. If Fair Use was absolute, the DeCSS wouldn't have been as large as an issue as it is.
"Creating an index or catalog is critical to all management of information, whether digital or otherwise. Without this exception, book authors could prevent libraries from listing thier works in card catalogs, because the book title and 10-20 word description would be "copyrighted" and reproducing it would be a violation of copyrights of the author. Luckily, the Founding Dads and the Courts have realized that this is absurd - that it harms no one to catalog and index information - and if a small bit of 'right to copy' is granted, well, so be it."
This statement only shows how you attempt to apply what is allowed by Fair Use (the need for indexing) and then stretch it to where it does not apply, hyperlinking. Hyperlinking is a failed form of indexing, this is why a programmer releasing their work under the GPL is required to include it, verbatim, with their work:
Yea of DotHead Foolishness. I don't know where you think you've made sufficient argument, but if this were to goto court, you would find that Fair Use would be insufficient to uphold undesired linking.
Assuming you are a tax paying citizen, you should be informed that even if you pay $1000 (including withheld on the W2), less than half of a penny goes into supporting both public radio and television, and even including state taxes, you still haven't paid a full cent. The funneling of tax goes to stations in need of self-support on a case by case basis, everything else, from your favourite programmes to your favourite hosts are funded by people that pledge a donation during drives. You're probably not even paying enough for the cost of electricity to parse through the database and send a copy of the article to you.
Additionally, there is a permit you may request for mirroring under most circumstance if you ever actually intend to go through with it (more so for those that actually would like to mirror, as I doubt you could).