Heh... And another post that needs modding up on this.
In short, we've little idea what they're on about doing in DC. Just because it uses OUR terms for things or what the Daily KOS thinks should be, doesn't mean that's what they're about to do.
It should be noted that the Democrats actually have a completely differing idea of "Net Neutrality" than we do and it's much like the "Healthcare Reform" or "Immigration Reform" we're seeing carried out of late.
In truth, we've not the foggiest what they do/don't have in mind on the subject in DC. They might be interested in doing what we have in OUR heads for the term/name "Net Neutrality"- or, based on the rhetoric used by the Democrats on the subject, it's just as likely what the Republicans are on about and against.
Just because it uses our words doesn't mean that it's what we had in mind that they're doing. To the geek crowd, words still tend to have meaning. To the political bunch, for many, words have no meaning whatsoever.
These are videos of a lecture given by Professor Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School and a Experienced LEO that's moving into the Legal profession on just precisely WHY you don't do what you're talking about.
Pay particular attention to how fast someone can be deep-sixed in a courtroom on flimsy crap, stuff that a Jury would have some difficulty discounting.
Regardless of "if you don't have anything to hide"...anything can and WILL be used against you at any time.
It's not just malpractice that's raising the costs...
Here's an example:
Doctor bills $200 for a procedure.
Medicare pays $40-60 for it (Seriously...my wife does Medicare billing for a major hospital...)
Private insurance pays MAYBE $120 for it if they're lucky.
So...what do they do? Raise their costs to the cash customers to offset the losses of that garbage. Part of it's malpractice, yes. But another part is the type of things I illustrate above. You can't fix the problem without fixing BOTH of those things at the minimum.
Heh...the VA system's not any worse than Medicare or Medicaid is right now. WHEN they pay out, they typically pay 20-30% of the invoiced amount. The private insurance companies typically pay an additional 20 or so percent over what the Government pays out.
If you want to know part of what's so screwed up...just look no further than the people that made it the law there, trying to "reform" things.
Unfortunately...this wasn't "consumer rights" that we're talking about, though that's how you made it sound out to be.
The Judge is right in that the Feds can't really DO what they tried to do in the part that he struck down in that decision- and it's not the way to fix the problem you highlight.
Instead of using the consumer accounts, why don't you get a business service account. The cable companies are more than happy to hand you one for about 2-3 times what you're paying now- ditto AT&T and Verizon (For $160/mo you too can have a business contract and roughly half a T3's bandwidth if you're in a FiOS area...). No bandwidth increases- but they're much less likely to dink with your pipe's contents like they will with a consumer account.
If it were about that, then they failed from the outset.
It's never really been about making people feel secure. It's about control and making people be led to believe that the ones in control are "doing something" about the problem of "terrorism".
Whomever in the HELL that modded you "insightful" wasn't thinking clearly.
The thinking you espouse is what the terrorists from 9/11 were BETTING ON to be able to accomplish their task with mostly only box cutters and a bit of balls.
In truth, your life is forfeit the moment an aggressor threatens it. How you redeem it back is what remains at that point. You get it back by dumb luck. You get it back by intervention by another. Or you get it back by action either as an individual or a group.
If you hold the above to be an absolute truth, 9/11, especially when people hold the last item as an absolute, wouldn't have happened. Nowadays, most will gang up on them and the poor terrorists may well have more than they can handle. You're going to cut me if I don't comply or fly a plane into something killing many more than me? Guess what, buddy, it's on.
The Prosecution did everything it could to try to convict this man- in what appears to be a case to "make an example" of the young man. They had two "star" witnesses that were guilty of the same acts as was being claimed by the prosecution for the defendant- which is bogus to say the least and the Judge was going to highlight that fact to the Jury when the time came. Then they had the one that was the one in on the "sting" "recall" on the stand that the defendant "put in a 'pirated' disc" and that this "recollection" happened just slightly before the hearings occurred and that it was "accidentally" not disclosed to the defense. They had the guy on video and I do believe that there was no mention of "pirated"- just that a copy was used to verify that it could play copies, backups or otherwise.
Sorry, this was a case of the prosecution doing anything and everything, regardless of it's legality, to get a case win there. Once they got caught doing that, the only thing they could do was drop the case- else they could face misconduct sanctions, and possibly, since some of these shenanigans occurred within the investigation phase, Color of Law charges. There pretty much wasn't any options for the prosecution once they had that "oops" like they did there with their witness.
Software copied to disk/RAM does NOT require ANY licensing.
US Code Title 17, 117a explicitly allows for this thing.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
In the US you don't need permission to use the software once you've gotten it into your hot little hands- unless they slap an EULA on top of it in some legal maneuvering manner and you do something that implies agreement or sign an actual agreement document.
If, for example, the EULA on Windows forbade transfer of rights, and you sold a machine with it on there to me, I'm not in trouble, you are. And each of my usages when I boot up, are still legal. I obtained my copy of a protected work from you. The EULA applies to YOU since you agreed to it or did an action implying it. Selling it to me, you violated the same- but since I didn't agree to it, wasn't appraised of it, ever, it doesn't apply to me. Now, I can't just make copies of it willy-nilly as a result of that but in the same vein, none of the restrictions on use, etc. placed upon me by the EULA would apply to me. I have the rights anyone would have having bought a book from someone with regards to that software at that point, so I could sell the whole machine, lock, stock and barrel- and they would be bound by copyright as would I. So long as I dispose of all copies I might have of the work in hand once I've disposed of the originals from whence it came, I'm still legal. And, if I'm owning one of the originals still, I'm entitled to archival (Backup) copies of the protected work in question.
It's only when you start taking copies of things outside the proper relationships (i.e. downloading a "backup" from TPB or similar without at least having the original in hand...) that you start getting into trouble with the law.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Do note that 2 explicitly covers "backups" as they're known- regardless of whether it's a personal computer, mainframe, or gaming console.
It's not a case of fair use...it, like anything that would be covered by something like the AHRA, is ALLOWED USE regardless of whether or not the rights holder "permits" it or not. Fair use is the usage of stuff outside of the domain of laws like the one I just mentioned, that gives additional allowed usages that have been defined over time by jurisprudence. "Fair use" is not an affirmative defense to prosecution, but it's one that can be used to defend oneself as needed- it's something that weakens an infringement case accordingly. "Backup", though, if it can be proved...it kills the case outright. Allowed use.
Just because they already considered it, doesn't mean they won't invalidate it.
The truth of the matter is that just because an examiner "considered" it, doesn't make the examiner right. I've had patent submissions that didn't get done because I ran out of funds (it's expensive to file one of these things...) where the "examiner" did their initial rejection on one of my early claims, and went looking for things that "anticipated" the usage in question- none of which were relevant. If they had people that were qualified and competent to do the examinations in the space they're doing them in, it'd be one thing, but it's not there and they're not even really trying these days.
Package managers are supposed to be an answer on-top of the one you mentioned, which was to allow people to install what was needed into that framework, to know what needs updating, and in at least some cases, what needs to be yanked out when you remove something- none of these are supported by the directory structure thinking you're saying fixes everything.
Now, can there be better solutions in the packaging arean? Yeah...most definitely. Do we need them? No...but they sure help when you get more sophisticated with things.
Users that want the new stuff use SID or an Alpha/Beta of Ubuntu- or to a lesser extent a non-LTS release of Ubuntu...
If you're using an LTS, you're explicitly choosing what the GP poster stated unless it's the freshly minted release (Like at the beginning of 2010 with 10.4...)
The thing is...typically, mind...most people don't encounter the fun you're describing. It's when you want something SPECIFIC that it typically gets you the way you're describing it. Seriously.
I don't seem to have this issue with Caster...but then, dependency hell typically happens when a distribution botches their metadata or when someone explicitly goes off the beaten path with what they're doing (i.e. you start building one lib, which then leads to another and another, and so forth.).
Once you end up there, it's fun beyond words to fix- which is what you allude to. But the times you actually end up there are fewer and more far between for MOST these days.
The big problem with this is that he's dragging along a complete sandbox (Incl. X11 for X apps...) for each application.
FUN.
It avoids dependency hell, yes- but it's vast overkill considering that I can manage it the other way (i.e Going from the 4 yr old distribution forward...)- and have done it with one indie title that I've ported for the studio, and about to do with another one for a different studio.
Now, this is not to say that it's not an interesting program, or that I won't have uses for the concept he's come up with there- but to call it "easy" portability or a great answer for Linux on things is to clearly misunderstand the real problems. If it's an answer for all of that, you asked the question wrong.
You can drop the "polygamist" part... While I'm not for the practice myself, it should be noted that the practice back then was for multiple wives if you could afford to support all of them properly- and the Song of Solomon allegedly refers to the courtship of one of those wives in HIS harem. You can't hang that hat on anyone back then for our current practices because it wasn't wrong back then.
Speak for just yourself there- you certainly don't speak on MY behalf on that subject.
I certainly make digital content and I don't think they're stealing...I don't like what they're doing, mind, because it's still bogus as stealing- but it's NOT the same action and has actual differing terms for it in the law and elsewhere.
As a reality check, it should be noted that you're not entitled to money with anything creative- only to the ability to attempt to make some with it or something else related to it. All these infringements are doing is taking potential sales away from you. Doing it on a mass scale can preclude your making any money, yes- but it's not stealing. Stealing would be someone hacking into your bank's computers and pulling all the money out of the virtual bucket the bank holds for YOUR money- or the old-fashioned way of holding a gun to your bank (or yourself) and saying "give me all the money".
He was talking w/a person excluding all meat (Vegan...duh...) and wondering why his ratio was zero and insisting on everyone else's to be the same- which is what most of the people pointing out his personal preference versus the reality of his body were pointing out. Not eating meat isn't healthy in the slightest for Humans, contrary to popular beliefs to the otherwise (A hint should be showing in your and everyone else's mouth...eye-teeth aren't needed in herbivores (which what a Vegetarian and a Vegan is attempting to accomplish...).
But then, this IS/., after all... Ignorance and willful ignoring of what's actually being said to "prove" their points is part for the course.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... And another post that needs modding up on this.
In short, we've little idea what they're on about doing in DC. Just because it uses OUR terms for things or what the Daily KOS thinks should be, doesn't mean that's what they're about to do.
Mod up please...
It should be noted that the Democrats actually have a completely differing idea of "Net Neutrality" than we do and it's much like the "Healthcare Reform" or "Immigration Reform" we're seeing carried out of late.
In truth, we've not the foggiest what they do/don't have in mind on the subject in DC. They might be interested in doing what we have in OUR heads for the term/name "Net Neutrality"- or, based on the rhetoric used by the Democrats on the subject, it's just as likely what the Republicans are on about and against.
Just because it uses our words doesn't mean that it's what we had in mind that they're doing. To the geek crowd, words still tend to have meaning. To the political bunch, for many, words have no meaning whatsoever.
Why bother? The NX compression tech prior to this release is GPLed.
You don't NEED to reverse engineer anything. Just re-name it and take it down the way.
Heh...more the fool you.
Here's a gem that shoots down the premise you're trying to promulgate here...
Part 1
Part 2
These are videos of a lecture given by Professor Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School and a Experienced LEO that's moving into the Legal profession on just precisely WHY you don't do what you're talking about.
Pay particular attention to how fast someone can be deep-sixed in a courtroom on flimsy crap, stuff that a Jury would have some difficulty discounting.
Regardless of "if you don't have anything to hide"...anything can and WILL be used against you at any time.
It's not just malpractice that's raising the costs...
Here's an example:
So...what do they do? Raise their costs to the cash customers to offset the losses of that garbage. Part of it's malpractice, yes. But another part is the type of things I illustrate above. You can't fix the problem without fixing BOTH of those things at the minimum.
Heh...the VA system's not any worse than Medicare or Medicaid is right now. WHEN they pay out, they typically pay 20-30% of the invoiced amount. The private insurance companies typically pay an additional 20 or so percent over what the Government pays out.
If you want to know part of what's so screwed up...just look no further than the people that made it the law there, trying to "reform" things.
Unfortunately...this wasn't "consumer rights" that we're talking about, though that's how you made it sound out to be.
The Judge is right in that the Feds can't really DO what they tried to do in the part that he struck down in that decision- and it's not the way to fix the problem you highlight.
Instead of using the consumer accounts, why don't you get a business service account. The cable companies are more than happy to hand you one for about 2-3 times what you're paying now- ditto AT&T and Verizon (For $160/mo you too can have a business contract and roughly half a T3's bandwidth if you're in a FiOS area...). No bandwidth increases- but they're much less likely to dink with your pipe's contents like they will with a consumer account.
If it were about that, then they failed from the outset.
It's never really been about making people feel secure. It's about control and making people be led to believe that the ones in control are "doing something" about the problem of "terrorism".
Whomever in the HELL that modded you "insightful" wasn't thinking clearly.
The thinking you espouse is what the terrorists from 9/11 were BETTING ON to be able to accomplish their task with mostly only box cutters and a bit of balls.
In truth, your life is forfeit the moment an aggressor threatens it. How you redeem it back is what remains at that point. You get it back by dumb luck. You get it back by intervention by another. Or you get it back by action either as an individual or a group.
If you hold the above to be an absolute truth, 9/11, especially when people hold the last item as an absolute, wouldn't have happened. Nowadays, most will gang up on them and the poor terrorists may well have more than they can handle. You're going to cut me if I don't comply or fly a plane into something killing many more than me? Guess what, buddy, it's on.
Oh, this wasn't the Chewbacca defense...
The Prosecution did everything it could to try to convict this man- in what appears to be a case to "make an example" of the young man. They had two "star" witnesses that were guilty of the same acts as was being claimed by the prosecution for the defendant- which is bogus to say the least and the Judge was going to highlight that fact to the Jury when the time came. Then they had the one that was the one in on the "sting" "recall" on the stand that the defendant "put in a 'pirated' disc" and that this "recollection" happened just slightly before the hearings occurred and that it was "accidentally" not disclosed to the defense. They had the guy on video and I do believe that there was no mention of "pirated"- just that a copy was used to verify that it could play copies, backups or otherwise.
Sorry, this was a case of the prosecution doing anything and everything, regardless of it's legality, to get a case win there. Once they got caught doing that, the only thing they could do was drop the case- else they could face misconduct sanctions, and possibly, since some of these shenanigans occurred within the investigation phase, Color of Law charges. There pretty much wasn't any options for the prosecution once they had that "oops" like they did there with their witness.
Software copied to disk/RAM does NOT require ANY licensing.
US Code Title 17, 117a explicitly allows for this thing.
In the US you don't need permission to use the software once you've gotten it into your hot little hands- unless they slap an EULA on top of it in some legal maneuvering manner and you do something that implies agreement or sign an actual agreement document.
If, for example, the EULA on Windows forbade transfer of rights, and you sold a machine with it on there to me, I'm not in trouble, you are. And each of my usages when I boot up, are still legal. I obtained my copy of a protected work from you. The EULA applies to YOU since you agreed to it or did an action implying it. Selling it to me, you violated the same- but since I didn't agree to it, wasn't appraised of it, ever, it doesn't apply to me. Now, I can't just make copies of it willy-nilly as a result of that but in the same vein, none of the restrictions on use, etc. placed upon me by the EULA would apply to me. I have the rights anyone would have having bought a book from someone with regards to that software at that point, so I could sell the whole machine, lock, stock and barrel- and they would be bound by copyright as would I. So long as I dispose of all copies I might have of the work in hand once I've disposed of the originals from whence it came, I'm still legal. And, if I'm owning one of the originals still, I'm entitled to archival (Backup) copies of the protected work in question.
It's only when you start taking copies of things outside the proper relationships (i.e. downloading a "backup" from TPB or similar without at least having the original in hand...) that you start getting into trouble with the law.
Got a physical copy of the "original", damaged or otherwise? Prove that it wasn't you that made the backup.
That simple, really.
Now, providing copies FOR someplace like the TPB...different story.
That's quite very wrong there on your supposition on things...
US Code 17, Chapter 1, 117a specifically and explicitly allows this sort of thing.
Do note that 2 explicitly covers "backups" as they're known- regardless of whether it's a personal computer, mainframe, or gaming console.
It's not a case of fair use...it, like anything that would be covered by something like the AHRA, is ALLOWED USE regardless of whether or not the rights holder "permits" it or not. Fair use is the usage of stuff outside of the domain of laws like the one I just mentioned, that gives additional allowed usages that have been defined over time by jurisprudence. "Fair use" is not an affirmative defense to prosecution, but it's one that can be used to defend oneself as needed- it's something that weakens an infringement case accordingly. "Backup", though, if it can be proved...it kills the case outright. Allowed use.
Just because they already considered it, doesn't mean they won't invalidate it.
The truth of the matter is that just because an examiner "considered" it, doesn't make the examiner right. I've had patent submissions that didn't get done because I ran out of funds (it's expensive to file one of these things...) where the "examiner" did their initial rejection on one of my early claims, and went looking for things that "anticipated" the usage in question- none of which were relevant. If they had people that were qualified and competent to do the examinations in the space they're doing them in, it'd be one thing, but it's not there and they're not even really trying these days.
But there is a bar to claiming them as a patentable item. If it was prior art one year or more before the filing, it's not patentable.
Package managers are supposed to be an answer on-top of the one you mentioned, which was to allow people to install what was needed into that framework, to know what needs updating, and in at least some cases, what needs to be yanked out when you remove something- none of these are supported by the directory structure thinking you're saying fixes everything.
Now, can there be better solutions in the packaging arean? Yeah...most definitely. Do we need them? No...but they sure help when you get more sophisticated with things.
Users that want the new stuff use SID or an Alpha/Beta of Ubuntu- or to a lesser extent a non-LTS release of Ubuntu...
If you're using an LTS, you're explicitly choosing what the GP poster stated unless it's the freshly minted release (Like at the beginning of 2010 with 10.4...)
The thing is...typically, mind...most people don't encounter the fun you're describing. It's when you want something SPECIFIC that it typically gets you the way you're describing it. Seriously.
I don't seem to have this issue with Caster...but then, dependency hell typically happens when a distribution botches their metadata or when someone explicitly goes off the beaten path with what they're doing (i.e. you start building one lib, which then leads to another and another, and so forth.).
Once you end up there, it's fun beyond words to fix- which is what you allude to. But the times you actually end up there are fewer and more far between for MOST these days.
The big problem with this is that he's dragging along a complete sandbox (Incl. X11 for X apps...) for each application.
FUN.
It avoids dependency hell, yes- but it's vast overkill considering that I can manage it the other way (i.e Going from the 4 yr old distribution forward...)- and have done it with one indie title that I've ported for the studio, and about to do with another one for a different studio.
Now, this is not to say that it's not an interesting program, or that I won't have uses for the concept he's come up with there- but to call it "easy" portability or a great answer for Linux on things is to clearly misunderstand the real problems. If it's an answer for all of that, you asked the question wrong.
You can drop the "polygamist" part... While I'm not for the practice myself, it should be noted that the practice back then was for multiple wives if you could afford to support all of them properly- and the Song of Solomon allegedly refers to the courtship of one of those wives in HIS harem. You can't hang that hat on anyone back then for our current practices because it wasn't wrong back then.
Speak for just yourself there- you certainly don't speak on MY behalf on that subject.
I certainly make digital content and I don't think they're stealing...I don't like what they're doing, mind, because it's still bogus as stealing- but it's NOT the same action and has actual differing terms for it in the law and elsewhere.
As a reality check, it should be noted that you're not entitled to money with anything creative- only to the ability to attempt to make some with it or something else related to it. All these infringements are doing is taking potential sales away from you. Doing it on a mass scale can preclude your making any money, yes- but it's not stealing. Stealing would be someone hacking into your bank's computers and pulling all the money out of the virtual bucket the bank holds for YOUR money- or the old-fashioned way of holding a gun to your bank (or yourself) and saying "give me all the money".
Ah... But, what use is your second career if nobody will be able to BUY the Wines and Meads?
He was talking w/a person excluding all meat (Vegan...duh...) and wondering why his ratio was zero and insisting on everyone else's to be the same- which is what most of the people pointing out his personal preference versus the reality of his body were pointing out. Not eating meat isn't healthy in the slightest for Humans, contrary to popular beliefs to the otherwise (A hint should be showing in your and everyone else's mouth...eye-teeth aren't needed in herbivores (which what a Vegetarian and a Vegan is attempting to accomplish...).
But then, this IS /., after all... Ignorance and willful ignoring of what's actually being said to "prove" their points is part for the course.