What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Wrong. At least this is an profable statement in in scietific understanding at least thus "not right".
The field effect transistor FET was long patent before even the first transistor was build. The patent holder didn't see get a penny.
I'm not 100% sure how it was with the "classic" PNP transistor. As far I know it was mainly developed by military, they survive pretty well without patents:o)
On the other hand I've a *very* *very* old book at home about radio technology. It was prior to transistor age, times where all was done with tubes. In on of the last chapters they made an *outlook* to the future of radio technology. One thing they spend several pages was a new effect than when put to speical negative loaded needles, into a strange material (the p material) they could gain intensification effects by this setup. At this times nobody yet understood why and how. but the effect was already known, without an patent. I personally doubt that today electronics would look any different without, how as the same with your postulate this is not proofable so at least also "not right":o)
ou're right, that is ok, but only as long as it's for personal use. As soon as you start distributing it, it's no longer ok.
I don't see any difference there, note that he's not -selling- it or making profit from it anyway. He just restyled the the x-windows look&feel like he has seen on an apple.
I agree that the parallels are too strong, He took even over some things I donnot like, like the striped background, it looks just ugly, and the differences between copying and redesigning are thin. If somebody constantly looks and does line by line I agree it's as good as copying. However if somebody looks at the final product of something else, studies it. Then lays it aside and redoes a rather similar thing then it's okay.
I can speak of source code, you start looking somewhere, lay it aside and then doing something. However I constantly try to supersede the original, often having receiving a result at the end beeing very different. My objection is that such "rules" are good for popularity. I saved work because I had insight into other workings. I improved the work because I superceeded it, and finally I release it as GPL again, so others can do the same cycle again.
However userinterface copyright is a long discussion not answered easily. Take in example you keyboard. Is this not also a userinterface? Imagine the normal keyboard layout would be copyrighted, than every hardware manufacturer has to come with own key-layout. What do you think this would meen for publicity?
There was also another lawsuit back a decase Lotus against Borland. Lotus sued Borland for copyright infringement on Lotus 1-2-3, as they used the same interface. Pretty much exactly the same menu interface structure. Lotus lost, altough what I read there is again movement in this case.
For more info about the userinterface discussion you can look at:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Copyright/copyright.html
Think further, what if the idea of menues to use at all would be "copyrighted"? What about graphic buttuns after all? What about the OK-CANCEL-HELP combination? So whats the difference for the right to use blue, round buttons?
Honestly laws are to protect the general public and how out community works together they are not for single persons.
an Aqua clone is not akin to inspiration from an algorithm.
Sure it is, where should the difference be?
If you copy/paste the images from the mac, than it's not okay. If look at a mac, say I'll do an skin that looks&feels exactly the same that's okay.
To protect ideas/designs etc. you need patents and trademarks, not copyright.
Maybe the buttons may not look -exactly- like the OS X ones, if they filed one as a trademark. But you can do well do light blue buttons, blurred color shift, with round edges, thats not "owned" by apple.
However the same if I code some alogrithmn, and somebody looks at it and says very clever, I'll use the same algorithmn nothing can stop him to do.
He cannot copy/paste my source, this is a copyright violation, but he CAN take my algorithmn, altough people have a feeling like "this is -my- idea", it's not backed by law. Same goes with the UI interfaces, they may also be as nasty to write as some clever sorting algorithms, but you cannot forbid anybody else to do the same idea. You can forbid them to -copy- your stuff hitting CTRL-C, CTRL-V but not from beeing "inspiried" by you.
I would reread copyright laws. Copyright is at it says the right to ->copy-. Not more, not less. Many people confuse copyright and extend it it their understanding of justice.
One cannot copyright ideas. There are patents for.
One cannot copyright interfaces, designs.
One cannot copyright protocols, formats.
If you look at something and say, hey thats a good idea, I'll do it exactly the same this is not violating copyright in any way. The case when he would have violated copyright is when in example he would have -copied- bitmaps from apple to linux.
If his employer immediatly caves in, he's a wimp, guess his boss might also not know what copyright laws allows and forbids. People show some courage and don't throw away things that are you right just because your opponent is huge.
It's a david vs. goliat where we know already that goliat is in unjustness.
Re:Office Assistant?
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Did you ever try this out? Seems you can execute device nodes
---
root@home:/dev> chmod +x random
root@home:/dev> ls -l random
crwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1, 8 Jan 19 2001 random
root@home:/dev>./random
bash:./random: Permission denied
---
No need to cross fingers. Why was I so crazy to try? 'cause even if the kernel would have allowed this, I would win in lottery before I receive a valid ELF file out of random.
BTW the stupid lameness filter required me to edit the ls -l output:/
I think he just wanted to write just something, so the story is longer than one single line:/ And after all traffic is traffic, and one knows how to keep the masses in mood:/
I think this is the same status like selling a hammar. One can use it to construct houses, cupboards, tables, hang up pictures on the wall, and a lot of other good and constructive things. Now there is a group of people who might use hammers to destroy windows, does the producer of the hammer have any guiltiness on the destroyed window?
Same was dynamite, Nobel also thought of the constructive things when inventing it, like mining etc. but there are also people that will use dynamite to blow up other things than rocks.
Personally I think different for things created only for pure destruction. Like rockets, to a limited degree some kind of guns etc.
But also there history made sometimes funny turns. Take the LASER in example, when this technology came up people only thought of them using as super longrange weapons, and got quite funding for this purpose. Now look today, LASERs are used for everything, from construction computers, correcting teeth and eyes, meassuring stars, etc. etc. but one application they failed miserable as weapons themselfs.
However throwing away privacy completly has other devasting effects.
One thing I believe one really is his own privacy are in example genetical based higher risks of some sickness. When I go to a company introducing for a new job, I really don't want them to be able to get my medical history or of my family.
Same goes in example a list of all people having this or that speciality in a state. Imagine how some company can misuse this, to send targeted advertisment.
Just image how SPAM would start looking like if all email addresses where laid open?
Privacy is to there to protect you from ruthless companies and organisations, and I donnot think we should throw that away too easily.
One thing enterprise completly misses, is that once you can do "beaming" you can also as good -copy- any mass including you.
This different as cloning, since your duplicate would really have absolute the same structure, including same memory and same beeing. Only the ultimate old question is left if there is something like a soul:o) and if if it gets copied too.
"Beaming" would function in reality like sending a fax, not like the original enterprise serier used it to save production costs (No lander spec. effects required). Yes the other side receives the image, but the original is still there. I personally do not want to be beamed that way.
Also I wouldn't guess geocities too, they keep records maybe, and so you're trackable. I would search in temporary places, somewhere the senders don't leave slime spours, and places with good anonymity hidden IP's and where no permanent records are taken. Secondly I don't believe they use a place where everybody has read access to, so once discovered they could be easily eavesdroped.
I think some IRC servers would be a spot to look for, Maybe also some of the "freedrives" services would be intersting for such people. Than maybe something like ezboard.com, or also very likely just some stupid FTP server hidden somewhere on a non standard port where people transfer coded coded messages hidden inside of images up and down.
Now tell me how smart a carnibore auto-system must be to detect such traffic.
You forgot one thing, suck away the whole atmosphere of earth, without oxygen people can't talk, so also no mouth to mouth communication via messengers.
Copyright regarding.h header files is from my sight a little globally confused. People often say, yay it are just header files.
But take in example linux which is GPL. Now on linux systems the glibc include headers often end up including linux headers. Now is not actually including a linux header not -incooperating- the source into yours? So by including in example wich in turn includes doesn't the preproccessor copy/paste linux source into yours?
I had this discussion before, and most people said man it are just header files. But where does a header file / interface start and where stop. Actually the same way it's possible to write a whole probram in a header file.
So far I got no satisfying answer for that.
I know the linux kernel group takes copyright header etc. rather slutty in contrast to projects where every files has it's copyright header, so it's difficult to tell the rules if you're facing only one file. And yet worse if you've a project mixing licenses.
But honestly why does somebody prefering the BSD license feel pestered after all if another project prefers to use it further as GPL. The orignal source is still available with all allowness. And on the other hand BSD allows the enhancer of a software to take away _all_ rights for the user, not giving the source at all. So wheres the problem if they "reduce" the users rights to GPL? After all properitary would be allowed, but GPL not? That confuses me.
Thats why _I_ think normally mature BSD developers should at least allow a double license, BSD or GPL. This makes life far more easier for GPL projects, since they've not to pester around which files are under GPL and which routines under BSD, and what happens if you take function parts from one file to another. So BSD for all people working on this BSD licensed project, and people wanting to use the source for GPL projects should be allowed to "transform" the license to this need, after all it's FreeSoftware we're all wanting, so why making each others life difficult?
I think this is just another GPL vs. BSD knee-jerk fight, instead going about real violations or any rights that have been really harmed.
I understand that BSD is a good license for universities. This way studends working on projects in the school time can continue to use the source later in business. In example I work on projects as pure hobby, in my freetime. So for me GPL is the ideal license, people amy use it, if they modify it thay have to give the source for it, so making my hobby a bit more enjoyfull. I've in example no objections to support somebody in my freetime to take the source to make money without having to give something back, or to support help a manager to take a whole part, in example the BSD stack, instead having to -hire- and pay people for programming alike. So now in example the microsoft case, they shoot at the GPL to be anti-american, pacman a virus and what heaven knows everything else and like to spread it's danger is for programmer jobs, invitation and all. But it's okay for them to take the BSD stack instead paying for programmers job?
Okay got a bit away from the topic:o) so better stop here:o)
Applies to our current understanding of physics. Nobody yet managed to transfer information like this, since first seperating them is difficult, and second the key to do something against the second one that would change the other one.
As far I know this phenomenon is predicted by theory only and not (yet) by experiment. Secondly you can't 100% assure that it is unsnoopable, since we don't understand the physics below it. Maybe there is an yet unknown force that connects them, which creates an unknown field that can be snooped.
Beside the physical part, there is another criptrograic prolbem: transportation of the key. You've to transport -securly- the key to other side, without having it replaced. So also this hypothetical communication is only as sure as your key-transportation is, in example one could grap the container of your particle, replace it with his partice, and in his lab forwards all traffic from his second partice to your partice, and so is able to snoop.
Try buying the notebook of your choice without financing microsoft against your will.
Possible to get a notebook without ms? Yes there are some, but not the one of your choice, it's very hard to buy a notebook -without- buying a windows license, altough the first thing you want to do is to repartionate the harddisk in install the os of your choice.
I tried kde media player, no doesn't it supports this format, must have been a wrong comment:/
I looked on the internet and downloaded&compiled some packages for linux who promised to play quicktime movies.
xmovie - compiled after a small patch, but failed to load this file.
mp2movie - promised to be able to convert quicktime movies to mpg, no go.
lamp - installed easily with.rpm but read that this movie has a length of 0:(
So I tried but I could watch it, doesn't seem to be a "normal" quicktime movie, the existing linux quicktime players could play.
I don't see what's the real innovative idea behind this.
Looking back behind 1980 when there was no windows and not even a DOS, what ruled the computers world? Big unix core's, connected to them a lot of terminals. You could walk to any terminal any time, login and having you home account. The -personal computer- was then coming a big movement, and from this time on the trend seemed to go more and more to -distributed- computing. The computing loads balance point shifted more and more to the client side. Today clients calculate as much as possible, while the server provides at least data as the client requires, saving him from the load.
In later history there were some efforts to walk back to server focused computing, but in my eyes they all failed. ThinClients? Remember the net pc? And the software downloaded online by use, etc.
In my eyes this networking talk has in priority one thing in mind, again. Flaten the path to soft-leasing.
Microsoft has a major problem, that a majority of personals computers run their software doesn't actually help them. They sell their software -once-, and then never again. They always have come up with new variations 98, ME, XP, Advanced *, to resell an upgrade at full price. So they wanted already in the past to move to subscription based software so they've a ensured income. People refused, there are a lot of points and a story itself worth talking about. I just say why did they move away from the classic versioning system, NT 4.0, NT 5.0 -> 2000, NT 6.0 -> XP and moved to put first year numbers and then even moved further from an obvious line to letter acronyms. So people buy upgrades at full price, thinking they buy a new product.
It's all about money baby:)
I agree about the GPL/Linux people stop complaning and go and -do- something. I agree to another comment i heared once, looking honestly is there anything really innovative on linux? Actually linux is a rather conservative approach. Thats not bad per-se, it first ensures stability, and secondly also important saves it's users from beeing "guinea pigs". All of it's techs have been there before. A free unix system on the pc? BSD and Minix had this. Torvalds managed well to collect ideas amoung the unix world and to create a fast stable production ready OS. However it is not innovative in my eyses, I personally believe that actually innovative and production ready in the same time is difficult, and requires at least quite an amount of time to move from innovative to production with new ideas.
* A backer may then also sell his bread at any price he wants?
* All backers of a city may then unite to an organisation to "synchronise" their price politic?
* Than they may also demand the double price for the bread? After all they backed it.
* People would still have to buy it or they would starve.
* A greater backery store with more financial backhold may dump it's price to nearly zero until all other backery stores are out of business, and then raise it to the double as the marked value was before, or? After all they may sell their bread at any price they want, it's their bread.
* The bigger backery store may spread fear and distrust about the low quality of bread of the other stores, and how it -could- cause illnes, because it -could- mutate.
* On the bread is an EULA saying you may not eat this bread on dishes produced by other companies. (misuse of monopole by using it to expand to other sectors)
etc. etc.
You're throwing us back into age of the industrial revolution, where workers had no rights, lived in slums near the factory, and were usually been squeezed the last out of them.
100% uncontrolled capitalism has already prooven not to work in the past.
Well no, this time they collected really evidence before posting a story, a positive slashdot un-typical trend:o)
How do you interpred this sentence?
You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services
I might be wrong, but to my understanding this does not mean this applies the pages that using MSN or MSNBC components, but it applies to all pages created with FP that disparage Microsoft -OR- MSN -OR- MSNBC.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
:o)
:o)
Wrong. At least this is an profable statement in in scietific understanding at least thus "not right".
The field effect transistor FET was long patent before even the first transistor was build. The patent holder didn't see get a penny.
I'm not 100% sure how it was with the "classic" PNP transistor. As far I know it was mainly developed by military, they survive pretty well without patents
On the other hand I've a *very* *very* old book at home about radio technology. It was prior to transistor age, times where all was done with tubes. In on of the last chapters they made an *outlook* to the future of radio technology. One thing they spend several pages was a new effect than when put to speical negative loaded needles, into a strange material (the p material) they could gain intensification effects by this setup. At this times nobody yet understood why and how. but the effect was already known, without an patent. I personally doubt that today electronics would look any different without, how as the same with your postulate this is not proofable so at least also "not right"
ou're right, that is ok, but only as long as it's for personal use. As soon as you start distributing it, it's no longer ok.
I don't see any difference there, note that he's not -selling- it or making profit from it anyway. He just restyled the the x-windows look&feel like he has seen on an apple.
I agree that the parallels are too strong, He took even over some things I donnot like, like the striped background, it looks just ugly, and the differences between copying and redesigning are thin. If somebody constantly looks and does line by line I agree it's as good as copying. However if somebody looks at the final product of something else, studies it. Then lays it aside and redoes a rather similar thing then it's okay.
I can speak of source code, you start looking somewhere, lay it aside and then doing something. However I constantly try to supersede the original, often having receiving a result at the end beeing very different. My objection is that such "rules" are good for popularity. I saved work because I had insight into other workings. I improved the work because I superceeded it, and finally I release it as GPL again, so others can do the same cycle again.
However userinterface copyright is a long discussion not answered easily. Take in example you keyboard. Is this not also a userinterface? Imagine the normal keyboard layout would be copyrighted, than every hardware manufacturer has to come with own key-layout. What do you think this would meen for publicity?
There was also another lawsuit back a decase Lotus against Borland. Lotus sued Borland for copyright infringement on Lotus 1-2-3, as they used the same interface. Pretty much exactly the same menu interface structure. Lotus lost, altough what I read there is again movement in this case.
For more info about the userinterface discussion you can look at:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Copyright/copyright.html
Think further, what if the idea of menues to use at all would be "copyrighted"? What about graphic buttuns after all? What about the OK-CANCEL-HELP combination? So whats the difference for the right to use blue, round buttons?
Honestly laws are to protect the general public and how out community works together they are not for single persons.
an Aqua clone is not akin to inspiration from an algorithm.
Sure it is, where should the difference be?
If you copy/paste the images from the mac, than it's not okay. If look at a mac, say I'll do an skin that looks&feels exactly the same that's okay.
To protect ideas/designs etc. you need patents and trademarks, not copyright.
Maybe the buttons may not look -exactly- like the OS X ones, if they filed one as a trademark. But you can do well do light blue buttons, blurred color shift, with round edges, thats not "owned" by apple.
However the same if I code some alogrithmn, and somebody looks at it and says very clever, I'll use the same algorithmn nothing can stop him to do.
He cannot copy/paste my source, this is a copyright violation, but he CAN take my algorithmn, altough people have a feeling like "this is -my- idea", it's not backed by law. Same goes with the UI interfaces, they may also be as nasty to write as some clever sorting algorithms, but you cannot forbid anybody else to do the same idea. You can forbid them to -copy- your stuff hitting CTRL-C, CTRL-V but not from beeing "inspiried" by you.
Here: http://kde.themes.org/themes.phtml
:o)
is a download able aqua theme for kde 2.1.
Looks quite nice, but somehow all the light burns in my eyes
But can anybody tell which right one violates by using the aqua design on non apples?
It is -NOT- copyright. You cannot copyright designs/ideas/formats etc. only the right to -copy- the data itself
I would reread copyright laws. Copyright is at it says the right to ->copy-. Not more, not less. Many people confuse copyright and extend it it their understanding of justice.
One cannot copyright ideas. There are patents for.
One cannot copyright interfaces, designs.
One cannot copyright protocols, formats.
If you look at something and say, hey thats a good idea, I'll do it exactly the same this is not violating copyright in any way. The case when he would have violated copyright is when in example he would have -copied- bitmaps from apple to linux.
If his employer immediatly caves in, he's a wimp, guess his boss might also not know what copyright laws allows and forbids. People show some courage and don't throw away things that are you right just because your opponent is huge.
It's a david vs. goliat where we know already that goliat is in unjustness.
Did you ever try this out? Seems you can execute device nodes
./random
./random: Permission denied
:/
---
root@home:/dev> chmod +x random
root@home:/dev> ls -l random
crwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1, 8 Jan 19 2001 random
root@home:/dev>
bash:
---
No need to cross fingers. Why was I so crazy to try? 'cause even if the kernel would have allowed this, I would win in lottery before I receive a valid ELF file out of random.
BTW the stupid lameness filter required me to edit the ls -l output
But know what does 'vi' actually mean?
very interactive?
versus imacs?
voice input?
vivace irish?
I think he just wanted to write just something, so the story is longer than one single line :/ And after all traffic is traffic, and one knows how to keep the masses in mood :/
and reeeeeal programmers edit their inodes on the harddisk with magned needles.
I think this is the same status like selling a hammar. One can use it to construct houses, cupboards, tables, hang up pictures on the wall, and a lot of other good and constructive things. Now there is a group of people who might use hammers to destroy windows, does the producer of the hammer have any guiltiness on the destroyed window?
Same was dynamite, Nobel also thought of the constructive things when inventing it, like mining etc. but there are also people that will use dynamite to blow up other things than rocks.
Personally I think different for things created only for pure destruction. Like rockets, to a limited degree some kind of guns etc.
But also there history made sometimes funny turns. Take the LASER in example, when this technology came up people only thought of them using as super longrange weapons, and got quite funding for this purpose. Now look today, LASERs are used for everything, from construction computers, correcting teeth and eyes, meassuring stars, etc. etc. but one application they failed miserable as weapons themselfs.
Agreed.
However throwing away privacy completly has other devasting effects.
One thing I believe one really is his own privacy are in example genetical based higher risks of some sickness. When I go to a company introducing for a new job, I really don't want them to be able to get my medical history or of my family.
Same goes in example a list of all people having this or that speciality in a state. Imagine how some company can misuse this, to send targeted advertisment.
Just image how SPAM would start looking like if all email addresses where laid open?
Privacy is to there to protect you from ruthless companies and organisations, and I donnot think we should throw that away too easily.
One thing enterprise completly misses, is that once you can do "beaming" you can also as good -copy- any mass including you.
:o) and if if it gets copied too.
This different as cloning, since your duplicate would really have absolute the same structure, including same memory and same beeing. Only the ultimate old question is left if there is something like a soul
"Beaming" would function in reality like sending a fax, not like the original enterprise serier used it to save production costs (No lander spec. effects required). Yes the other side receives the image, but the original is still there. I personally do not want to be beamed that way.
Also I wouldn't guess geocities too, they keep records maybe, and so you're trackable. I would search in temporary places, somewhere the senders don't leave slime spours, and places with good anonymity hidden IP's and where no permanent records are taken. Secondly I don't believe they use a place where everybody has read access to, so once discovered they could be easily eavesdroped.
I think some IRC servers would be a spot to look for, Maybe also some of the "freedrives" services would be intersting for such people. Than maybe something like ezboard.com, or also very likely just some stupid FTP server hidden somewhere on a non standard port where people transfer coded coded messages hidden inside of images up and down.
Now tell me how smart a carnibore auto-system must be to detect such traffic.
You forgot one thing, suck away the whole atmosphere of earth, without oxygen people can't talk, so also no mouth to mouth communication via messengers.
So what I've read it's about header files.
.h header files is from my sight a little globally confused. People often say, yay it are just header files.
:o) so better stop here :o)
Copyright regarding
But take in example linux which is GPL. Now on linux systems the glibc include headers often end up including linux headers. Now is not actually including a linux header not -incooperating- the source into yours? So by including in example wich in turn includes doesn't the preproccessor copy/paste linux source into yours?
I had this discussion before, and most people said man it are just header files. But where does a header file / interface start and where stop. Actually the same way it's possible to write a whole probram in a header file.
So far I got no satisfying answer for that.
I know the linux kernel group takes copyright header etc. rather slutty in contrast to projects where every files has it's copyright header, so it's difficult to tell the rules if you're facing only one file. And yet worse if you've a project mixing licenses.
But honestly why does somebody prefering the BSD license feel pestered after all if another project prefers to use it further as GPL. The orignal source is still available with all allowness. And on the other hand BSD allows the enhancer of a software to take away _all_ rights for the user, not giving the source at all. So wheres the problem if they "reduce" the users rights to GPL? After all properitary would be allowed, but GPL not? That confuses me.
Thats why _I_ think normally mature BSD developers should at least allow a double license, BSD or GPL. This makes life far more easier for GPL projects, since they've not to pester around which files are under GPL and which routines under BSD, and what happens if you take function parts from one file to another. So BSD for all people working on this BSD licensed project, and people wanting to use the source for GPL projects should be allowed to "transform" the license to this need, after all it's FreeSoftware we're all wanting, so why making each others life difficult?
I think this is just another GPL vs. BSD knee-jerk fight, instead going about real violations or any rights that have been really harmed.
I understand that BSD is a good license for universities. This way studends working on projects in the school time can continue to use the source later in business. In example I work on projects as pure hobby, in my freetime. So for me GPL is the ideal license, people amy use it, if they modify it thay have to give the source for it, so making my hobby a bit more enjoyfull. I've in example no objections to support somebody in my freetime to take the source to make money without having to give something back, or to support help a manager to take a whole part, in example the BSD stack, instead having to -hire- and pay people for programming alike. So now in example the microsoft case, they shoot at the GPL to be anti-american, pacman a virus and what heaven knows everything else and like to spread it's danger is for programmer jobs, invitation and all. But it's okay for them to take the BSD stack instead paying for programmers job?
Okay got a bit away from the topic
Applies to our current understanding of physics. Nobody yet managed to transfer information like this, since first seperating them is difficult, and second the key to do something against the second one that would change the other one.
As far I know this phenomenon is predicted by theory only and not (yet) by experiment. Secondly you can't 100% assure that it is unsnoopable, since we don't understand the physics below it. Maybe there is an yet unknown force that connects them, which creates an unknown field that can be snooped.
Beside the physical part, there is another criptrograic prolbem: transportation of the key. You've to transport -securly- the key to other side, without having it replaced. So also this hypothetical communication is only as sure as your key-transportation is, in example one could grap the container of your particle, replace it with his partice, and in his lab forwards all traffic from his second partice to your partice, and so is able to snoop.
Try buying the notebook of your choice without financing microsoft against your will.
Possible to get a notebook without ms? Yes there are some, but not the one of your choice, it's very hard to buy a notebook -without- buying a windows license, altough the first thing you want to do is to repartionate the harddisk in install the os of your choice.
Acording to the xanim homepage this format is yet unsupported:
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/xa_unsupported.html
So far I could find out this stream is coded using a "QDM2 Codec".
I tried kde media player, no doesn't it supports this format, must have been a wrong comment :/
.rpm but read that this movie has a length of 0 :(
I looked on the internet and downloaded&compiled some packages for linux who promised to play quicktime movies.
xmovie - compiled after a small patch, but failed to load this file.
mp2movie - promised to be able to convert quicktime movies to mpg, no go.
lamp - installed easily with
So I tried but I could watch it, doesn't seem to be a "normal" quicktime movie, the existing linux quicktime players could play.
I don't see what's the real innovative idea behind this.
:)
Looking back behind 1980 when there was no windows and not even a DOS, what ruled the computers world? Big unix core's, connected to them a lot of terminals. You could walk to any terminal any time, login and having you home account. The -personal computer- was then coming a big movement, and from this time on the trend seemed to go more and more to -distributed- computing. The computing loads balance point shifted more and more to the client side. Today clients calculate as much as possible, while the server provides at least data as the client requires, saving him from the load.
In later history there were some efforts to walk back to server focused computing, but in my eyes they all failed. ThinClients? Remember the net pc? And the software downloaded online by use, etc.
In my eyes this networking talk has in priority one thing in mind, again. Flaten the path to soft-leasing.
Microsoft has a major problem, that a majority of personals computers run their software doesn't actually help them. They sell their software -once-, and then never again. They always have come up with new variations 98, ME, XP, Advanced *, to resell an upgrade at full price. So they wanted already in the past to move to subscription based software so they've a ensured income. People refused, there are a lot of points and a story itself worth talking about. I just say why did they move away from the classic versioning system, NT 4.0, NT 5.0 -> 2000, NT 6.0 -> XP and moved to put first year numbers and then even moved further from an obvious line to letter acronyms. So people buy upgrades at full price, thinking they buy a new product.
It's all about money baby
I agree about the GPL/Linux people stop complaning and go and -do- something. I agree to another comment i heared once, looking honestly is there anything really innovative on linux? Actually linux is a rather conservative approach. Thats not bad per-se, it first ensures stability, and secondly also important saves it's users from beeing "guinea pigs". All of it's techs have been there before. A free unix system on the pc? BSD and Minix had this. Torvalds managed well to collect ideas amoung the unix world and to create a fast stable production ready OS. However it is not innovative in my eyses, I personally believe that actually innovative and production ready in the same time is difficult, and requires at least quite an amount of time to move from innovative to production with new ideas.
Well you're advocading -total capitalism-.
* A backer may then also sell his bread at any price he wants?
* All backers of a city may then unite to an organisation to "synchronise" their price politic?
* Than they may also demand the double price for the bread? After all they backed it.
* People would still have to buy it or they would starve.
* A greater backery store with more financial backhold may dump it's price to nearly zero until all other backery stores are out of business, and then raise it to the double as the marked value was before, or? After all they may sell their bread at any price they want, it's their bread.
* The bigger backery store may spread fear and distrust about the low quality of bread of the other stores, and how it -could- cause illnes, because it -could- mutate.
* On the bread is an EULA saying you may not eat this bread on dishes produced by other companies. (misuse of monopole by using it to expand to other sectors)
etc. etc.
You're throwing us back into age of the industrial revolution, where workers had no rights, lived in slums near the factory, and were usually been squeezed the last out of them.
100% uncontrolled capitalism has already prooven not to work in the past.
Well no, this time they collected really evidence before posting a story, a positive slashdot un-typical trend :o)
How do you interpred this sentence?
You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services
I might be wrong, but to my understanding this does not mean this applies the pages that using MSN or MSNBC components, but it applies to all pages created with FP that disparage Microsoft -OR- MSN -OR- MSNBC.
However I'm a total law-layman.