I was rather impressed. He answered every question, though occasionally obliquely to avoid portions of the question that are harder to put into a good light...
However, I will never install Real again, no matter what media I could see with it. The company has destroyed my trust in them in the past; and while they may no longer be deserving of unmitigated loathing, I cannot bring myself to trust them far enough to install them. Once bitten, twice shy.
Raven
Responding to a Troll, but...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
You, of course, own your thoughts. But do you own the words you utter? Do you own the vibrations in the air that reach others ears. Can you take those vibrations back, or inflict your will on others to tell them 'pretend you did not hear that... those are my words, not yours.' Are you going to reach into someone's mind and rip out their memory of the pages you typed and showed to them?
Abolishing IP law is not about forcing you to lack ownership of your thoughts. It is about admitting that you MAY NOT control the thoughts of others, by telling them what they may or may not create. IP is about controlling other people's thoughts, telling them what portions of their knowledge and experience they may or may not use in their own creative endeavors.
Once you make your creative works public, it can be argued that you lose the right to control how others use that work. Similar to how people who put their lives in the public eye, like elected officials and movie stars, have little recourse in libel and slander... perhaps people who put their thoughs in the public eye should have little legal recourse on the ownership of those thoughts.
Food for thought, IMO. I am not saying I wholly agree with abolishing IP, but I can see the ethical appeal of such a change.
I read your sig before I read the comment, and wondered if it was related to Ayn Rand... then read the command, and was pretty sure of it... then the email address, and was embarrassingly certain.:-)
I had a few people I know, not comptuer savvy people, who did not believe that the actors in Final Fantasy: The Dreams Within were pure digital creations. They were undoubtedly fooled. Heck, I was fooled half the time. And more processing power will only improve that over time.
So I think empirical evidence has already disproven this article. It's premise was undermined before it was even written. While games may not yet have reached that level of sophistication, I believe it is only a matter of time... and games like Half Life 2 are the ones leading the way.
Why? So many people dislike it, maybe the concern is VALID? How many complaints about a bad thing must there be before people admit... maybe it really is... bad? Does it become less bad just because we've learned to tune it out or ignore it?
Perhaps if companies paid 'contract wages' based on the perceived value of a project, but allowed employees to work on any project. Employees with a current excess of funds could work on enjoyable 'low pay' projects, while employees at short ends would work on the less fun 'high pay' projects.
I can see many potential issues with this, such as the hassle of time tracking and the likelyhood of abuse, but think of the morale issues... rather than being stuck endlessly in a project you detest, you can 'take a break' and work on a low paying fun project (or fun for you). People who enjoy less fun tasks, like documentation, would get paid for their interest in valuable, but not glamorous, tasks.
It's kinda like auctioning off 'work'. The more employees who want to do a certain task, the more you pay for it (in lower wages).
Yeah... too bad Batman had to use his belt the day they were launching the rover. His bathook would have been really useful.
On a more serious note, the logistics of firing and using a grappling hook are far outside the realm of 'faster, better, cheaper' methods. Simple is where it's at, and Rube Goldberg devices to pull the rover out of pits are not on the menu.
I do hope they choose to go down... I wanna see what that ripply stuff at the bottom of the crater is made out of.
Absurd claims are the hallmark of junk science. Impressive though that this guy managed to dupe people long enough to sell many thousand units.
I'm curious if the motor IS better than usual, just not to the extent claimed, or if it's ALL hoax. I cannot get to the site myself... japan.com surrendered to the/. nuke.
It's kinda sad. One of the few inititiaves I approve of from the current Bush administration, and it is stillborn due to reporter bias and misinformation.
Reporting is supposed to give facts, not 'plausible assumptions'.
Didn't see it mentioned, which surprises me. This may not be a solution to find all the legal commercial MP3s you want, but it is a great way to find all the legal indie music you might like.
Install XP, Win2K, whatever... anything that has real permissions.
Setup your parents as limited users, but create a user called 'Installation' that has Administrative rights.
Make sure the visual theme for 'Installation' is so horrid to use (high contrast works well usually) that they will never accidentally use it. Lock down the theme with a policy.
Review their software and remove bad software that requires root access (ie, Administrative rights) to run.
Install nonMS alternatives for the core net Apps. Install alternatives for IM apps if necessary. Install alternatives for major content apps (like QT or Real) if you don't want them installing it themselves.
In other words, give them the power to install things, but make it inconvenient, and make sure that they don't have to install much themselves because you already covered all the bases with software you approve of.
That's my solution. And my Mom is still spyware and virus free for two years, with only a dozen or so 'help!' calls. Father's computer is, unfortunately, less healthy... but he bought a Compaq against my recommendation, so I give it up as a loss.:-)
Finally, GUI as a _superset_ of the command line? Now I know you're high. Maybe on Windows. Under Linux it's a distant and pale subset.
I completely agree... and I agree with the parent poster too. See, I think X sucks holy goat balls. At some future point, X may meet or exceed the usability of Windows 95. When it does, I may start using X.
Until then, I have >=2 boxes... Linux, and Windows, and never the twain shall meet. Services don't run on Windows, and I don't do GUI on Linux. This uneasy truce will remain until X because usable.*
* I define 'usable' as being handicap accessible out of the box... ie, you can use almost all X apps with the keyboard alone, and not lose any functionality, and without using a keyboard-mouse-pointer-mover.
Let's pretend we have a Windows/Linux/BSD network. It needs to stay heterogenous, but backwards compatibility is not required... apps that 'only' run on >=Win2K or >=Linux2.6 are fine... heck, let's run the ragged edge and allow Beta software that requires >=2.7 or >=Longhorn.
Is there any well performing and stable replacements for CIFS that allows Windows, Linux, and BSD boxes to all share files to each other? Sharing that only works one way is allowed too (such as when there is a Linux client/server, but only a Windows client).
Everyone hates Samba... what's the alternative? I don't care if it's a compile-it-yourself distro on sourceforge, I wanna start USING the alternative so CIFS and Samba can die the ungraceful death their ancient cludge deserves. Currently, and I'm not joking, I'm using ftp2fs systems for shares with small files. They don't work for random access, so my larger files are literally duplicated on multiple machines. I irrationally refuse to run shares. I'm just tired of dealing with it.
Better tools and better documentation that makes it easier to create a consistently high quality package can help. Any of the package managers is ok at making proper packages... but some are better than others, due to better tools, better documentation, or better standards control, or some combination of all three.
Good tools cannot make a bad programmer put out a well made package. But they can help a good programmer make fewer mistakes, and put out a well made package more consistently.
A port does not have to REMAIN open during the life of the TCP connection. You open the door, let the SYN packet in, a connection is negotiated... and the port is CLOSED again. Existing TCP connections are let through via the stateful firewall rules.
Actually, you're still wrong. If I pass on a GPL'd work, UNALTERED (alteration and re-selling is prohibited under normal copyright law), then you are not required to provide the source code... the person who distributed it to you is. You have not altered the code, you have not used the code to create your own derivative work.
Perhaps a better analogy... can I rip out the pages of a book, use them in a collage, and sell that derivative work? It is possible, but it could also be contested in a court of law, especially if you used the entire book in the derivative collage (fair use would not apply). Bundling a GPLd work in your own module would be similar to this collage example, using the copyrighted work in your own project.
But if I sell this GPL'd program to someone, UNALTERED, original... why should you provide the source code? You might not even HAVE it, since you may never have requested the source from the original author. The new owner of the work could still request the source from the creator of the GPL'd software. You never had to accept the original license because you did not take advantage of any of the leeway the GPL offers.
I stand by my statement. If you do not make derivitave works, if you do not take advantage of the rights the GPL offers you, you do not have to accept the license to use the GPL'd software.
Specifically, I think you are confusing the fact that most software comes with a license with the notion that ALL software MUST come with a license to be valid. Not true at all.
Software is a copyrighted work. If I purchase a copyrighted work, then it is a simple purchase... like buying a CD, a book, or a picture. Not every transaction involving a copyrighted work must involve a licence. ONLY if the rights being transferred are different than standard copyright law must a license (describing those differences) come into play.
If I receive a copy of a GPL'd work from someone, I do not have to accept the GPL license at all. The person MAKING THE SALE must abide the the license (unless they are the original creator of course), but I do not have to. In fact, the GPL specifically states that it does not apply when the receiver is only running the software. As a receiver of the copyrighted work, all normal copyright rights and restrictions apply... I cannot sell copies of the work, but I can copy it for myself, excerpt it, parody it, and sell my original copy to another person as long as I do not retain any copies. This is all standard copyright law, that applies to books, sheet music, etc... any standard copyrighted work that does not come with a license.
The GPL grants me additional rights, should I choose to accept it and abide by the restrictions. But I am not required to accept it to receive a GPL'd work, as is explicitly stated in the GPL itself. The software becomes just like any other copyrighted item, with the normal restrictions and rights thereof.
Oh come on. The/. editors get enough slack for always posting rah-rah reviews. Now you wanna give them slack for posting a negative review? Pfft. Variety is good. It is nice to get opinions on what is great, and what might look good, but actually sucks.
Small local ISPs do not currently have any special hooks to the govt... there are no laws yet requiring us to. And since most smaller ISPs do not use any special software at all (the installation CD is just a new version of IE, with Netscape or Moz on the CD too), they cannot be detecting anything on your computer.
On a completely unrelated note, I work for a small ISP in Wisconsin that services the area from Green Bay to Milwaukee, and extending west of Lake Winnebago. Dump your AOL or Earthlink and go with a small provider that respects your privacy!* Go Dotnet!;-)
* It's really not that we respect your privacy... it is more that we just don't CARE what you do online.
Not true. The system proposed does not say who you voted for at all... it does not verify on a 'per item' basis. It's perfectly valid (at least in my state) to make a perfectly blank ballot and submit it. The same could be true of this system. Hell, you can always 'write in' a vote of mickey mouse for every candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
me 2!!1!
I was rather impressed. He answered every question, though occasionally obliquely to avoid portions of the question that are harder to put into a good light...
However, I will never install Real again, no matter what media I could see with it. The company has destroyed my trust in them in the past; and while they may no longer be deserving of unmitigated loathing, I cannot bring myself to trust them far enough to install them. Once bitten, twice shy.
Raven
You, of course, own your thoughts. But do you own the words you utter? Do you own the vibrations in the air that reach others ears. Can you take those vibrations back, or inflict your will on others to tell them 'pretend you did not hear that... those are my words, not yours.' Are you going to reach into someone's mind and rip out their memory of the pages you typed and showed to them?
Abolishing IP law is not about forcing you to lack ownership of your thoughts. It is about admitting that you MAY NOT control the thoughts of others, by telling them what they may or may not create. IP is about controlling other people's thoughts, telling them what portions of their knowledge and experience they may or may not use in their own creative endeavors.
Once you make your creative works public, it can be argued that you lose the right to control how others use that work. Similar to how people who put their lives in the public eye, like elected officials and movie stars, have little recourse in libel and slander... perhaps people who put their thoughs in the public eye should have little legal recourse on the ownership of those thoughts.
Food for thought, IMO. I am not saying I wholly agree with abolishing IP, but I can see the ethical appeal of such a change.
I read your sig before I read the comment, and wondered if it was related to Ayn Rand... then read the command, and was pretty sure of it... then the email address, and was embarrassingly certain. :-)
Rock on with your Rational self.
I had a few people I know, not comptuer savvy people, who did not believe that the actors in Final Fantasy: The Dreams Within were pure digital creations. They were undoubtedly fooled. Heck, I was fooled half the time. And more processing power will only improve that over time.
So I think empirical evidence has already disproven this article. It's premise was undermined before it was even written. While games may not yet have reached that level of sophistication, I believe it is only a matter of time... and games like Half Life 2 are the ones leading the way.
Raven
Why? So many people dislike it, maybe the concern is VALID? How many complaints about a bad thing must there be before people admit... maybe it really is... bad? Does it become less bad just because we've learned to tune it out or ignore it?
Perhaps if companies paid 'contract wages' based on the perceived value of a project, but allowed employees to work on any project. Employees with a current excess of funds could work on enjoyable 'low pay' projects, while employees at short ends would work on the less fun 'high pay' projects.
I can see many potential issues with this, such as the hassle of time tracking and the likelyhood of abuse, but think of the morale issues... rather than being stuck endlessly in a project you detest, you can 'take a break' and work on a low paying fun project (or fun for you). People who enjoy less fun tasks, like documentation, would get paid for their interest in valuable, but not glamorous, tasks.
It's kinda like auctioning off 'work'. The more employees who want to do a certain task, the more you pay for it (in lower wages).
Yeah... too bad Batman had to use his belt the day they were launching the rover. His bathook would have been really useful.
On a more serious note, the logistics of firing and using a grappling hook are far outside the realm of 'faster, better, cheaper' methods. Simple is where it's at, and Rube Goldberg devices to pull the rover out of pits are not on the menu.
I do hope they choose to go down... I wanna see what that ripply stuff at the bottom of the crater is made out of.
Toolbars and similar items would not be prevented by blocking mutex's as far as I know, because they don't create one. They run under the IE process.
However, for most other types of spyware I completely agree, that would be an excellent idea for screening running processes.
Absurd claims are the hallmark of junk science. Impressive though that this guy managed to dupe people long enough to sell many thousand units.
/. nuke.
I'm curious if the motor IS better than usual, just not to the extent claimed, or if it's ALL hoax. I cannot get to the site myself... japan.com surrendered to the
It's kinda sad. One of the few inititiaves I approve of from the current Bush administration, and it is stillborn due to reporter bias and misinformation.
Reporting is supposed to give facts, not 'plausible assumptions'.
Well that's depressing. I was serious.
Didn't see it mentioned, which surprises me. This may not be a solution to find all the legal commercial MP3s you want, but it is a great way to find all the legal indie music you might like.
Install XP, Win2K, whatever... anything that has real permissions.
:-)
Setup your parents as limited users, but create a user called 'Installation' that has Administrative rights.
Make sure the visual theme for 'Installation' is so horrid to use (high contrast works well usually) that they will never accidentally use it. Lock down the theme with a policy.
Review their software and remove bad software that requires root access (ie, Administrative rights) to run.
Install nonMS alternatives for the core net Apps. Install alternatives for IM apps if necessary. Install alternatives for major content apps (like QT or Real) if you don't want them installing it themselves.
In other words, give them the power to install things, but make it inconvenient, and make sure that they don't have to install much themselves because you already covered all the bases with software you approve of.
That's my solution. And my Mom is still spyware and virus free for two years, with only a dozen or so 'help!' calls. Father's computer is, unfortunately, less healthy... but he bought a Compaq against my recommendation, so I give it up as a loss.
Until then, I have >=2 boxes... Linux, and Windows, and never the twain shall meet. Services don't run on Windows, and I don't do GUI on Linux. This uneasy truce will remain until X because usable.*
* I define 'usable' as being handicap accessible out of the box... ie, you can use almost all X apps with the keyboard alone, and not lose any functionality, and without using a keyboard-mouse-pointer-mover.
Let's pretend we have a Windows/Linux/BSD network. It needs to stay heterogenous, but backwards compatibility is not required... apps that 'only' run on >=Win2K or >=Linux2.6 are fine... heck, let's run the ragged edge and allow Beta software that requires >=2.7 or >=Longhorn.
Is there any well performing and stable replacements for CIFS that allows Windows, Linux, and BSD boxes to all share files to each other? Sharing that only works one way is allowed too (such as when there is a Linux client/server, but only a Windows client).
Everyone hates Samba... what's the alternative? I don't care if it's a compile-it-yourself distro on sourceforge, I wanna start USING the alternative so CIFS and Samba can die the ungraceful death their ancient cludge deserves. Currently, and I'm not joking, I'm using ftp2fs systems for shares with small files. They don't work for random access, so my larger files are literally duplicated on multiple machines. I irrationally refuse to run shares. I'm just tired of dealing with it.
So give me an alternative.
Better tools and better documentation that makes it easier to create a consistently high quality package can help. Any of the package managers is ok at making proper packages... but some are better than others, due to better tools, better documentation, or better standards control, or some combination of all three.
Good tools cannot make a bad programmer put out a well made package. But they can help a good programmer make fewer mistakes, and put out a well made package more consistently.
A port does not have to REMAIN open during the life of the TCP connection. You open the door, let the SYN packet in, a connection is negotiated... and the port is CLOSED again. Existing TCP connections are let through via the stateful firewall rules.
Actually, you're still wrong. If I pass on a GPL'd work, UNALTERED (alteration and re-selling is prohibited under normal copyright law), then you are not required to provide the source code... the person who distributed it to you is. You have not altered the code, you have not used the code to create your own derivative work.
Perhaps a better analogy... can I rip out the pages of a book, use them in a collage, and sell that derivative work? It is possible, but it could also be contested in a court of law, especially if you used the entire book in the derivative collage (fair use would not apply). Bundling a GPLd work in your own module would be similar to this collage example, using the copyrighted work in your own project.
But if I sell this GPL'd program to someone, UNALTERED, original... why should you provide the source code? You might not even HAVE it, since you may never have requested the source from the original author. The new owner of the work could still request the source from the creator of the GPL'd software. You never had to accept the original license because you did not take advantage of any of the leeway the GPL offers.
I stand by my statement. If you do not make derivitave works, if you do not take advantage of the rights the GPL offers you, you do not have to accept the license to use the GPL'd software.
IANAL, but I believe you are wrong.
Specifically, I think you are confusing the fact that most software comes with a license with the notion that ALL software MUST come with a license to be valid. Not true at all.
Software is a copyrighted work. If I purchase a copyrighted work, then it is a simple purchase... like buying a CD, a book, or a picture. Not every transaction involving a copyrighted work must involve a licence. ONLY if the rights being transferred are different than standard copyright law must a license (describing those differences) come into play.
If I receive a copy of a GPL'd work from someone, I do not have to accept the GPL license at all. The person MAKING THE SALE must abide the the license (unless they are the original creator of course), but I do not have to. In fact, the GPL specifically states that it does not apply when the receiver is only running the software. As a receiver of the copyrighted work, all normal copyright rights and restrictions apply... I cannot sell copies of the work, but I can copy it for myself, excerpt it, parody it, and sell my original copy to another person as long as I do not retain any copies. This is all standard copyright law, that applies to books, sheet music, etc... any standard copyrighted work that does not come with a license.
The GPL grants me additional rights, should I choose to accept it and abide by the restrictions. But I am not required to accept it to receive a GPL'd work, as is explicitly stated in the GPL itself. The software becomes just like any other copyrighted item, with the normal restrictions and rights thereof.
Anyone dissent?
Er. I could pretend English is my second language... but I have no excuse. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Oh come on. The /. editors get enough slack for always posting rah-rah reviews. Now you wanna give them slack for posting a negative review? Pfft. Variety is good. It is nice to get opinions on what is great, and what might look good, but actually sucks.
I don't want my library to be 'quaint'. I want them to have a good selection and low cost to taxpayers (me). I see this only as a benefit.
A) Throw the books out.
B) Have local book sale, make a tiny bit of cash.
C) Use eBay or Amazon, make a lot of cash.
Where is the loss? This makes absolute sense for everyone concerned, including the locals, who get better books in the library.
BOFH: You know what I hate about users? It's the smell! I feel saturated by it.
Users are a disease, a plague upon my network.
Goodbye, Mr Anderson
userdel -h manderson
Small local ISPs do not currently have any special hooks to the govt... there are no laws yet requiring us to. And since most smaller ISPs do not use any special software at all (the installation CD is just a new version of IE, with Netscape or Moz on the CD too), they cannot be detecting anything on your computer.
;-)
On a completely unrelated note, I work for a small ISP in Wisconsin that services the area from Green Bay to Milwaukee, and extending west of Lake Winnebago. Dump your AOL or Earthlink and go with a small provider that respects your privacy!* Go Dotnet!
* It's really not that we respect your privacy... it is more that we just don't CARE what you do online.
Not true. The system proposed does not say who you voted for at all... it does not verify on a 'per item' basis. It's perfectly valid (at least in my state) to make a perfectly blank ballot and submit it. The same could be true of this system. Hell, you can always 'write in' a vote of mickey mouse for every candidate.