A followup to my own post, regarding the mp3.com signup.
They demand to know:
Country of residence
Zip/postal code
Gender
A few points about that. What if I don't have a zip/postal code? I should just make one up, right? So what the hell is the point in requiring it? Why demand to know my gender, but not my age or other demographic data? It's invasive without being useful. But most of all, country of residence pisses me off. It should be clear that the most pragmatic answer to give is "United States" (which is conveniently the first on the "alphabetical" list). It should also be clear, with just a little further thought, how idiotic this would be, as it would just further skew the perception that the US market is the only one that matters, and the rest of the world can go screw itself. For example, I will not wait for English language region 2 DVD's, but instead buy region 1 DVD's online. I get them faster and usually cheaper than the (mostly identical) region 2's, but at the cost of artificially boosting region 1 sales and perpetuating the artificial segregation of the market.
Believe me, it's pretty damn annoying to see content marketed and reviewed all over the internet that you know you'll generally have to wait at least three months to see (or years, or never), when you have the desire and the funds to buy it right now. If you're a US citizen, try it for yourself. Pretend that you're European for a month: try and find new US releases at.co.uk subsidiaries, find out that that Europeans pay 40-60% more for most consumer items (£ price == $ price, but £ == 1.4x$), or shop at US.coms, then check out the international shipping rates and speeds. It might open your eyes.
I can only find it on mp3.com or GetMusic.com, which just links to mp3.com, and they want me to provide an email address before I can buy it. Why? They've got my credit card number and IP address, what on earth would they need an email address for?
They won't let me. Because, you see, I'm not a US resident, and it's only available to US residents.
It's this second point that really sticks in my throat. Way to miss the point. Music is global now. They're promoting a track, they're offering to sell it, I'm ready to pay for it, but then they say I can't have it just because of where I live. Well, guess what: I can have it, I just won't be paying them a dollar to get it.
As you say, it's important to show support for the concept. And the concept I'll support is a single-click, no-login, no DRM, globally accessible, no questions asked transaction. This is only half way there. Before you criticise me for being overly picky, understand that my argument is actually moot: they won't let me buy it anyway, so my only choice is to go away and shut up, or go away and bitch about it. I'll choose the latter, thanks.
... please post a review of it (genre, style, influences, quality). Just a wild thought, but shouldn't we be using the power of this big ol' inter-web thing to make informed decisions about mp3 purchasing, rather than just making the point that we'll buy any old junk as long as it's mp3?
I grudge paying money for Microsoft products, I'm constantly disappointed when they fall short of my expectations, and when they roll out the regular fixes for products that had been billed as the most stable ever, I grunt in annoyance.
I buy boxed Linux distros even though I don't have to, I'm constantly delighted when they surpass my expecations, and when they roll out the regular fixes for products that had been billed as the most stable ever, I go "Yippee! Now it's even better!".
We've been debating what it is Microsoft fears about open source. It's probably not the money (in the mid term) and I'm not even sure that it's the pressure to open their source (in the short term). Right now, the big different for me as a consumer is that I feel good about buying and upgrading Linux based distros. It actually makes me happy. The last time Microsoft made me feel even vaguely like that was with Windows 3.1
I wonder if what they fear is that they've dug themselves into a position (with software as a service active for business and threatened for consumers) where they can't persuade people to pay them more money voluntarily, and instead they have to go down the slippery slope of coercing and compelling. That can't be a good long term prospect for them.
Well, specifically it comes from complying with open standards. The HTML standard, for example, is perfectly open, Microsoft just doesn't comply with it, because there's no other kid in the schoolyard big enough to make it comply.
The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion system because its computers were unable to divide by the number zero
"Unable to"? God damn it, Congress should pass a law to enable it. This is the USA! While they're at it, they could round off PI to 3.
Interesting strategy
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm actually quite taken with Kazaa's strategy. It seems like they're just going to keep "selling" the name and technology to own of their own subsidiaries or spin-offs, then fold whatever part of the company is currently being sued.
Of course, it's a scam, and the [MP|RI]AA can just pursue the new owner... who can just sell on the name and technology, and fold. They'll have to actually go after the owners personally, which is a completely different proposition.
I'm not exactly enamoured with Kazaa (gnutella for me, thanks), but I think they've hit on the only possible defence to the "litagate them into submission" tactics that the [MP|RI]AA are increasingly turning to. However, it's yet another indicator that if you want to start an innovative business, don't do it inthe USA, or in anywhere with strong treaties with the USA. That part is very sad.
[RMS] thinks that having free source-code is important, while most others don't mind the hidden proprietary binaries. He think's that this attitude is wrong, because the problem will grow over time
I'm not judging on what he (according to you) thinks, I'm judging what he actually says. Let's look at the words, shall we?
"We [the FSF] have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way"
"The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with non-free software: they actually contain some"
Those quotes are in order and in context, from adjoining paragraphs in the text that RMS wrote using his own fingers.
You don't see a problem there? Surely if this contradictory situation was so, RMS would have realised, acknowledged, and dealt with it, right? You want an explanation for this curious dichotomy? Let's look at the words of RMS again:
"Most [Linux kernel developers] are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines"
Kettle, thou art black, quoth the pot. RMS has convinced himself that it's OK to use the (non free) Linux kernel, and he seems unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the contradiction, let alone address it. Instead he flat out attacks people for doing exactly what he himself is doing.
Someone needs to take RMS aside and point out that he needs to put up or shut up regarding Linux. It's free, or it isn't. If it is, shut up. If it's not, put up, stop using it, stop associating it with GNU, and go back to HURD.
And the FSF only uses Linux kernels with the binary parts removed? You know this for a fact?
It's funny how people disable their brain in order to justify their personal attacks.
As you'll no doubt notice, I pointed out that RMS started the personal attacks by ripping into Linus. What agravates me about that is that his own behaviour is no different: he happily uses (directly or indirectly) non-free software when it's convenient, all the while railing against anyone else who does it. That needs to be pointed out and challenged at every opportunity, unless that you believe that the mere semblance of good is a substitute for the substance.
There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into use of a non-free program, and challenge anyone who complains to provide a (technically) better program immediately or shut up.
He is talking about BitKeeper.
And we shouldn't follow the reasoning through, becauuuuuse...?
What exactly is the difference between Linus using BitKeeper and RMS using Linux? If RMS truly believed what he was saying, he'd declare the Linux kernel (which contains non-source binary components) anathema, and return to wrestling with HURD. He doesn't do this because Linux is the best technical solution he has right now, and he's happy to use it, while still asserting that all other non-free software is pure evil and must be shunned. Why the exception for Linux? Pragmatism over idealism, pure and simple.
You want to argue that the FSF doesn't associate itself with Linux, but rather vice versa? Not so. The whole point of this article is that RMS is happy to associate with Linux geeks, as long as they remember that the mantra is GNU/Linux.
I'm sorry, but I if it looks like a hypocrite and walks like a hypocrite and quacks like a hypocrite, then it is a hypocrite.
We posted this story over a week ago [...] I'm really sick of deleting hundreds of submissions
Given that Slashdot gets all of its stories from other sources, and that it (demonstrably) only runs stories after many submissions (so the "last" submitter gets his name on it rather than the first), and that the "editors" (I use the term loosely) very demonstrably don't even read their own stories, then this is just business as usual.
How about you change the site policy and actually go out and find stories yourself or even (gasp!) do some actual investigative journalism?
However, internet advertising is very scientific [...] They have people with degrees in math and statistics analyzing the data.
That's an astonishing assertion. Have you got any - any - data to back that up? I don't see why advertising executives would let something as inconvenient as facts and data get in the way of their three hour working lunches and powerpoint presentations about market segmentation and mindshare. Advertising is a scam, perpetuated mostly for the benefit of advertisers. I mean, we're five years or more into the era of serious web banner advertising: it's still not paying for itself, and it's never paid for itself, and yet still advertisers perservere in the astonishing belief that one day people will click-through and make them rich.
Executive producer, producer, chief executive officer... chances are that none of these people have seen more than a couple of screenshots and concept drawings of the latest evolution. Wake me up when one of the developers is talking about how good and how soon it'll be.
[ Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill] said parents need to be aware of what Web sites their children are surfing
To which we all heartily agree, but the article claims:
Parents could set computer software to limit a child's access to only addresses ending in.kids.us.
Say what? That looks like the existing "put a token filtering system in place, then abrogate your responsibility" method so beloved of AOL and the NetNanny brigade. But did our elected representatives just mandate that and slip through mandatory domain locking in browsers while nobody was looking? Let's check the actual bill, H.R. 3833
`(11) Written agreements with registrars, which shall require registrars to enter into written agreements with registrants, to prohibit hyperlinks in the new domain that take new domain users outside of the new domain.
Hmm, OK, not too bad. Once you're in, you can't just click out by accident (although of course this will happen, but at least they've thought about it). Is that all?
(12) Any other action that the NTIA considers necessary to establish, operate, or maintain the new domain in accordance with the purposes of this section.
OK, much as I hate catch-all clauses, this is still limited to "the new domain", not to enforcing functionality in browsers (or telnet, for that matter) to lock off the domain. It looks like any browser locking functionality will be voluntary and third party. I can see AOL and Microsoft scrambling to implement this ASAP, but nobody will have to.
I'm always ready to believe the worst of our legislators when it comes to dealing with technology (their track record isn't great), but I think they've got this one right (even if they are a little vague on how it will actually be administrated). I pronounce this bill sane and measured
Regarding H.R. 1877, it's largely moot. It's a minor modification to existing wiretap law, and law enforcement (or anyone with a suit and a badge and some lawyers) can get a wiretap on you right now for pretty much any reason they like. Personally I think that soliciting children for sex should justify a wiretap, and I'm all in favour of honesty in law enforcement, rather than making them scam a warrant for un-American activities (aka domestic terrorism) or whatever.
Constant vigilance is a good thing, but I don't see anything scary or particularly bad in either of these bills. OK, I find the thought of a.kids.us full of Disney and Barney a little scary, but that's not really the fault of Congress.;-)
Reading between the lines, most Linux distros are not free (speech). Most Linux distros violate the GPL. Most Linux distros are in violation of the FSF's license. Most Linux distros could be hauled into court by the FSF...but they're not. I think that speaks volumes of Stallman.
Wait... this is the same Stallman that asserts that the FSF makes absolutely no use of non-free code, and the same Stallman that makes a personal attack on Linus for valuing pragmatism over idealism?
Stallman is right: the Linux kernel contains binary-only components and is not free software. What I find thoroughly distasteful is his dissembling about it. If it's not free, then the FSF can't use it, and so Stallman tiptoes around the issue, even though he knows that it's clear cut and that (if he practiced what he preaches) the FSF must have nothing to do with Linux.
I should make clear that I use - and say that I use - KDE3/X/GNU/Linux, and I greatly respect the work that the FSF has done. However, I really do think that Stallman in skating on thin ice here. It seems clear to me that RMS is putting pragmatism over idealism in not declaring Linux anathema; fine, I respect that. What I don't respect is him attacking Linus for doing the same. That's rank hypocrisy, and it stinks.
it's good to have the people with the extreme views about. Having someone with that rigid a mindset means it's tougher to "sneak one by."
RMS asserts in this article that Linux is a non-free component (and that there is a long term project to create a free version with no binary-only parts). Given that he also asserts that the FSF uses absolutely no non-free software, and that he makes a personal attack against Linus for choosing pragmatism over ideals, would we be safe to assume that nobody associated with the FSF uses a Linux kernel?
Or, as I believe is more likely, is RMS saying "Do as I say, not as I do" ?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with him (I run KDE3/X/GNU/Linux, if anyone asks), but I also believe that he's full of shit when it comes down to the crunch. If RMS believes his own words (his words, nobody elses) then he must dissasociate the FSF from Linux, absolutely and immediately, and go back to struggling with HURD, no matter how much it hurts. He needs to do that now, and to acknowledge his hypocrisy, apologise for it, and ask that nobody else does what he did.
Want to bet on the likelihood of that? RMS is just as pragmatic in his own way as Linus, he just puts a better spin on it.
Stallman asserted two things: that the FSF uses absolutely no non-free software. He then said that the Linux kernel contained non-free (as he defines it) software, and that a long term goal is to come up with a completely free Linux kernel.
So, he's saying that nobody involved with the FSF uses a Linux kernel at the moment, right? Right?
I mean, given that he makes a personal attack against Linus for valuing pragmatism over ideals, and makes it clear that no compromise is acceptable, ever, then it would be breaktakingly hypocritical of him to decry Linux as non-free while at the same time actually making use of it, right?
"The Open Content Network will work with the Creative Commons to use their machine-readable licenses to automatically identify open source and public domain content to be distributed through the OCN"
Why is this a problem? Well, what's to stop an ignorant or malicious individual wrapping up some content with an CC complaint license and injecting it into OCR?
I'm thinking of:
Advertising porn with embedded html links that pops up adverts (gnutella is rotten with this stuff).
Virii.
Other people's copyrighted content.
Why would anyone do this last one? Pure malice, to open OCN up to DMCA attack, simply because people (as I said) are bastards, and can't be trusted to behave in a rational civilised fashion. OCN will be a trusted network, and that leaves it open to abuse. I really hope that an actual trustable human will vet everything injected into it.
You're in the third grade, and you go up to a big fifth grade kid and ask to play with him. He kicks the legs out from under you, then stamps on your head for a while. All of a sudden, for no apparent reason, he stops, says "Gee, I'm soooo sorrrrry," and offers you his hand.
While I'm fascinated to hear Alan's views on life, the universe and everything, I can't help but notice that a minimal boot of my 2.4.18 kernel with nothing running but a serial console, bash and free, is leaking memory, a few K every couple of seconds.
Still, I expect that's due to racist European politicians or the EU-DMCA. Those Belgian bastards are stealing my memory!
All modern compilers that I know of can handle symbol names of at least 256 characters, not the old 31 character limit.
The most widely understood naming convention is the English language.
If you feel that you have to comment the purpose of a method, function or variable when you declare/define it, why isn't it necessary to comment every use of it as well?
The time spend typing or reading characters of code is insignificant compared to the time spent comprehending it.
Whenever you write code that requires any interpretation at all, you cost yourself developer time, and that's a precious resource.
If you comment something that the language supports, you're not using the language.
People who slate you for using over-verbose naming are really saying "You shouldn't need long names to understand my code." That's a solipsistic ego trip, as the target audience isn't or your peers or anyone in a code review or with white box knowledge of the code or system. It's the poor contractor shmuck five, ten or fifteen years down the line who has to come to your code stone cold on to fix a critical bug with a deadline breathing down his neck and a hankering to get the hell out of the office and have some semblance of a life. Write for the benefit of that guy, because one day you'll probably become him.
Every time you write a comment, you introduce a potential headache for the maintainers. Ask yourself when the last time you updated a comment in production was, even when it contradicted the code.
Here's the rules I use:
A function/method name is too long when it doesn't fit on a typical screen. 80 characters is about my limit.
If I find myself thinking that I'd better comment the purpose of a variable, I incorporate the comment in the variable name. As a side effect, that also tends to give a good feel for how important a variable is.
Yes, we all know that "i" is a counter, but what is it counting? It costs me perhaps five seconds to use a variable that describes what is being counted. Then it costs a reader an extra tenth of a second to read it, but that saves a quarter of a second to translate to what it actually means. Let people read your code, don't keep making them stutter and recap.
Describing the function and purpose of "input" and "output" parameters in a function description comment is a hell of a long winded way of typing "const WhatTheParameterIsActuallyUsedFor". You only have to type it once; that's what copy and paste is for. Don't comment expected values, assert(them).
Completely self commenting code is an unrealistic ideal. But get as close to that ideal as possible, and don't be afraid to change comments when you change the code during maintenance. If you're sure what the code deos, you should have no problems doing that. If you're not sure what the code does, then find out.
Actually, the zombies were in the UK version [...] In the German version, you had to run over traffic cones.
Bear in mind that SCi went voluntarily trolling to stir up some controversy pre-launch, courtesy of their trashy publicist Max Clifford. They didn't have to submit it for certification at all, and the blood patch was available from day 1 (and everybody knew it). The German version (of Carmageddon at least, you may be talking about Carmageddon II) had robots instead of zombies or humans.
Slashdot Mirror
A followup to my own post, regarding the mp3.com signup.
They demand to know:
A few points about that. What if I don't have a zip/postal code? I should just make one up, right? So what the hell is the point in requiring it? Why demand to know my gender, but not my age or other demographic data? It's invasive without being useful. But most of all, country of residence pisses me off. It should be clear that the most pragmatic answer to give is "United States" (which is conveniently the first on the "alphabetical" list). It should also be clear, with just a little further thought, how idiotic this would be, as it would just further skew the perception that the US market is the only one that matters, and the rest of the world can go screw itself. For example, I will not wait for English language region 2 DVD's, but instead buy region 1 DVD's online. I get them faster and usually cheaper than the (mostly identical) region 2's, but at the cost of artificially boosting region 1 sales and perpetuating the artificial segregation of the market.
Believe me, it's pretty damn annoying to see content marketed and reviewed all over the internet that you know you'll generally have to wait at least three months to see (or years, or never), when you have the desire and the funds to buy it right now. If you're a US citizen, try it for yourself. Pretend that you're European for a month: try and find new US releases at .co.uk subsidiaries, find out that that Europeans pay 40-60% more for most consumer items (£ price == $ price, but £ == 1.4x$), or shop at US .coms, then check out the international shipping rates and speeds. It might open your eyes.
I would, but for a couple of points:
It's this second point that really sticks in my throat. Way to miss the point. Music is global now. They're promoting a track, they're offering to sell it, I'm ready to pay for it, but then they say I can't have it just because of where I live. Well, guess what: I can have it, I just won't be paying them a dollar to get it.
As you say, it's important to show support for the concept. And the concept I'll support is a single-click, no-login, no DRM, globally accessible, no questions asked transaction. This is only half way there. Before you criticise me for being overly picky, understand that my argument is actually moot: they won't let me buy it anyway, so my only choice is to go away and shut up, or go away and bitch about it. I'll choose the latter, thanks.
... please post a review of it (genre, style, influences, quality). Just a wild thought, but shouldn't we be using the power of this big ol' inter-web thing to make informed decisions about mp3 purchasing, rather than just making the point that we'll buy any old junk as long as it's mp3?
So if you can lower your costs by 3.75% you can give it away, corner the market, and push your ad revenue through the roof, right?
So, why don't you?
Incidentally, did those figures come from a marketing MBA? Thought so.
We've been debating what it is Microsoft fears about open source. It's probably not the money (in the mid term) and I'm not even sure that it's the pressure to open their source (in the short term). Right now, the big different for me as a consumer is that I feel good about buying and upgrading Linux based distros. It actually makes me happy. The last time Microsoft made me feel even vaguely like that was with Windows 3.1
I wonder if what they fear is that they've dug themselves into a position (with software as a service active for business and threatened for consumers) where they can't persuade people to pay them more money voluntarily, and instead they have to go down the slippery slope of coercing and compelling. That can't be a good long term prospect for them.
Well, specifically it comes from complying with open standards. The HTML standard, for example, is perfectly open, Microsoft just doesn't comply with it, because there's no other kid in the schoolyard big enough to make it comply.
Other than that, a truly insightful post.
"Unable to"? God damn it, Congress should pass a law to enable it. This is the USA! While they're at it, they could round off PI to 3.
I'm actually quite taken with Kazaa's strategy. It seems like they're just going to keep "selling" the name and technology to own of their own subsidiaries or spin-offs, then fold whatever part of the company is currently being sued.
Of course, it's a scam, and the [MP|RI]AA can just pursue the new owner... who can just sell on the name and technology, and fold. They'll have to actually go after the owners personally, which is a completely different proposition.
I'm not exactly enamoured with Kazaa (gnutella for me, thanks), but I think they've hit on the only possible defence to the "litagate them into submission" tactics that the [MP|RI]AA are increasingly turning to. However, it's yet another indicator that if you want to start an innovative business, don't do it inthe USA, or in anywhere with strong treaties with the USA. That part is very sad.
I'm not judging on what he (according to you) thinks, I'm judging what he actually says. Let's look at the words, shall we?
Those quotes are in order and in context, from adjoining paragraphs in the text that RMS wrote using his own fingers.
You don't see a problem there? Surely if this contradictory situation was so, RMS would have realised, acknowledged, and dealt with it, right? You want an explanation for this curious dichotomy? Let's look at the words of RMS again:
Kettle, thou art black, quoth the pot. RMS has convinced himself that it's OK to use the (non free) Linux kernel, and he seems unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the contradiction, let alone address it. Instead he flat out attacks people for doing exactly what he himself is doing.
Someone needs to take RMS aside and point out that he needs to put up or shut up regarding Linux. It's free, or it isn't. If it is, shut up. If it's not, put up, stop using it, stop associating it with GNU, and go back to HURD.
Except for the binary part, right?
And the FSF only uses Linux kernels with the binary parts removed? You know this for a fact?
As you'll no doubt notice, I pointed out that RMS started the personal attacks by ripping into Linus. What agravates me about that is that his own behaviour is no different: he happily uses (directly or indirectly) non-free software when it's convenient, all the while railing against anyone else who does it. That needs to be pointed out and challenged at every opportunity, unless that you believe that the mere semblance of good is a substitute for the substance.
- There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into use of a non-free program, and challenge anyone who complains to provide a (technically) better program immediately or shut up.
He is talking about BitKeeper.And we shouldn't follow the reasoning through, becauuuuuse...?
What exactly is the difference between Linus using BitKeeper and RMS using Linux? If RMS truly believed what he was saying, he'd declare the Linux kernel (which contains non-source binary components) anathema, and return to wrestling with HURD. He doesn't do this because Linux is the best technical solution he has right now, and he's happy to use it, while still asserting that all other non-free software is pure evil and must be shunned. Why the exception for Linux? Pragmatism over idealism, pure and simple.
You want to argue that the FSF doesn't associate itself with Linux, but rather vice versa? Not so. The whole point of this article is that RMS is happy to associate with Linux geeks, as long as they remember that the mantra is GNU/Linux.
I'm sorry, but I if it looks like a hypocrite and walks like a hypocrite and quacks like a hypocrite, then it is a hypocrite.
Given that Slashdot gets all of its stories from other sources, and that it (demonstrably) only runs stories after many submissions (so the "last" submitter gets his name on it rather than the first), and that the "editors" (I use the term loosely) very demonstrably don't even read their own stories, then this is just business as usual.
How about you change the site policy and actually go out and find stories yourself or even (gasp!) do some actual investigative journalism?
That's an astonishing assertion. Have you got any - any - data to back that up? I don't see why advertising executives would let something as inconvenient as facts and data get in the way of their three hour working lunches and powerpoint presentations about market segmentation and mindshare. Advertising is a scam, perpetuated mostly for the benefit of advertisers. I mean, we're five years or more into the era of serious web banner advertising: it's still not paying for itself, and it's never paid for itself, and yet still advertisers perservere in the astonishing belief that one day people will click-through and make them rich.
Ain't never gonna happen
Executive producer, producer, chief executive officer... chances are that none of these people have seen more than a couple of screenshots and concept drawings of the latest evolution. Wake me up when one of the developers is talking about how good and how soon it'll be.
To which we all heartily agree, but the article claims:
Say what? That looks like the existing "put a token filtering system in place, then abrogate your responsibility" method so beloved of AOL and the NetNanny brigade. But did our elected representatives just mandate that and slip through mandatory domain locking in browsers while nobody was looking? Let's check the actual bill, H.R. 3833
Hmm, OK, not too bad. Once you're in, you can't just click out by accident (although of course this will happen, but at least they've thought about it). Is that all?
OK, much as I hate catch-all clauses, this is still limited to "the new domain", not to enforcing functionality in browsers (or telnet, for that matter) to lock off the domain. It looks like any browser locking functionality will be voluntary and third party. I can see AOL and Microsoft scrambling to implement this ASAP, but nobody will have to.
I'm always ready to believe the worst of our legislators when it comes to dealing with technology (their track record isn't great), but I think they've got this one right (even if they are a little vague on how it will actually be administrated). I pronounce this bill sane and measured
Regarding H.R. 1877, it's largely moot. It's a minor modification to existing wiretap law, and law enforcement (or anyone with a suit and a badge and some lawyers) can get a wiretap on you right now for pretty much any reason they like. Personally I think that soliciting children for sex should justify a wiretap, and I'm all in favour of honesty in law enforcement, rather than making them scam a warrant for un-American activities (aka domestic terrorism) or whatever.
Constant vigilance is a good thing, but I don't see anything scary or particularly bad in either of these bills. OK, I find the thought of a .kids.us full of Disney and Barney a little scary, but that's not really the fault of Congress. ;-)
Wait... this is the same Stallman that asserts that the FSF makes absolutely no use of non-free code, and the same Stallman that makes a personal attack on Linus for valuing pragmatism over idealism?
Stallman is right: the Linux kernel contains binary-only components and is not free software. What I find thoroughly distasteful is his dissembling about it. If it's not free, then the FSF can't use it, and so Stallman tiptoes around the issue, even though he knows that it's clear cut and that (if he practiced what he preaches) the FSF must have nothing to do with Linux.
I should make clear that I use - and say that I use - KDE3/X/GNU/Linux, and I greatly respect the work that the FSF has done. However, I really do think that Stallman in skating on thin ice here. It seems clear to me that RMS is putting pragmatism over idealism in not declaring Linux anathema; fine, I respect that. What I don't respect is him attacking Linus for doing the same. That's rank hypocrisy, and it stinks.
RMS asserts in this article that Linux is a non-free component (and that there is a long term project to create a free version with no binary-only parts). Given that he also asserts that the FSF uses absolutely no non-free software, and that he makes a personal attack against Linus for choosing pragmatism over ideals, would we be safe to assume that nobody associated with the FSF uses a Linux kernel?
Or, as I believe is more likely, is RMS saying "Do as I say, not as I do" ?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with him (I run KDE3/X/GNU/Linux, if anyone asks), but I also believe that he's full of shit when it comes down to the crunch. If RMS believes his own words (his words, nobody elses) then he must dissasociate the FSF from Linux, absolutely and immediately, and go back to struggling with HURD, no matter how much it hurts. He needs to do that now, and to acknowledge his hypocrisy, apologise for it, and ask that nobody else does what he did.
Want to bet on the likelihood of that? RMS is just as pragmatic in his own way as Linus, he just puts a better spin on it.
Stallman asserted two things: that the FSF uses absolutely no non-free software. He then said that the Linux kernel contained non-free (as he defines it) software, and that a long term goal is to come up with a completely free Linux kernel.
So, he's saying that nobody involved with the FSF uses a Linux kernel at the moment, right? Right?
I mean, given that he makes a personal attack against Linus for valuing pragmatism over ideals, and makes it clear that no compromise is acceptable, ever, then it would be breaktakingly hypocritical of him to decry Linux as non-free while at the same time actually making use of it, right?
Right?
The problem being that people are bastards.
Why is this a problem? Well, what's to stop an ignorant or malicious individual wrapping up some content with an CC complaint license and injecting it into OCR?
I'm thinking of:
Why would anyone do this last one? Pure malice, to open OCN up to DMCA attack, simply because people (as I said) are bastards, and can't be trusted to behave in a rational civilised fashion. OCN will be a trusted network, and that leaves it open to abuse. I really hope that an actual trustable human will vet everything injected into it.
You're in the third grade, and you go up to a big fifth grade kid and ask to play with him. He kicks the legs out from under you, then stamps on your head for a while. All of a sudden, for no apparent reason, he stops, says "Gee, I'm soooo sorrrrry," and offers you his hand.
You'd take it, right? Right? Hmmm. Perhaps not.
While I'm fascinated to hear Alan's views on life, the universe and everything, I can't help but notice that a minimal boot of my 2.4.18 kernel with nothing running but a serial console, bash and free, is leaking memory, a few K every couple of seconds.
Still, I expect that's due to racist European politicians or the EU-DMCA. Those Belgian bastards are stealing my memory!
Here's the rules I use:
What if you could pay $30 for just the gameplay and none of the cinematics or voice "talent"?
They're certainly serious about the appearance of security. Never mind "security through obscurity", they've reached "security through assertion".
You don't need to see our source code. These aren't the bugs you're looking for. We can go about our business. Move along.
Bear in mind that SCi went voluntarily trolling to stir up some controversy pre-launch, courtesy of their trashy publicist Max Clifford. They didn't have to submit it for certification at all, and the blood patch was available from day 1 (and everybody knew it). The German version (of Carmageddon at least, you may be talking about Carmageddon II) had robots instead of zombies or humans.