I buy it because I want to support the distro I use. They write some innovative software and I think it is only fair. There is a fair amount of software that I get with the boxed set that doesn't come on the downloadable ISO's. I don't have the time and money to track down all of the software that comes with the boxed set.
They are not a law enforcement agency they are an interested party. Depending on what the EULA said you have the right to insist on an independent agency conducting the audit.
Get your lawyer in there immediately. The BSA is an interested party in any court case and should not be allowed in on the audit. The police will say that the BSA is there in their capacity as experts but legally that doesn't hold water. The police have the right to get an expert to conduct the audit but you have the right to insist on it being someone independent of the case.
There is another side to this though. Most of the CEO's I have met dislike extortion and threats every bit as much as you or I. I have known some who would make this decision just so they never have to worry about the BSA again. Then there is the "how dare some corporation that I spend purchase products from threaten me" attitude. CEO's are almost all control freaks. They are entirely likely to change software models if they are aware of the alternatives. The problem is that people high up in IT have too much vested in the current model to present the alternatives in a positive light.
Since Taiwan doesn't recognize Red China as the legitimate government and Red China has no enforcement capabilities there, then Taiwan can operate by its own laws without much worry.
And there has been a great deal of time to see the moves the government has been making to restrict the rights of it's citizens. I am not saying the time is now. I am saying that based on the trend that has been going on for the last 50 years there is not much reason for optimism. There are almost no known cases of the government giving back a freedom that it has managed to take away. It is possible to change the way things are going but I don't think the average citizen will care one way or another until it is too late. With the trend that has been going by the time it is possible to make the average citizen understand the danger they are in of losing all control over the government it will be impossible to organize an effective response because every means of organizing resistance will be under the control of the government or big business.
I am right if a law is unjust or unconstitutional then you do have an obligation to oppose it. By not opposing it you are as culpable as the people responsible for its passage. I am not a raving lunatic and I do explain to people why this law is wrong and how it affects them. More importantly I explain to them how it is going to affect them in the future.
For instance when wideband connections are commonplace media companies will start offering pay per view movies, books, and recordings. When the companies start receiving payments this way they will start making it harder and harder to get your hands on the physical media. Because they know that they can eventually make it so that you have to pay every time you access that media. They can cut out the middleman and receive all of the price for a download. If I read a book or rent a movie and decide I like it I purchase it. That way I know it will be available for my continued enjoyment. If it becomes impossible to actually purchase the item then I will have to pay more because I have to pay each time I view the information. I also am at the mercy of the publisher in each case because they can decide to make it unavailable at any time. If I own it is available even in such an event. This is a great idea for the company. Revenues go way up. It is a bad idea for the consumer because it means higher overall costs and less long term availability. But because of the restriction of my rights allowed by the DMCA this future is entirely too likely.
I am not a young man. I have been alive longer than probably 90% of the readers of/.. I don't really believe that there is a concerted effort by the members of the government to deprive citizens of their rights. Best intentions by ill-informed Legislators is more than enough to account for the damage being done to the Constitution. There is nothing more dangerous than someone in power saying I want to do this for your own good. There is something very dangerous about the fact that the average Legislator thinks that corporations should have more rights than the people.
One of the ways to get Dmitry off would be jury nullification. That won't happen. The legal system has very effectively been restricting the ability of a jury to return such a verdict. Hell, they have been very effective at hiding the fact from the jury that it is even possible to return such a verdict. They have been making every effort for the lastt hundred years or so to limit it. So tell me again how there hasn't been much time to consider the restrictions of your freedom.
Then how come everybody I know who has bought a Windows PC without previous experience has purchased at least one book on how to use it. And pestered me constantly to show them how to install software, or send email, or...? The answer is: because they didn't learn how the computer works. Not only do they never learn the capabilities of the OS they have but they are totally lost when they upgrade and any part of the interface has changed. The only PC owners I know who are truly happy with their purchase are those who took the time and effort to understand this machine that they spent so much money on.
That's funny, I've used OpenVMS, Linux, Apple II, Apple III, Lisa, MacOS, Atari (all of the early ones), Commodore, OS2, and every version of DOS and Windows. More importantly I've watched others try to learn each of those and you know what? To a novice computer user or someone who really knows how computers work Linux doesn't take any longer to get good at. Anybody can learn enough to think they're good at the GUI based OS's but the odds are they'll never learn enough about how computers work to make their knowledge transferable to other systems. Linux isn't that hard unless you make it that hard. But, if you really learn Linux you will find that a lot of the concepts will transfer to any OS you use. This makes all of your computer use more productive.
You have a point. I prefer to teach Linux to someone who has never used a computer before over someone who has only used Windows or Macintosh. Total novices don't have anything to unlearn and can pick up Linux quite nicely. People who have never used anything but a GUI have pretty much no idea why or how a computer does what it does therefore they have no idea how to get the most out of an expensive piece of equipment. The novice will learn how the computer works and will get much more use and enjoyment out of that use.
Everybody I know who bought a computer without already knowing how to use one has bought at least one book to explain to them how to use the GUI. That same investment in learning Linux would leave them with the basics that would enable them to understand the concepts in any computer they might have to use. My opinion is that that teaching Windows to a newbie to computing is doing them a disservice. They almost never learn how to truly use their computers and that is cheating them of the full benefits of their investment.
You mentioned warranties in relation to Windows software. I have yet to see a warranty for any software that promised more than the replacement of said software in cases of defective media. Nobody warrants their software to do crap.
We are a civilized society (at least mostly). Otherwise people would be dying over the amount of freedom we have given up. But, there comes apoint where you have to stand up and make a point loud and clear. If a law is unjust or unconstitutional then you are morally obliged to oppose it.
To say that the law is the law and must be obeyed is the worst kind of cowardice. It is saying that the govt. can do whatever it likes. If we don't get the government back in line soon and get it to stop taking away our rights then you will get the chance to see what happens in an uncivilized country.
I love my country but every day I have less hope of it lasting much longer. Most days I figure that I will have to fight for my freedom in the not too distant future. That would not be necessary if eveyone would wake up and see what is being done to us but most say we can't do anything about this law or that one. We can do a lot but we have to start standing up and demanding what is right and what is just. Not what is popular or convenient but what is right.
We have allowed the constitution to be distorted way beyond anything envisioned by the founders of this country and most of them would look upon us with disdain. They would not understand why we ever allowed things to get this far out of hand. To maintain a free country you cannot depend on the government to protect your freedom. It will always be in the governments interest to restrict your freedom unless it is repeatedly shown to the people in government that there is a personal price that they will pay for taking away our rights. If we do our part properly that price is the loss of their elected position or job if they don't respect the rights of the citizens of this country. If we don't do our part and allow things to get past the point of no return then that price is paid in lives and blood. If done soon enough we have a chance of taking the government back and making it of the people and for the people again. If we wait much longer the only way to correct the situation will be through lots of bloodshed.
I for one prefer to do it peacefully at the ballot box and in protests and with making my voice heard but I have no illusions and expect that the average sheep in this country will just give up their rights until they have none or someone takes them back by force.
Remember the average colonist never wanted independence from England. Most never served in the Revolutionary army but they took advantage of their freedom when it was won by the efforts of others.
But the FBI did not file papers to have him arrested for his talk. They filed the paperwork to have him arrested for distributing the software in the US. He did not break the law in the way they said they were arresting him for. He is innocent of the charges they filed against him. Whether or not the DMCA is Constitutional doesn't really matter in his case. His talk doesn't matter in the charges they actually arrested him for.
Not so. The jury can nullify the law. Judges don't like it when it happens but it is a valid response. The jurors can find not guilty based on their belief that the law is un-Constitutional. Which is something I didn't know until this came up. Now I will make sure that everyone I know knows they have this option.
But the prosecuter has to have a reasonable belief that the person has commited the crime. In this case the prosecution has to be a complete idiot to believe that Dmitry is guilty of any criminal activity. He did not distribute the software in the US. The company he works for did.
I don't use Photoshop, never have. If they don't actively come out against the DMCA I never will. There are alternatives to read pdf's so I don't see it as much of an issue. I have exactly one Adobe product on each of my PC's and that is being replaced. I have a lot of clueless people who take my advice on what software to use. Guess who I won't be recommending? If Dmitry spends five years in jail my guess is I can deprive Adobe of five or six thousand dollars in sales. If every geek does that then Adobe will be in a world of hurt. Don't buy any ebooks that require Adobe software. That is something we can really hurt them on.
It's real simple folks. Adobe started it and they should have to pay for every day that Dmitry spends in jail. I'm sorry doesn't cut it when you screw up somebodies whole life. I'll use Adobe products again when Dmitry is free and they publicly apologise on national tv. It is not enough to withdraw complaint they need to draw the attention of the average American to the travesty of the DMCA. They have to accept responsibility for messing with his life.
But Dmitry did not traffic in illegal software. The company he worked for did. He has done nothing that is illegal even by that misbegotten child of deviant group sex between Congress, MPAA, RIAA, and the software companies the DMCA. I have seen a lot of people here bashing the law but I'll bet that half of you vote for people that voted for it.
The problem is he didn't do anything illegal. He wrote some software that is legal in the country he wrote it in (Russia). The company that he works for arranged to have it distributed in the US. Since distribution of the software is illegal in the US they can go after the coprporation or its officers but they can't really get him for the distribution. If this goes before a competent judge and a jury willing to try and understand the law he'll walk. The problem is the feds will keep pumping the jury with scary pictures of foreign hackers and do their best to keep anyone even moderately knowledgable about tech out of the jury. The feds can't let this one go because that makes them look stupid. I don't think they realise how stupid they'll look if they lose. They fully intend to railroad a man that isn't guilty of the crime they are charging him with. If the defense keeps pushing that fact then he should walk but it won't challenge the Constitutionality of the law. If the defense tries to concentrate on Constitutionality then they could quite easily lose and send him away for a while. Get Dmitry off at all costs. He is not a willing participant in trying to get the law revoked. He just wants to go home. Try to beat the law with someone who is willing to fight it. Remember they did not charge him for his talk. They charged him with distributing the software. That is a crime he can not be legitimately convicted of.
30 metric tons or so of rock is what you have in a rock a couple of meters in diameter. At least that is what the guy said in the article. That would give a significant force. The terminal velocity of a human at close to sea level pressure is 120 mph and a rock is a whole lot more dense. If the rock could survive long enought to slow to a terminal velocity it would probably be on the order of several hundred miles an hour. That is still quite a lot of destructive power. Once the rocks start getting big enough to survive until they hit the earth the destructive power will start going up exponentially. The bigger the rock that hits the atmosphere the larger the percentage of it that remains to strike the earth. Less of it gets burnt up in the atmoshere and less velocity is shed. Bolides come in fast but slow rapidly because they lose mass rapidly. But, they still have a terminal velocity far in excess of what any car can do (except for those land speed record setters).
I made an effort to get out and look for them. If you are too lazy that is your problem. If you don't have enough open mindedness to check it out on your own you surely won't let anything like the facts change your mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy it because I want to support the distro I use. They write some innovative software and I think it is only fair. There is a fair amount of software that I get with the boxed set that doesn't come on the downloadable ISO's. I don't have the time and money to track down all of the software that comes with the boxed set.
They are not a law enforcement agency they are an interested party. Depending on what the EULA said you have the right to insist on an independent agency conducting the audit.
Get your lawyer in there immediately. The BSA is an interested party in any court case and should not be allowed in on the audit. The police will say that the BSA is there in their capacity as experts but legally that doesn't hold water. The police have the right to get an expert to conduct the audit but you have the right to insist on it being someone independent of the case.
There is another side to this though. Most of the CEO's I have met dislike extortion and threats every bit as much as you or I. I have known some who would make this decision just so they never have to worry about the BSA again. Then there is the "how dare some corporation that I spend purchase products from threaten me" attitude. CEO's are almost all control freaks. They are entirely likely to change software models if they are aware of the alternatives. The problem is that people high up in IT have too much vested in the current model to present the alternatives in a positive light.
That would actually give Linux some bad PR. Looks like something vandals use.
Since Taiwan doesn't recognize Red China as the legitimate government and Red China has no enforcement capabilities there, then Taiwan can operate by its own laws without much worry.
Whoever said that 4.0 was essentially 3.3 obviously never used it. It broke most pre-existing apps.
And there has been a great deal of time to see the moves the government has been making to restrict the rights of it's citizens. I am not saying the time is now. I am saying that based on the trend that has been going on for the last 50 years there is not much reason for optimism. There are almost no known cases of the government giving back a freedom that it has managed to take away. It is possible to change the way things are going but I don't think the average citizen will care one way or another until it is too late. With the trend that has been going by the time it is possible to make the average citizen understand the danger they are in of losing all control over the government it will be impossible to organize an effective response because every means of organizing resistance will be under the control of the government or big business.
I am right if a law is unjust or unconstitutional then you do have an obligation to oppose it. By not opposing it you are as culpable as the people responsible for its passage. I am not a raving lunatic and I do explain to people why this law is wrong and how it affects them. More importantly I explain to them how it is going to affect them in the future.
For instance when wideband connections are commonplace media companies will start offering pay per view movies, books, and recordings. When the companies start receiving payments this way they will start making it harder and harder to get your hands on the physical media. Because they know that they can eventually make it so that you have to pay every time you access that media. They can cut out the middleman and receive all of the price for a download. If I read a book or rent a movie and decide I like it I purchase it. That way I know it will be available for my continued enjoyment. If it becomes impossible to actually purchase the item then I will have to pay more because I have to pay each time I view the information. I also am at the mercy of the publisher in each case because they can decide to make it unavailable at any time. If I own it is available even in such an event. This is a great idea for the company. Revenues go way up. It is a bad idea for the consumer because it means higher overall costs and less long term availability. But because of the restriction of my rights allowed by the DMCA this future is entirely too likely.
I am not a young man. I have been alive longer than probably 90% of the readers of /.. I don't really believe that there is a concerted effort by the members of the government to deprive citizens of their rights. Best intentions by ill-informed Legislators is more than enough to account for the damage being done to the Constitution. There is nothing more dangerous than someone in power saying I want to do this for your own good. There is something very dangerous about the fact that the average Legislator thinks that corporations should have more rights than the people.
One of the ways to get Dmitry off would be jury nullification. That won't happen. The legal system has very effectively been restricting the ability of a jury to return such a verdict. Hell, they have been very effective at hiding the fact from the jury that it is even possible to return such a verdict. They have been making every effort for the lastt hundred years or so to limit it. So tell me again how there hasn't been much time to consider the restrictions of your freedom.
Then how come everybody I know who has bought a Windows PC without previous experience has purchased at least one book on how to use it. And pestered me constantly to show them how to install software, or send email, or ...? The answer is: because they didn't learn how the computer works. Not only do they never learn the capabilities of the OS they have but they are totally lost when they upgrade and any part of the interface has changed. The only PC owners I know who are truly happy with their purchase are those who took the time and effort to understand this machine that they spent so much money on.
That's funny, I've used OpenVMS, Linux, Apple II, Apple III, Lisa, MacOS, Atari (all of the early ones), Commodore, OS2, and every version of DOS and Windows. More importantly I've watched others try to learn each of those and you know what? To a novice computer user or someone who really knows how computers work Linux doesn't take any longer to get good at. Anybody can learn enough to think they're good at the GUI based OS's but the odds are they'll never learn enough about how computers work to make their knowledge transferable to other systems. Linux isn't that hard unless you make it that hard. But, if you really learn Linux you will find that a lot of the concepts will transfer to any OS you use. This makes all of your computer use more productive.
Thats funny. I have 2 partitions on my Mandrake 7.2 box. I could have gone with one but 2 fits me better.
Everybody I know who bought a computer without already knowing how to use one has bought at least one book to explain to them how to use the GUI. That same investment in learning Linux would leave them with the basics that would enable them to understand the concepts in any computer they might have to use. My opinion is that that teaching Windows to a newbie to computing is doing them a disservice. They almost never learn how to truly use their computers and that is cheating them of the full benefits of their investment.
You mentioned warranties in relation to Windows software. I have yet to see a warranty for any software that promised more than the replacement of said software in cases of defective media. Nobody warrants their software to do crap.
Yes you can hold all of those companies responsible. Just takes a little gumption and effort. First off get rid of your hotmail account.
We are a civilized society (at least mostly). Otherwise people would be dying over the amount of freedom we have given up. But, there comes apoint where you have to stand up and make a point loud and clear. If a law is unjust or unconstitutional then you are morally obliged to oppose it.
To say that the law is the law and must be obeyed is the worst kind of cowardice. It is saying that the govt. can do whatever it likes. If we don't get the government back in line soon and get it to stop taking away our rights then you will get the chance to see what happens in an uncivilized country.
I love my country but every day I have less hope of it lasting much longer. Most days I figure that I will have to fight for my freedom in the not too distant future. That would not be necessary if eveyone would wake up and see what is being done to us but most say we can't do anything about this law or that one. We can do a lot but we have to start standing up and demanding what is right and what is just. Not what is popular or convenient but what is right.
We have allowed the constitution to be distorted way beyond anything envisioned by the founders of this country and most of them would look upon us with disdain. They would not understand why we ever allowed things to get this far out of hand. To maintain a free country you cannot depend on the government to protect your freedom. It will always be in the governments interest to restrict your freedom unless it is repeatedly shown to the people in government that there is a personal price that they will pay for taking away our rights. If we do our part properly that price is the loss of their elected position or job if they don't respect the rights of the citizens of this country. If we don't do our part and allow things to get past the point of no return then that price is paid in lives and blood. If done soon enough we have a chance of taking the government back and making it of the people and for the people again. If we wait much longer the only way to correct the situation will be through lots of bloodshed.
I for one prefer to do it peacefully at the ballot box and in protests and with making my voice heard but I have no illusions and expect that the average sheep in this country will just give up their rights until they have none or someone takes them back by force.
Remember the average colonist never wanted independence from England. Most never served in the Revolutionary army but they took advantage of their freedom when it was won by the efforts of others.
But the FBI did not file papers to have him arrested for his talk. They filed the paperwork to have him arrested for distributing the software in the US. He did not break the law in the way they said they were arresting him for. He is innocent of the charges they filed against him. Whether or not the DMCA is Constitutional doesn't really matter in his case. His talk doesn't matter in the charges they actually arrested him for.
Ah, but he did not distribute the code. He just wrote it and that is legal where he wrote it.
Not so. The jury can nullify the law. Judges don't like it when it happens but it is a valid response. The jurors can find not guilty based on their belief that the law is un-Constitutional. Which is something I didn't know until this came up. Now I will make sure that everyone I know knows they have this option.
But the prosecuter has to have a reasonable belief that the person has commited the crime. In this case the prosecution has to be a complete idiot to believe that Dmitry is guilty of any criminal activity. He did not distribute the software in the US. The company he works for did.
I don't use Photoshop, never have. If they don't actively come out against the DMCA I never will. There are alternatives to read pdf's so I don't see it as much of an issue. I have exactly one Adobe product on each of my PC's and that is being replaced. I have a lot of clueless people who take my advice on what software to use. Guess who I won't be recommending? If Dmitry spends five years in jail my guess is I can deprive Adobe of five or six thousand dollars in sales. If every geek does that then Adobe will be in a world of hurt. Don't buy any ebooks that require Adobe software. That is something we can really hurt them on.
It's real simple folks. Adobe started it and they should have to pay for every day that Dmitry spends in jail. I'm sorry doesn't cut it when you screw up somebodies whole life. I'll use Adobe products again when Dmitry is free and they publicly apologise on national tv. It is not enough to withdraw complaint they need to draw the attention of the average American to the travesty of the DMCA. They have to accept responsibility for messing with his life.
But Dmitry did not traffic in illegal software. The company he worked for did. He has done nothing that is illegal even by that misbegotten child of deviant group sex between Congress, MPAA, RIAA, and the software companies the DMCA. I have seen a lot of people here bashing the law but I'll bet that half of you vote for people that voted for it.
The problem is he didn't do anything illegal. He wrote some software that is legal in the country he wrote it in (Russia). The company that he works for arranged to have it distributed in the US. Since distribution of the software is illegal in the US they can go after the coprporation or its officers but they can't really get him for the distribution. If this goes before a competent judge and a jury willing to try and understand the law he'll walk. The problem is the feds will keep pumping the jury with scary pictures of foreign hackers and do their best to keep anyone even moderately knowledgable about tech out of the jury. The feds can't let this one go because that makes them look stupid. I don't think they realise how stupid they'll look if they lose. They fully intend to railroad a man that isn't guilty of the crime they are charging him with. If the defense keeps pushing that fact then he should walk but it won't challenge the Constitutionality of the law. If the defense tries to concentrate on Constitutionality then they could quite easily lose and send him away for a while. Get Dmitry off at all costs. He is not a willing participant in trying to get the law revoked. He just wants to go home. Try to beat the law with someone who is willing to fight it. Remember they did not charge him for his talk. They charged him with distributing the software. That is a crime he can not be legitimately convicted of.
30 metric tons or so of rock is what you have in a rock a couple of meters in diameter. At least that is what the guy said in the article. That would give a significant force. The terminal velocity of a human at close to sea level pressure is 120 mph and a rock is a whole lot more dense. If the rock could survive long enought to slow to a terminal velocity it would probably be on the order of several hundred miles an hour. That is still quite a lot of destructive power. Once the rocks start getting big enough to survive until they hit the earth the destructive power will start going up exponentially. The bigger the rock that hits the atmosphere the larger the percentage of it that remains to strike the earth. Less of it gets burnt up in the atmoshere and less velocity is shed. Bolides come in fast but slow rapidly because they lose mass rapidly. But, they still have a terminal velocity far in excess of what any car can do (except for those land speed record setters).
I made an effort to get out and look for them. If you are too lazy that is your problem. If you don't have enough open mindedness to check it out on your own you surely won't let anything like the facts change your mind.
You know Kierthos, this is one of the few times I have ever agreed with you.