... are more interested in dragging their feet and ensuring that they have monopoly control over any markets they invest in, so that they can charge a far higher price for less service than competition would normally lead to, than in actually innovating and taking any lead. They are also only interested in 'dense' markets where there are lots of customers.
Since they seem to be playing the 'the government shouldnt compete with us' card, I suggest that communities instead form co-ops (which would be greenlighted thru rights-of-way and other resources) that would own and operate the services. Basically the same thing, but it takes away the BS objection that the incumbents have.
If I was in a warzone, and terrorists/insurgents were shooting at me, and/or driving carbombs up to checkpoints, you can damn well be sure my policy would be the same 'shoot first' as well. If you were a fellow soldier and didnt, well.. I'd be happy to attend your funeral.
As everyone realizes, 'knowing' the location of a voip user is problematic.
Here is my suggestion - require the land-line telcos to offer an 'emergency only' service, which would only support calling 911, and to charge a bare minimum for this service. Either that or require that any line that has ever had phone service, always work for 911, even if no other service is active. (Modern cellphones *do* work that way - I have an old cellphone from a previous employer that the service has long been disconnected on, and it is still able to call 911)
How about no one 'stole' anything. Does the RIAA no longer have their copy of the music that was allegedly stolen? If they do, then nothing was stolen.
What they have is an allegation that copyright infringement took place. No mention seems to be made as to what proof they have, its possible they dont have any.
They dont get to find out who (may) have been at that IP address and ransack that persons computer looking for proof (or threaten to sue them then settle for $obscene_amount)
There is no such thing as a 'criminal' lawsuit. Filing suit implies a civil action (regardless of how uncivil it might get). For criminal action, one needs to file a criminal complain with the appropriate LE agency (which is then investigated, and if appropriate, charges filed by the DA)
There are many ways to skin a cat. You haven't got a lock on God's One True Programming Language.
MS would like to tho. And if you use their products, your data and 'programs' are pretty much locked into MS. Single vendor is always and continues to be a bad idea.
So what? Windows is for losers. And yes, that includes any 64 bit versions.
Go ahead, mod me a troll. Its my honest opinion. No true "Nerd" ("News for nerds, stuff that matters") (or geek, or whatever you wenna call yourself) gives a flying damn about anything MS.
If you use windows voluntarily on your own PC/workstation, the closest you can come is 'wannabe nerd'. Having to use it at work (as long as you make at least a token protest), or when visiting relatives is allowed (although a hardcore nerd will have converted their relatives away too)
Actually windows has had symlinks (aka 'shortcut to...') for a while. This is probably more similar to hard links. In either case I'd hardly call it a headliner feature.:)
I don't see any good reason to use either. Why do we need to teach a big pile of integrated crap, and why do we need to teach a specific application, as opposed to teaching general concepts? If in terms of the 'format' of document accepted for papers/etc, then it shouldnt be tied to any specific applications - specify PDF and/or Postscript as the format.
Even if the license says that, it cant possible be enforcible. Its complete bullshit. Imagine "After driving a Ford, you can't drive your Ford to work at a competing car manufacturer. Ever."
I know that was sarcasm, but that is one of the rights that RMS fights for - that individuals have *every* right to write software of their own to perform any function they want, and just becuase someone is selling proprietary software that currently does that doesnt justify any gripes they might have about it.
If people want to *choose* to use proprietary software, that is fine. I only beleive its evil when the protocols and data formats used for communication *between* persons allow one persons choice to force another persons. Linux wants to use BK to manage the kernel, thats fine. As long as another person, who doesnt want to use BK, has the right to write their own software to manage their portion of it, which speaks the same protocol (or use that written by someone else). McVoy getting bent over someone attempting to write software that was able to communicate with BK is the wrong part here.
Other than one small correction, you are dead right, I suspect. I would say "This chain of events began with Linux (perhaps forgivable) mistake of choosing a proprietary tool in the first place."
Exactly. And if there is enough demand (and the hardware vendor doesnt license them in a manner so as to preculde it), eventually the standalone drivers will be incorporated into the kernel proper itself, and on the next kernel upgrade your hardware 'just works' without your even having to do that.
I havent compiled a linux kernel in ages. Ive pretty much stuck with the stock one. Usually it has all those 'essential to boot' items already compiled in, and the rest as modules. However, I am positive that pressing "?" or "H" or something in the kernel config interface will give a descriptive explanation of the current item, and include some pretty good hints as to wether its an 'essential option needed to boot' (beyond the obvious ones such as the drivers for the type of media and filesystem you are booting from [if those arent obvious to you, then perhaps you shouldnt be recompiling kernels, and should stick with the distribution default])
"Hrm, I have a parallel port but dont think I'll be using it much"..
If that decision is hard for you, you must not be aware of how modules work 'Module' would be the correct choice for that driver. As such, it wouldnt get loaded until and unless you want to use it.
The only things you need to hard-compile into the kernel are the things you need to be able to boot the OS to the point where it can load modules (IDE and/or SCSI drivers, ext2/ext3 fs, whatever else is appropriate). The only things you want to completely exclude are things you know you will *never* use (PCMCIA on a desktop which has no PCMCIA, any ISA card drivers if your MB has no ISA slots[except for built-on ISA devices, if any], SMP if its a single processor board and you dont expect to be getting a dual.. etc)..
Anything that you theoretically *could* use, and you think you ever *might* use, should be a module. In fact many of the things you know you *will* use, that arent basic/intrinsic to booting up, should be a module, as well.
Uhm.. You arent all that familiar with linux kernel modules, are you? You do *NOT* have to recompile the kernel to load and unload modules dynamically. You only have to do that if you want to compile something hard into the kernel, instead of leaving it as a module. Basically there are a few things (IDE HD driver, etc) that need to be hardcoded, and most other things can be left as modules that can be loaded if and when needed, or ignored/deleted if you never expect to need them (eg, PCMCIA drivers on a desktop with no PCMCIA hardware)
The guy doesnt get it either. The entire point of the modules is to allow you to not 'bloat' the kernel, with the drivers you dont need.
That some copyright holders/plaintiffs/etc might be wanting courts to change those definitions, no one who chooses to have the GPL apply to their work is going to interpret them that way - eg no one is ever going to *sue* someone, for running (and by running, I mean by what we currently understand it to be) the program they wrote and distributed under the GPL.
So
1) Ok, you're right.
As far as distributing unmodified copies, most distribution of GPL software is by source anyway. And yes, I suppose when 'commercial' binary redistribution is done, (for example, redhat) then yes, they have to provide for anyone that get the binaries to be able to get the source as well. But no one is going to get sued for copying a redhat CD and giving it to their friend, and not including the source. Perhaps there should be a distinction between individual copying of an already mass-distributed work (whereby the source is already publically available from any number of places), and business distribution of an aggregated set of works.
2) Since the party that would have standing in any suit regarding the use of a GPL'ed program is going to be the author or an entity that the author(s) assigned copyright to (eg the FSF), and that person or entity is likely to *support* the GPL, and its intent, its highly unlikely that any such plaintiff would ever interpet 'running' to mean anything other than what we currently interpret it to mean, and is therefore highly unlikely to initiate a lawsuit over it. No one else is going to have standing to sue anyway.
3) The original issue was if *you* wrote (eg you are the original author, and hold copyright), a document, and used fonts which were GPL'd (which to be honest Im not even sure makes sense to begin with, the GPL was written with software in mind, not data such as fonts), wether your document would somehow be GPL'd. That is absolutely a ludicrous position, and the only one with an interest in putting it forward would be a company which makes and sells proprietary fonts, as a means of creating FUD about those 'free' fonts. Im not terribly familiar with how fonts are made - do fonts even have a 'source' concept? Is there a 'source code' for fonts, that one cannot easily convert the 'compiled' form of a font back to? And I dont mean the bitmap result of rendering a font, I mean the fonts you would install into postscript or a word processor for it to be able to use - is there any way to distribute those that prevents someone else from using and/or modifying them?
Also, the mere existence of a particular form of some content is not a violation of anything. Now if you took a best seller novel, and *made* a copy of it and distributed it without permission, then it doesnt matter what form or media you used.
Personally, I beleive the current interpretation of copyright goes way too far. The original concept is "Protect, for a time, the exclusive rights of the authors of original works to profit from those works" - personal copying and other copying not done to make a buck, should have nothing to do with it. Note that that doesnt mean 'guarantee authors the right to profit', it means only 'no one else is allowed to claim this as theirs and profit from it'
Unfortunately, the copyright laws were written in a time where the concept of individuals having the ability to easily duplicate something like a book was unthinkable. A better name for it with today's technology in mind should be "Publish-for-sale-right". Eg, I wrote this book, and only I can sell (or authorize others to sell) copies of it.
is if they offered the ability to do point-to-point communication with this (eg, not requring you to communicate only with their 'uplink', but allowing say two friends to each get the ground based equipment applicable, and have a high-speed point to point link between them at a reasonable price. Basically, wireless T1. If they are considering that, I think I can smell the phone companies shitting their pants.
Slashdot Mirror
... are more interested in dragging their feet and ensuring that they have monopoly control over any markets they invest in, so that they can charge a far higher price for less service than competition would normally lead to, than in actually innovating and taking any lead. They are also only interested in 'dense' markets where there are lots of customers.
Since they seem to be playing the 'the government shouldnt compete with us' card, I suggest that communities instead form co-ops (which would be greenlighted thru rights-of-way and other resources) that would own and operate the services. Basically the same thing, but it takes away the BS objection that the incumbents have.
If I was in a warzone, and terrorists/insurgents were shooting at me, and/or driving carbombs up to checkpoints, you can damn well be sure my policy would be the same 'shoot first' as well. If you were a fellow soldier and didnt, well.. I'd be happy to attend your funeral.
Launching an xterm might be appropriate in an .xinitrc - it certainly wouldnt be appropriate in a shell rc script.
You are obviously not familiar with IP allocation and routing. What you describe is not even remotely feasible.
As everyone realizes, 'knowing' the location of a voip user is problematic.
Here is my suggestion - require the land-line telcos to offer an 'emergency only' service, which would only support calling 911, and to charge a bare minimum for this service. Either that or require that any line that has ever had phone service, always work for 911, even if no other service is active. (Modern cellphones *do* work that way - I have an old cellphone from a previous employer that the service has long been disconnected on, and it is still able to call 911)
How about no one 'stole' anything. Does the RIAA no longer have their copy of the music that was allegedly stolen? If they do, then nothing was stolen.
What they have is an allegation that copyright infringement took place. No mention seems to be made as to what proof they have, its possible they dont have any.
They dont get to find out who (may) have been at that IP address and ransack that persons computer looking for proof (or threaten to sue them then settle for $obscene_amount)
There is no such thing as a 'criminal' lawsuit. Filing suit implies a civil action (regardless of how uncivil it might get). For criminal action, one needs to file a criminal complain with the appropriate LE agency (which is then investigated, and if appropriate, charges filed by the DA)
MS would like to tho. And if you use their products, your data and 'programs' are pretty much locked into MS. Single vendor is always and continues to be a bad idea.
Didnt we just have a story about how bad of an idea it was to use a spreadsheet for this sort of thing?
Tridgell never had a copy of BitKeeper. He never downloaded it, bought it, used it, or even saw it.
So what? Windows is for losers. And yes, that includes any 64 bit versions.
Go ahead, mod me a troll. Its my honest opinion. No true "Nerd" ("News for nerds, stuff that matters") (or geek, or whatever you wenna call yourself) gives a flying damn about anything MS.
If you use windows voluntarily on your own PC/workstation, the closest you can come is 'wannabe nerd'. Having to use it at work (as long as you make at least a token protest), or when visiting relatives is allowed (although a hardcore nerd will have converted their relatives away too)
I have emails dating back to 1994. 'nuff said. :P
Actually windows has had symlinks (aka 'shortcut to ...') for a while. This is probably more similar to hard links. In either case I'd hardly call it a headliner feature. :)
I don't see any good reason to use either. Why do we need to teach a big pile of integrated crap, and why do we need to teach a specific application, as opposed to teaching general concepts? If in terms of the 'format' of document accepted for papers/etc, then it shouldnt be tied to any specific applications - specify PDF and/or Postscript as the format.
Even if the license says that, it cant possible be enforcible. Its complete bullshit. Imagine "After driving a Ford, you can't drive your Ford to work at a competing car manufacturer. Ever."
I know that was sarcasm, but that is one of the rights that RMS fights for - that individuals have *every* right to write software of their own to perform any function they want, and just becuase someone is selling proprietary software that currently does that doesnt justify any gripes they might have about it.
If people want to *choose* to use proprietary software, that is fine. I only beleive its evil when the protocols and data formats used for communication *between* persons allow one persons choice to force another persons. Linux wants to use BK to manage the kernel, thats fine. As long as another person, who doesnt want to use BK, has the right to write their own software to manage their portion of it, which speaks the same protocol (or use that written by someone else). McVoy getting bent over someone attempting to write software that was able to communicate with BK is the wrong part here.
Other than one small correction, you are dead right, I suspect. I would say "This chain of events began with Linux (perhaps forgivable) mistake of choosing a proprietary tool in the first place."
Exactly. And if there is enough demand (and the hardware vendor doesnt license them in a manner so as to preculde it), eventually the standalone drivers will be incorporated into the kernel proper itself, and on the next kernel upgrade your hardware 'just works' without your even having to do that.
I havent compiled a linux kernel in ages. Ive pretty much stuck with the stock one. Usually it has all those 'essential to boot' items already compiled in, and the rest as modules. However, I am positive that pressing "?" or "H" or something in the kernel config interface will give a descriptive explanation of the current item, and include some pretty good hints as to wether its an 'essential option needed to boot' (beyond the obvious ones such as the drivers for the type of media and filesystem you are booting from [if those arent obvious to you, then perhaps you shouldnt be recompiling kernels, and should stick with the distribution default])
"Hrm, I have a parallel port but dont think I'll be using it much"..
If that decision is hard for you, you must not be aware of how modules work 'Module' would be the correct choice for that driver. As such, it wouldnt get loaded until and unless you want to use it.
The only things you need to hard-compile into the kernel are the things you need to be able to boot the OS to the point where it can load modules (IDE and/or SCSI drivers, ext2/ext3 fs, whatever else is appropriate). The only things you want to completely exclude are things you know you will *never* use (PCMCIA on a desktop which has no PCMCIA, any ISA card drivers if your MB has no ISA slots[except for built-on ISA devices, if any], SMP if its a single processor board and you dont expect to be getting a dual.. etc)..
Anything that you theoretically *could* use, and you think you ever *might* use, should be a module. In fact many of the things you know you *will* use, that arent basic/intrinsic to booting up, should be a module, as well.
Uhm.. You arent all that familiar with linux kernel modules, are you? You do *NOT* have to recompile the kernel to load and unload modules dynamically. You only have to do that if you want to compile something hard into the kernel, instead of leaving it as a module. Basically there are a few things (IDE HD driver, etc) that need to be hardcoded, and most other things can be left as modules that can be loaded if and when needed, or ignored/deleted if you never expect to need them (eg, PCMCIA drivers on a desktop with no PCMCIA hardware)
The guy doesnt get it either. The entire point of the modules is to allow you to not 'bloat' the kernel, with the drivers you dont need.
Actually that isnt what the military said. That is what the Wired author wrote.
That some copyright holders/plaintiffs/etc might be wanting courts to change those definitions, no one who chooses to have the GPL apply to their work is going to interpret them that way - eg no one is ever going to *sue* someone, for running (and by running, I mean by what we currently understand it to be) the program they wrote and distributed under the GPL.
So
1) Ok, you're right.
As far as distributing unmodified copies, most distribution of GPL software is by source anyway.
And yes, I suppose when 'commercial' binary redistribution is done, (for example, redhat) then yes, they have to provide for anyone that get the binaries to be able to get the source as well. But no one is going to get sued for copying a redhat CD and giving it to their friend, and not including the source. Perhaps there should be a distinction between individual copying of an already mass-distributed work (whereby the source is already publically available from any number of places), and business distribution of an aggregated set of works.
2) Since the party that would have standing in any suit regarding the use of a GPL'ed program is going to be the author or an entity that the author(s) assigned copyright to (eg the FSF), and that person or entity is likely to *support* the GPL, and its intent, its highly unlikely that any such plaintiff would ever interpet 'running' to mean anything other than what we currently interpret it to mean, and is therefore highly unlikely to initiate a lawsuit over it. No one else is going to have standing to sue anyway.
3) The original issue was if *you* wrote (eg you are the original author, and hold copyright), a document, and used fonts which were GPL'd (which to be honest Im not even sure makes sense to begin with, the GPL was written with software in mind, not data such as fonts), wether your document would somehow be GPL'd. That is absolutely a ludicrous position, and the only one with an interest in putting it forward would be a company which makes and sells proprietary fonts, as a means of creating FUD about those 'free' fonts. Im not terribly familiar with how fonts are made - do fonts even have a 'source' concept? Is there a 'source code' for fonts, that one cannot easily convert the 'compiled' form of a font back to? And I dont mean the bitmap result of rendering a font, I mean the fonts you would install into postscript or a word processor for it to be able to use - is there any way to distribute those that prevents someone else from using and/or modifying them?
Also, the mere existence of a particular form of some content is not a violation of anything. Now if you took a best seller novel, and *made* a copy of it and distributed it without permission, then it doesnt matter what form or media you used.
Personally, I beleive the current interpretation of copyright goes way too far. The original concept is "Protect, for a time, the exclusive rights of the authors of original works to profit from those works" - personal copying and other copying not done to make a buck, should have nothing to do with it. Note that that doesnt mean 'guarantee authors the right to profit', it means only 'no one else is allowed to claim this as theirs and profit from it'
Unfortunately, the copyright laws were written in a time where the concept of individuals having the ability to easily duplicate something like a book was unthinkable. A better name for it with today's technology in mind should be "Publish-for-sale-right". Eg, I wrote this book, and only I can sell (or authorize others to sell) copies of it.
is if they offered the ability to do point-to-point communication with this (eg, not requring you to communicate only with their 'uplink', but allowing say two friends to each get the ground based equipment applicable, and have a high-speed point to point link between them at a reasonable price. Basically, wireless T1. If they are considering that, I think I can smell the phone companies shitting their pants.