Some time ago, in (IIRC) Switzerland, CoS filed a lawsuit against an individual for disseminating their "trade secrets" (basically their 'doctrine'). They don't like people to read this 'doctrine' unless they've been properly prepared (they tell the members that if you read it before you're ready, that it will kill you - just a note to all you potential Scientologists... I read them, and I'm still around:o)
Little did they realize that in order to do this in Switzerland, they had to enter the documents into the public record, so (in essence) anyone could go the the courthouse and get the full text of the documents.
IIRC, the US allows such records to be kept confidential if the plaintiff's request this... so I have to wonder - why didn't the DVDCCA ask the judge to do this?
Well, in general, management/companies don't give a rat's ass about "free speech" - they care about $$$ - so you have to present this to them as free as in beer, because it's what they understand. If you presented it as "You can pay me to work on a piece of software, so I can give it away" they'd laugh in your face.
Secondly, You obviously didn't read the entire post.
The "poor ripped-off programmers" you're talking about _DO_ get something: they get a working, functioning, piece of software... if they don't want to be "ripped off" then they're perfectly welcome to to ignore it. But the fundamental tenet is this: If they use it, and there is a feature it's lacking, or a bug that annoys them, then they can contribute, IF THEY WANT. This is how all open-source works, whether it's Linux, BSD, Apache, or anything else.
When I write a Roxen module, and release it under the GPL, do I get pissed off that Idonex will probably be making money off it? (if they decide to package it with Challenger) Not on your life. Did I get "ripped off"? Nope. So what did I get out of it? I got one hell of a terrific web server.
Please open your mind a little, I do realize that "free speech" and "free beer" are two very different things, but you must realize that while they are different, they are very closely linked together.
There are many good replies here, but people are still missing the most obvious (at least to me):
Sell your employer the #1 benefit of GPL'ed code, which is (if it's a good project - one that will draw interest) that they will get submissions from others, FOR "FREE"...
OK, say you're writing a new app (something that would inspire interest from other people) - once you have a semi-working product, approach your boss with the idea to release it under GPL; convince him/her that you could have dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of other programmers working for the price of your salary... productivity would increase, and you'll get a better end product. The "free" workers get a good app, your company gets "free" workers, so everybody wins.
If you think about it, that's the reason Linux exists.. you just have to follow the model.
Ever since I'd heard about DVD's, I've wanted one.. although I was going to wait until DVD recorders (stand-alone) became reasonably priced, so I could replace my aging VCR (several programs I like are shown during my working hours.)
When it was announced that "The Matrix" was going to be DVD-only (for purchase) I decided that I'd get a player first, since they are reasonably priced, and I could get a head-start on a decent video collection (I'd start by buying "The Matrix":o).. I was going to take advantage of one of the many boxing-day sales.
But when these stupid lawsuits emerged, it put a decidedly bad taste in my mouth; and until this is settled (in favour of the defendants) I've decided to hold off buying ANYTHING DVD... no players, no recorders, no movies, NOTHING.
So yes, here is ONE customer they have lost because of these lawsuits (I had decided to buy, but have changed my mind because of their bullying tactics.)
And I know several people who feel the same way I do.
If I remember correctly, windows file shares by default run over netbios, which is not routeable unless there is a master browser configured to do the deed
You're correct that the windows fileshares use NetBIOS, but NetBIOS over TCP/IP is very much routable, because TCP/IP is routable.
I think you're confusing it with NetBEUI, which is another transport protocol (same/similar level as TCP/IP), which is not routable. (This is Windows' preffered transport protocol.)
Windows LAN's exchange name information via UDP broadcasts, which are (usually) not routable (although this has nothing to do with NetBIOS.)
Shares should still be accessable if accessed in a \\ip.address.here fashion, but shares wouldn't normally get past a router.
Yes, it would - in fact, this is exactly how scour.net works - it indexes NetBIOS shares across the internet, so that you can set up a publicly accessible directory share for people to download media files.
You (well, we - I'm an @home customer as well) have a great way to avoid being a "hapless victim" - contact @home and tell them to fix their server (they have one week before the penalty becomes active.)
In all honestly, it won't affect me too much though, as I mostly just use USENET for browsing classifieds (and if I REALLY need to post I do could just as easily use Deja, or the NNTP server from work..)
Just remember, as an @home customer, you have the power to fix this.
I'm not the original poster, but here is a test on my local lan:
PING omni (192.168.20.17): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.4 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.8 ms
This is a 10-BT network.
My local machine has an old WD NIC (not quite sure which one - it's ISA though, and utilizs the 8390 chipset) and the other machine has an SMC Ultra 16 (ISA and 8390 again.)
I tried it from another machine, this one with a PCI Intel EtherXpress 10/100 (operating at 10Mbps)
PING 192.168.20.17 (192.168.20.17): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=1.3 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms
So I'd guess that.1ms ping times on a 100Mbps network is not that far-fetched. (the initial lag for ping is probably due to the time required for ARPing.)
It's just not that simple. There's no doubt that most of these monetary claims are vastly exaggerated, but it's not just a matter of replacing an index.html file. If someone broke into your house and spray painted a tag on your bathroom wall, would you just shrug it off, clean it, shut your doors, and continue on with life? No. You'd beef up your security.
That's irrelevant to the cost of replacing the web content.
This is the cost to fix your security holes; it has nothing to do with the web site at all. If there are security holes, then it's the administrator's job to fix them, and this can't honestly be counted against repairing the website; these are two different things. (The cost for a sysadmin's time is already paid for - it doesn't matter if he's doing it adequately or not.)
Fact is a lot of these sites may be "asking for it" with their poor admins and shaky security, but that doesn't make it right.
Nobody is saying that it does make it right - but that has nothing to do with calculating the cost of restoring a website from a backup.
I just wish we could do something about all the telemarketers...in my opinion these people are far more annoying than spammers. At least spam doesn't start arguing with you when you hit "delete".
I don't know where you're from, but where I live (Canada) there already are laws in place to limit what telemarketer's can do. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the same applies to the US, as well.)
In short, there are hours they are allowed to phone, and they are _NOT_ allowed to argue with you - as soon as you say "I'm not interested", they are legally required to say "goodbye" and hang up. If they start to argue with you, it's time to get the name of their company (via *59, if necessary) and file a complaint against them.
Pretty simple.. by the serial number.. they ask the manufacturer, who finds the distributor, who finds the user/person who purchased it.
(OK, maybe not _THAT_ simple:o)
They generally rely on the fact because color copiers cost thousands of dollars, that nobody ever pays cash for one, so there is a paper trail to follow...
It's not flawless (yes, you could pay in cash, and wear a disguise and surgical gloves, and drive away in a stolen van with false plates..) but it's enough to give them a starting place to look for their suspect.
Re:How does it work without compromising the image
on
IDs in Color Copies
·
· Score: 2
My understanding is that it's microscopic - the arrangement of the dots on the paper. To the naked eye, the copy is perfect, but under a microscope things are very different (same with plain B&W photocopiers.. ever looked at copies vs. originals under a microscope?)
If Microsoft lawyers' know what's good for them, they'll settle, and settle now.
I don't think it's their decision.
(I'm not the first to notice this, either - check this slashdot story for someone else's viewpoints (Question #7, by Otter))
Looking at how the MS Lawyers handled the case in court, I think that Gates doesn't WANT to settle (he is, after all, a total control freak.) It's not the Lawyer's decision to settle, it's the clients' - and this one is too pig-headed and closed-minded to know what's good for him.
And it's probably done in the computer world as well...
The problem is that it's ILLEGAL to do in the physical world.. this bill basically says that if you plant "cyber" evidence, then it's perfectly legal as long as you're with the secret police.
I'm glad the last of my familty moved from Australia last year... it's not a place I'd want anyone I care about to live..
they made a law to charge you for something that was already free.
That's not what is happening.
To my knowledge, it has always been free to rip music from CDs for your personal use, granted that you own the CD as well.
Yes, this continues to be true. Nobody is charging for personal use. The point you're missing is that playing songs commercially at someone else's party isn't personal use; it's commercial use.
It can render Slashdot just as nicely as that screenshot, and I've yet to see it crash
It crashed on me last night. Twice. (using FTP.)
And the really bad thing is that after the second time, I couldn't launch it any more.. I had to log out and log back in again. (This is the latest version.)
Please note that I'm not complaining, I'm just stating a fact... KDE has a lot of good things going for it, but I wouldn't count it's stability as 100% yet (although it's good enough to be extremely usable at this point.)
(For those interested, I was using it because of it's convenience - editing HTML pages with KWrite - it's MUCH easier to deag&drop to load/edit/save than it is to manually use an FTP client to download them to a local directory, then do your editing, then upload them again.. and this is the key reason why I will continue to use KDE.. and it can only get better...)
it's often been said (though I'm not sure how true it is now) that current data transfer methods may seem fast, but they still don't beat the "data transfer rates" of simply filling a stationwagon full of data tapes, and driving it yourself to the destination.
True, but the thing that this approch doesn't take into account is latency. (which, depending on the length of the drive, and how long it takes to load/unload the stationwagon, can range from ~5 minutes, to several days..)
If I'm playing a game of quake, I'll get my ass whopped if I rely on the stationwagon method:o)
I think that (although the bandwith is considerably smaller) this is a step in the right direction.:o)
When creating a password, I take the first word(s) that pops into my head, and then spoonerize it.. (for those of you who have forgotten third grade english, a spoonerism is a play on words, where syllables are swapped.. for example "start the car" would become "cart the star." "slashdot" could become "dlatsosh", "datslosh")
Then, all I have to do is remember what I was thinking of when I created the account (pretty simple - if it's non-critical, I just use the name of the site.)
Oh, for those of you who think I just told you my slashdot password, this is the place I didn't do this:o)
Let me warn you that I haven't upgraded my Netscape past 4.5, figuring they're all "dot" releases and will probably not have CSS support. If I'm wrong let me know ASAP!
You're wrong. (I think?)
I don't know exactly what functionality you're missing, but I'm using Netscape 4.08, and CSS works pretty well. (Although you have to have Javascript enabled in order to use it - I don't know why.) I know that not all of the CSS spec is present in Netscape, but a good portion is, and it works pretty well.
I agree with the other parts you said though - Style Sheets are a godsend; Ever since I started using HTML, I've been amazed at how ugly the FONT tag is; thankfully CSS was developed, and we can do away with all that.
Also I read about someone else complaining that the protection was very weak, and it was easy to break. Fine - if your front door is unlocked it does not make legal to steal your home. This is not a legal defense.
You're missing something - nobody "broke into anybody's house".
If your front door locked is broken by design, then yes, it's illegal for someone to break in. - but it's NOT illegal for that someone to tell you about it, or to inform the lock manufacturer that they make a shoddy product, or to broadcast to the general public that the locks are faulty.
Nobody broke any laws here - they cracked the encryption for legitimate reasons. Your analogy implies that they broke the encryption and started selling pirate DVD's, which is untrue.
I've never understood why people who spend good money on creating a web site don't make it available to as many people as possible
Simple - the people who are spending the money don't know - the people who design it are not the people who are spending the money.
The people who are spending the money usually only see what the designers want them to see, then they pay for it (if they like it.) Then, later, MAYBE (if they're clueful enough) they might see the page in another browser, or someone might complain to them.
90% of the time, they have no idea that someone won't see it exactly the way they do (because of a different OS, interface, browser, or even screen resolution.) It's amazing how many businesses I've seen with horribly-designed sites that think they're wonderful because they have an internet site.
It's the designers that are to blame (the ones who design sites in a paint program, and have everything as GIF images.) Since the designers only show the customers what they want them to see, the people spending the money have no idea.
This seems to say that when using a large amount(how much?)
As I understand copyright law, >=30%.
This contradicts his claim that he cannot force you to use the GPL if he uses some GPL code in his own program.
Not really... after all, nobody is forcing you to release the software. If you use GPL'ed code and release it then you have to release the source to any modifications you make to that GPL'ed code.
As I understand the GPL (and the article) if you use GPL'ed code in your program and wish to release your software, you have to release the source to the GPL'ed parts (subroutines, etc..) plus any modification you've made to the GPL'ed portion. (possibly hooks to your own code.)
And what about the issues raised in the original article, that of linking to libraries and other software that is not GPL'd? Anyone else notice RMS did not mention or even refer to those issues?
He may not have mentioned them, but they are covered in general by the article.
First, I agree with your overall point - many parents use Television (and increasingly the PC/Internet) as electronic babysitters, which is abhorrent..
But another (equally valid) point is that it's simply not possible to supervise a child 24 hours a day.. and if a kid REALLY wants to do something, they are going to find a way to do it..
If Mom is surfing with the child, and she doesn't let him/her fill out a form (even if she explains why,) if the kid wants to see that site, the parent is not going to be able to stop the child from getting up early and going down to the computer room (ok, it _IS_ possible, if you're running a multi-user OS, and have proper permissions on the browser.. but let's be realistic, how many home users can actually do this - or even know it's possible?).. or what if little Bobby decides to go play at his friends place, who's parents don't supervise 'net activity? And let's face it - most children know way more than their parents about computers.
My little sister once got it into her head that she wanted to smell everything (including everything that came in a bottle..) my parents warned her not to - it was dangerous, blah, blah... but when nobody was looking, she would always try to see what something smelled like... until she tried the bottle of bleach my mother kept under the bathroom sink (yes, the one with the child-proof lid) and she ran around screaming "my nose is on fire! my nose is on fire!"
I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent.
What if the economy goes in the toilet? What if OSS isn't "cool" anymore?
OK, What if?
What if Redmond got hit by a Meteor tomorrow, and every MS programmer got killed... What happens to all the bug-fixes and tech support? Can you say "Well, that's no problem, we'll just take what we have and WE'LL fix it!" - No, because you don't have the source.
OR: What if every Sendmail programmer got hit by a bus simultaneously tomorrow instead? What happens to every major mail server on the planet? They just say "That's no problem, we'll fix whatever bug occurs ourselves."
See the difference?
In your examples, if a company who runs OSS stops getting "free" support, then they can HIRE PEOPLE WHO KNOW, because there are lots of them (and any decent programmer can learn, because they have the source.)
What happens if MS goes bankrupt during your (rhetorical) recession? How do you get support, upgrades, bug-fixes, etc? Answer: You don't.
No company, with any kind of clue, would base something as important as their computers' OS on people's good nature.
Nobody is doing that, or asking that people do that - you're kidding yourself if you think that ANYONE is doing this.
You simply don't get shit for free.
Nobody is saying that you do. There is always a price to using any software; with OSS, you hire people who know the system (and you can _always_ find them, as the source is available.) This is the point the article was making.
Anyone seen (or heard of) Fatal Error? "TBS's first original film!"
It's about a computer virus that "escapes" from the computer, and then mutates into a virus that can attack humans.
I think that pretty much makes the computer scenes from Independence Day look like a Discovery Channel documentary. (I mean c'mon, the aliens COULD be running Windows NT or MacOS!:o)
It took so long because Professor Falken spent all his time teaching the damn thing chess and tic-tac-toe, and didn't bother to play a single game of Mastermind!:o)
Slashdot Mirror
Some time ago, in (IIRC) Switzerland, CoS filed a lawsuit against an individual for disseminating their "trade secrets" (basically their 'doctrine'). They don't like people to read this 'doctrine' unless they've been properly prepared (they tell the members that if you read it before you're ready, that it will kill you - just a note to all you potential Scientologists... I read them, and I'm still around :o)
Little did they realize that in order to do this in Switzerland, they had to enter the documents into the public record, so (in essence) anyone could go the the courthouse and get the full text of the documents.
IIRC, the US allows such records to be kept confidential if the plaintiff's request this... so I have to wonder - why didn't the DVDCCA ask the judge to do this?
Well, in general, management/companies don't give a rat's ass about "free speech" - they care about $$$ - so you have to present this to them as free as in beer, because it's what they understand. If you presented it as "You can pay me to work on a piece of software, so I can give it away" they'd laugh in your face.
Secondly, You obviously didn't read the entire post.
The "poor ripped-off programmers" you're talking about _DO_ get something: they get a working, functioning, piece of software... if they don't want to be "ripped off" then they're perfectly welcome to to ignore it. But the fundamental tenet is this: If they use it, and there is a feature it's lacking, or a bug that annoys them, then they can contribute, IF THEY WANT. This is how all open-source works, whether it's Linux, BSD, Apache, or anything else.
When I write a Roxen module, and release it under the GPL, do I get pissed off that Idonex will probably be making money off it? (if they decide to package it with Challenger) Not on your life. Did I get "ripped off"? Nope. So what did I get out of it? I got one hell of a terrific web server.
Please open your mind a little, I do realize that "free speech" and "free beer" are two very different things, but you must realize that while they are different, they are very closely linked together.
There are many good replies here, but people are still missing the
most obvious (at least to me):
Sell your employer the #1 benefit of GPL'ed code, which is (if it's a
good project - one that will draw interest) that they will get
submissions from others, FOR "FREE"...
OK, say you're writing a new app (something that would inspire
interest from other people) - once you have a semi-working product,
approach your boss with the idea to release it under GPL; convince
him/her that you could have dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of other
programmers working for the price of your salary... productivity would
increase, and you'll get a better end product. The "free" workers get
a good app, your company gets "free" workers, so everybody wins.
If you think about it, that's the reason Linux exists.. you just have
to follow the model.
Ever since I'd heard about DVD's, I've wanted one.. although I was going to wait until DVD recorders (stand-alone) became reasonably priced, so I could replace my aging VCR (several programs I like are shown during my working hours.)
:o).. I was going to take advantage of one of the many boxing-day sales.
When it was announced that "The Matrix" was going to be DVD-only (for purchase) I decided that I'd get a player first, since they are reasonably priced, and I could get a head-start on a decent video collection (I'd start by buying "The Matrix"
But when these stupid lawsuits emerged, it put a decidedly bad taste in my mouth; and until this is settled (in favour of the defendants) I've decided to hold off buying ANYTHING DVD... no players, no recorders, no movies, NOTHING.
So yes, here is ONE customer they have lost because of these lawsuits (I had decided to buy, but have changed my mind because of their bullying tactics.)
And I know several people who feel the same way I do.
Hi..
If I remember correctly, windows file shares by default run over netbios, which is not routeable unless there is a master browser configured to do the deed
You're correct that the windows fileshares use NetBIOS, but NetBIOS over TCP/IP is very much routable, because TCP/IP is routable.
I think you're confusing it with NetBEUI, which is another transport protocol (same/similar level as TCP/IP), which is not routable. (This is Windows' preffered transport protocol.)
Windows LAN's exchange name information via UDP broadcasts, which are (usually) not routable (although this has nothing to do with NetBIOS.)
Shares should still be accessable if accessed in a \\ip.address.here fashion, but shares wouldn't normally get past a router.
Yes, it would - in fact, this is exactly how scour.net works - it indexes NetBIOS shares across the internet, so that you can set up a publicly accessible directory share for people to download media files.
Hope this clears some things up for you..
You (well, we - I'm an @home customer as well) have a great way to avoid being a "hapless victim" - contact @home and tell them to fix their server (they have one week before the penalty becomes active.)
In all honestly, it won't affect me too much though, as I mostly just use USENET for browsing classifieds (and if I REALLY need to post I do could just as easily use Deja, or the NNTP server from work..)
Just remember, as an @home customer, you have the power to fix this.
Hi..
.1ms ping times on a 100Mbps network is not that far-fetched. (the initial lag for ping is probably due to the time required for ARPing.)
I'm not the original poster, but here is a test on my local lan:
PING omni (192.168.20.17): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.4 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.9 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.8 ms
This is a 10-BT network.
My local machine has an old WD NIC (not quite sure which one - it's ISA though, and utilizs the 8390 chipset) and the other machine has an SMC Ultra 16 (ISA and 8390 again.)
I tried it from another machine, this one with a PCI Intel EtherXpress 10/100 (operating at 10Mbps)
PING 192.168.20.17 (192.168.20.17): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=1.3 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.20.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.6 ms
So I'd guess that
Hope this helps you when you buy your next NIC.
It's just not that simple. There's no doubt that most of these monetary claims are vastly exaggerated, but it's not just a matter of replacing an index.html file. If someone broke into your house and spray painted a tag on your bathroom wall, would you just shrug it off, clean it, shut your doors, and continue on with life? No. You'd beef up your security.
That's irrelevant to the cost of replacing the web content.
This is the cost to fix your security holes; it has nothing to do with the web site at all. If there are security holes, then it's the administrator's job to fix them, and this can't honestly be counted against repairing the website; these are two different things. (The cost for a sysadmin's time is already paid for - it doesn't matter if he's doing it adequately or not.)
Fact is a lot of these sites may be "asking for it" with their poor admins and shaky security, but that doesn't make it right.
Nobody is saying that it does make it right - but that has nothing to do with calculating the cost of restoring a website from a backup.
I just wish we could do something about all the telemarketers...in my opinion these people are far more annoying than spammers. At least spam doesn't start arguing with you when you hit "delete".
I don't know where you're from, but where I live (Canada) there already are laws in place to limit what telemarketer's can do. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the same applies to the US, as well.)
In short, there are hours they are allowed to phone, and they are _NOT_ allowed to argue with you - as soon as you say "I'm not interested", they are legally required to say "goodbye" and hang up. If they start to argue with you, it's time to get the name of their company (via *59, if necessary) and file a complaint against them.
You have rights, you just weren't aware of them.
Pretty simple.. by the serial number.. they ask the manufacturer, who finds the distributor, who finds the user/person who purchased it.
:o)
(OK, maybe not _THAT_ simple
They generally rely on the fact because color copiers cost thousands of dollars, that nobody ever pays cash for one, so there is a paper trail to follow...
It's not flawless (yes, you could pay in cash, and wear a disguise and surgical gloves, and drive away in a stolen van with false plates..) but it's enough to give them a starting place to look for their suspect.
My understanding is that it's microscopic - the arrangement of the dots on the paper. To the naked eye, the copy is perfect, but under a microscope things are very different (same with plain B&W photocopiers.. ever looked at copies vs. originals under a microscope?)
If Microsoft lawyers' know what's good for them, they'll settle, and settle now.
I don't think it's their decision.
(I'm not the first to notice this, either - check this slashdot story for someone else's viewpoints (Question #7, by Otter))
Looking at how the MS Lawyers handled the case in court, I think that Gates doesn't WANT to settle (he is, after all, a total control freak.) It's not the Lawyer's decision to settle, it's the clients' - and this one is too pig-headed and closed-minded to know what's good for him.
Done all the time in the physical world.
And it's probably done in the computer world as well...
The problem is that it's ILLEGAL to do in the physical world.. this bill basically says that if you plant "cyber" evidence, then it's perfectly legal as long as you're with the secret police.
I'm glad the last of my familty moved from Australia last year... it's not a place I'd want anyone I care about to live..
they made a law to charge you for something that was already free.
That's not what is happening.
To my knowledge, it has always been free to rip music from CDs for your personal use, granted that you own the CD as well.
Yes, this continues to be true. Nobody is charging for personal use. The point you're missing is that playing songs commercially at someone else's party isn't personal use; it's commercial use.
It can render Slashdot just as nicely as that screenshot, and I've yet to see it crash
It crashed on me last night. Twice. (using FTP.)
And the really bad thing is that after the second time, I couldn't launch it any more.. I had to log out and log back in again. (This is the latest version.)
Please note that I'm not complaining, I'm just stating a fact... KDE has a lot of good things going for it, but I wouldn't count it's stability as 100% yet (although it's good enough to be extremely usable at this point.)
(For those interested, I was using it because of it's convenience - editing HTML pages with KWrite - it's MUCH easier to deag&drop to load/edit/save than it is to manually use an FTP client to download them to a local directory, then do your editing, then upload them again.. and this is the key reason why I will continue to use KDE.. and it can only get better...)
it's often been said (though I'm not sure how true it is now) that current data transfer methods may seem fast, but they still don't beat the "data transfer rates" of simply filling a stationwagon full of data tapes, and driving it yourself to the destination.
:o)
:o)
True, but the thing that this approch doesn't take into account is latency. (which, depending on the length of the drive, and how long it takes to load/unload the stationwagon, can range from ~5 minutes, to several days..)
If I'm playing a game of quake, I'll get my ass whopped if I rely on the stationwagon method
I think that (although the bandwith is considerably smaller) this is a step in the right direction.
This is the best one I've found so far..
:o)
When creating a password, I take the first word(s) that pops into my head, and then spoonerize it..
(for those of you who have forgotten third grade english, a spoonerism is a play on words, where syllables are swapped.. for example "start the car" would become "cart the star." "slashdot" could become "dlatsosh", "datslosh")
Then, all I have to do is remember what I was thinking of when I created the account (pretty simple - if it's non-critical, I just use the name of the site.)
Oh, for those of you who think I just told you my slashdot password, this is the place I didn't do this
Let me warn you that I haven't upgraded my Netscape past 4.5, figuring they're all "dot" releases and will probably not have CSS support. If I'm wrong let me know ASAP!
You're wrong. (I think?)
I don't know exactly what functionality you're missing, but I'm using Netscape 4.08, and CSS works pretty well. (Although you have to have Javascript enabled in order to use it - I don't know why.) I know that not all of the CSS spec is present in Netscape, but a good portion is, and it works pretty well.
I agree with the other parts you said though - Style Sheets are a godsend; Ever since I started using HTML, I've been amazed at how ugly the FONT tag is; thankfully CSS was developed, and we can do away with all that.
Also I read about someone else complaining that the protection was very weak, and it was easy to break. Fine - if your front door is unlocked it does not make legal to steal your home. This is not a legal defense.
You're missing something - nobody "broke into anybody's house".
If your front door locked is broken by design, then yes, it's illegal for someone to break in. - but it's NOT illegal for that someone to tell you about it, or to inform the lock manufacturer that they make a shoddy product, or to broadcast to the general public that the locks are faulty.
Nobody broke any laws here - they cracked the encryption for legitimate reasons. Your analogy implies that they broke the encryption and started selling pirate DVD's, which is untrue.
I've never understood why people who spend good money on creating a web site don't make it available to as many people as possible
Simple - the people who are spending the money don't know - the people who design it are not the people who are spending the money.
The people who are spending the money usually only see what the designers want them to see, then they pay for it (if they like it.) Then, later, MAYBE (if they're clueful enough) they might see the page in another browser, or someone might complain to them.
90% of the time, they have no idea that someone won't see it exactly the way they do (because of a different OS, interface, browser, or even screen resolution.) It's amazing how many businesses I've seen with horribly-designed sites that think they're wonderful because they have an internet site.
It's the designers that are to blame (the ones who design sites in a paint program, and have everything as GIF images.) Since the designers only show the customers what they want them to see, the people spending the money have no idea.
This seems to say that when using a large amount(how much?)
As I understand copyright law, >=30%.
This contradicts his claim that he cannot force you to use the GPL if he uses some GPL code in his own program.
Not really... after all, nobody is forcing you to release the software. If you use GPL'ed code and release it then you have to release the source to any modifications you make to that GPL'ed code.
As I understand the GPL (and the article) if you use GPL'ed code in your program and wish to release your software, you have to release the source to the GPL'ed parts (subroutines, etc..) plus any modification you've made to the GPL'ed portion. (possibly hooks to your own code.)
And what about the issues raised in the original article, that of linking to libraries and other software that is not GPL'd? Anyone else notice RMS did not mention or even refer to those issues?
He may not have mentioned them, but they are covered in general by the article.
First, I agree with your overall point - many parents use Television (and increasingly the PC/Internet) as electronic babysitters, which is abhorrent..
But another (equally valid) point is that it's simply not possible to supervise a child 24 hours a day.. and if a kid REALLY wants to do something, they are going to find a way to do it..
If Mom is surfing with the child, and she doesn't let him/her fill out a form (even if she explains why,) if the kid wants to see that site, the parent is not going to be able to stop the child from getting up early and going down to the computer room (ok, it _IS_ possible, if you're running a multi-user OS, and have proper permissions on the browser.. but let's be realistic, how many home users can actually do this - or even know it's possible?).. or what if little Bobby decides to go play at his friends place, who's parents don't supervise 'net activity? And let's face it - most children know way more than their parents about computers.
My little sister once got it into her head that she wanted to smell everything (including everything that came in a bottle..) my parents warned her not to - it was dangerous, blah, blah... but when nobody was looking, she would always try to see what something smelled like... until she tried the bottle of bleach my mother kept under the bathroom sink (yes, the one with the child-proof lid) and she ran around screaming "my nose is on fire! my nose is on fire!"
I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent.
What if the economy goes in the toilet? What if OSS isn't "cool" anymore?
OK, What if?
What if Redmond got hit by a Meteor tomorrow, and every MS programmer got killed... What happens to all the bug-fixes and tech support? Can you say "Well, that's no problem, we'll just take what we have and WE'LL fix it!" - No, because you don't have the source.
OR: What if every Sendmail programmer got hit by a bus simultaneously tomorrow instead? What happens to every major mail server on the planet? They just say "That's no problem, we'll fix whatever bug occurs ourselves."
See the difference?
In your examples, if a company who runs OSS stops getting "free" support, then they can HIRE PEOPLE WHO KNOW, because there are lots of them (and any decent programmer can learn, because they have the source.)
What happens if MS goes bankrupt during your (rhetorical) recession? How do you get support, upgrades, bug-fixes, etc? Answer: You don't.
No company, with any kind of clue, would base something as important as their computers' OS on people's good nature.
Nobody is doing that, or asking that people do that - you're kidding yourself if you think that ANYONE is doing this.
You simply don't get shit for free.
Nobody is saying that you do. There is always a price to using any software; with OSS, you hire people who know the system (and you can _always_ find them, as the source is available.) This is the point the article was making.
Anyone seen (or heard of) Fatal Error? "TBS's first original film!"
:o)
It's about a computer virus that "escapes" from the computer, and then mutates into a virus that can attack humans.
I think that pretty much makes the computer scenes from Independence Day look like a Discovery Channel documentary. (I mean c'mon, the aliens COULD be running Windows NT or MacOS!
It took so long because Professor Falken spent all his time teaching the damn thing chess and tic-tac-toe, and didn't bother to play a single game of Mastermind! :o)