Actually, you're not. The ISO image has its own copyright. It's the same difference between the music on a CD and the CD itself... both have distinct copyrights. The ISO distribution belongs to the distributor, be it RedHat, Debian, whomever, and they may choose any licence agreements they please.
You're still free to take the GPL'd components of the ISO-image and build your own unique distro... but the distrobution itself is copyright the distributor. Just as if you bought the CD, you can't copy it exactly and burn it exactly: you have to make your own.
And no, the distribution does not fall under the GPL because it is not software derived from GPL'ed work. It's an entirely different beast.
"The German military might seem a bit paranoid..."
*Of course* they're paranoid. They're the MILITARY. It would be sheer folly for an industrialised nation's secured military systems to run off code which could not be audited.
They will contract private German-based companies to develop proprietary, secure systems. Any sane military *would.*
By this logic, though, and I'm not saying I disagree with you: but, if all software boils down to mathematical operations -- why can you copyright them?
For example: if, we speak in such terms what prevents me from writing --
ab^2 x 69 / 3 = x
-- tacking "(c) 2001 BRx, All Rights Reserved." on it and of it, and poof! Now you can't copy it without my express writing permission?
Mathematics aren't patentable, I agree. But how are they any more copyrightable?
What? You're talking about different things.
How is the online UK store, operating in the UK, selling things "in the US?" If I am in the US and I buy something from the store, through a system that's patented or patentable in the US, I'm buying it "in the UK." They *ship* the _product_ to the US. The system and all its components reside in the UK, free from US scrutiny.
And that's the rub.
BRx.
If push came to shove, could you simply not connect all the audio-out ports on your stereo to your soundcard and hit "Record?"
How exactly do these new DataPlay discs thwart music thieves?
I mean: a decent sound system can be wired to a decent sound card to produce a re-digitised product "as good as" the original and then compressed back into MP3, no?
What I find so interesting about Napster and it's recent downhill battle with the RIAA is that it has started forcing people to *think* about the level of corporate control in our lives...
I mean, Napster & it's distributed filesharing equivalents are _insanely popular._ If the laws are, supposedly, by the People and for the People -- shouldn't these People decide whether or not the copyright laws are valid?
I wonder though if Good Old American Apathy will set in, again... I mean, how many Napster users will stand up and say, "I believe this activity is moral and should be legalised." Or, just as everything else from speeding to marijuana, will we simply keep breaking the rules rather than reforming them?
Hm... how does that quote go? To live legally is to live immorally, to live morally is to live illegally?
Despite the wonders of the Tight Encoder I have still never been WOW'd by VNC's performance. I have a broadband connection to my LAN at home (3 roommates, 5 computers, 2 cable connections capped to 50KB/s upstream on each connection) and I use VNC to get access to my X desktop from work. One of my co-workers has the same setup but with Win2K Advanced Server w/Terminal Services (and a Win2K session, obviously;)).
Frankly, WTS leaves VNC chokin' on the dust;) I'm always surprised when these threads inevitably show up on Slashdot and large groups of people praise VNC for its sweet goodness when I've never really seen that sort of performance. I have hope for future versions of TightVNC, though... so we shall see...
Has anyone had any luck with the new JPEG compression?
You know... I hear this all the time. And I figure, it *must* be true. We're talking about the largest software house in the world. The richest company on Earth.
But, then, you try to actually use this software that these geniuses and most talented coders in the world have invented and your immediate, disgusted, knee-jerk reaction is to their totally counter-intuitive, instable tripe is nothing more than: Gods, it *can't* be true!
I mean, you think writing awful software can't be a business motive -- ergo, it's not a mgmt. fault... yet, if they're hiring the "smartest and most talented coders in the world," it by all rights shouldn't be a *programmer* issue...
I suppose this isn't a spectacular solution for *email* per se, but, let's say you get an encrypted document and you want to decrypt it and read it without leaving any traces on your physical drive. Could you not, say, mount a floppy disk... copy the encrypted file over, decrypt it straight to the floppy disk and when you are done with it... simply burn the disk...?
Re:Electricity, Newton's Cradle and field effects
on
The Dot in .mars
·
· Score: 1
The speed of light is not just a limit to the motion of a particle/wave, but -- from my understanding -- is an expression of an absolute measure of energy.
For instance, as one approaches the speed of light the slower one appears to move through time relative to an observer who is moving much more slowly.
That is: if you are moving close to the speed of light and I am move a deal more slowly relative to you, it appears to me that you are moving in "slow motion," as it were. (Of course, your perception of time remains constant...)
One reasoning behind this is that we have only a finite possible amount of energy which we may exert and we may exert this amount if energy in any number of possible dimensions.
As I accelerate through 3 spatial dimensions, I have less energy in which to travel through the 4th, which is time.
Light, OTOH, or a photon, does not move through time at all... and thus is allowed to exert all its energy in motion through spatial dimensions. That speed is light-speed.
In a roundabout way what I mean to say is that the speed of light is an expression of energy not simply "speed" -- it is a limit which even the "string between planets" and "Newton's Cradle" cannot surpass.
BRx.
(physicists please correct errors!:-) it's the only way I'll learn;-))
Re:Electricity, Newton's Cradle and field effects
on
The Dot in .mars
·
· Score: 1
Gravitational effects are not instantaneous... they travel at the speed of light.
This has to do with the bending of space... for instance, if you have an object of a very large size and density, such as the sun it massively bends the space around it (causing, among other things, the orbits of the planets.)
If you could suddenly and instantaneously remove the sun, it would taks time for space to "unbend" as it were. This time is equivalent to the speed of light. So, we would not notice the missing sun for a period of time equivalent to the time it takes for light to arrive here from the sun (circa 8 minutes.)
Yes, but, that's not the point. Microsoft does not *plan* to allow regular end-user development and implementations of themes, which means that they did not design XP with that 'feature' in mind.
Whether or not the OS theme format can be hacked by a third party is a moot point: you can already "hack" Windows and give it a unique look... the question was one of ease and also one of intention.
Most Cable and DSL providers I have dealt with loosely enforce a ban on servers (I've been turned off for it on one occassion, mind you.) However, they are usually very polite in informing you of the reason for your service interruption and are usually more than willing to get you back online with a simple slap on the hand.
Remember, these people *want* your $30/mo.
However, if they have cut your service *and have not told you why.* Or _refuse_ to tell you why then they are as much involation of your service contract as [you may be.] Getting in touch with their legal dept. is not such a bad thing: it means you're serious in getting the information you need... information you have a *right to have.*
Best lawyers in the world or no, not even the Telco can't arbitrarily cut your service without providing you at the very least a clear cut reason. (And they know that, which makes me wonder why they wouldn't tell you... since all they've got to say is "You were in violation of TOS" and unless you've got cash to burn there's nothing you can do at that point.)
The RIAA has done a good job of convincing the general public and miscellanous yahoos that copyright infringement is *theft* haven't they?
Copyright infringement differs greatly from theft. If I *steal* something from you, you can no longer have it because I have taken it from you. So, if I go over to your house and take your table without your permission I have stolen it.
But, if I go back to my house and build an exact replica of your coffee table I have not *stolen* it, I have *copied* it.
You're allowed to enjoy your table as much as I enjoy my replica.
The difference between copying music and copying tables is largely a matter of degree. Lawmakers have seen fit to make the copying of music illict and not the copying of tables. But, that still does not make the former any more "theft" than the latter.
I wonder how many ISP's, end-users and OpenNap operators will fall for this drivel.
An injunction against Napster does not enjoin unrelated third parties.
Furthermore, the operation and use of OpenNap servers fall under a significantly different set of circumstances than do the operations of Napster's *commercial, for-profit* service. The Circuit Court itself said as much...
The technology is not illegal, the medium is not illegal. As I've posted on/. before, end-users are responsible for their activities, not service providers. The RIAA has no more legal standing to bring suits against OpenNap servers in light of the recent court decision and I would posit they have significantly *less.*
I sincerely hope ISP's ignore letters of these sorts as they rightfully should. Or, better, yet CC on to their lawyers and otherwise ignore.
It's a ridiculous policy, if you ask me. Cable providers have the bandwidth to spare... they just want you to buy the @Work or equivalent versions of their product so that you can pay 5 times as much for the same connection...
A lot of people confuse the free market (which is good) with capitalism (which is bad). (Ok, obviously those are subjective terms but... meh;-)).
Capitalists try to tag your goods to track your every move. Capitalists try to remove personal ownership through baroque licencing agreements, terms of use, leasing, renting, blahlblahblah. Capitalists have little concept of the results of their actions beyond the impulsive thrill of dollar signs.
So, yeah, the end of capitalism wouldn't be so awful. And if it were to end in such a way, the irony would be well worth it;-). Ethical free market economy is the way to go, anyways.
The fact that the internet is a remarkably speedy medium in which to copy and exchange data does not change the *nature* of the medium.
There should *not* be special laws for the Internet... if we feel laws must change for reasons made evident by the Internet -- such as, a general public willingness to blatantly steal copyrighted music and an otherwise blaze attitude towards such -- then the law much be changed... but it must be changed _across the board._
I don't think Napster did anything wrong. Napster should not be held criminally nor civilly liable for producing the means for end-users to commit crimes. That's silly. Photocopiers can be used to mass produce pirate copies of magazines, but, you don't see the Magazine Publisher's Association (or whoever;-)) suing Xerox for making this possible.
It's absurd.
VCRs are legal. Paper is legal. The "Napster technology" (re: peer-to-peer distributed file-sharing) ought to be legal.
Now the courts disagree somewhat, but, only so far as to say that Napster, being a for-profit company willfully aided end-users to copy protected works and in fact encouraged such activity. There is culpability there, in other words. The same argument, however, could not be used against something like Gnutella.
Nonetheless, all of such argumentation aside the main point stands: under current law, *Napster* is not the one breaking the obvious laws. The end-users of Napster's services are most definitely and completely and without a single shadow of a double breaking laws.
The question is: do we feel that is right? Do we feel that we (citizens,end-users, whatever) have a right to distribute songs without paying royalties to the authors... If we do, we have to change copyright law to reflect our new attitudes. Otherwise, we can't complain that the RIAA is pissed off and Napster's being shut down.
I mean, think about what's happening right now... Napster is not fighting for your right to copy protected music: it is trying to establish for itself a monopoly position in this industry. If it comes down to it that Napster must team up with record labels so that end-users are allowed to trade songs... suddenly,the end-user is permitted to do what is otherwise illegal thanks to her use of one service... that being Napster.
Song trading would still be illegal on, say... OpenNap...or via FTP...
So what does this mean? Although our attitudes havechanged, our laws have not. And a large company moves in to dominate something we turned to in rebellion against large companies.
But, that's enough ranting for now;-)
BRx.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you're not. The ISO image has its own copyright. It's the same difference between the music on a CD and the CD itself... both have distinct copyrights. The ISO distribution belongs to the distributor, be it RedHat, Debian, whomever, and they may choose any licence agreements they please.
You're still free to take the GPL'd components of the ISO-image and build your own unique distro... but the distrobution itself is copyright the distributor. Just as if you bought the CD, you can't copy it exactly and burn it exactly: you have to make your own.
And no, the distribution does not fall under the GPL because it is not software derived from GPL'ed work. It's an entirely different beast.
BRx.
"The German military might seem a bit paranoid ..."
*Of course* they're paranoid. They're the MILITARY. It would be sheer folly for an industrialised nation's secured military systems to run off code which could not be audited.
They will contract private German-based companies to develop proprietary, secure systems. Any sane military *would.*
BRx.
Here's a thought!
;)
Universities, High Schools and even Elementary Schools should dedicate major parts of their cirriculum to higher order thinking skills...
(Don't just absorb and regurgitate, synthesize, damn you!)
BRx
By this logic, though, and I'm not saying I disagree with you: but, if all software boils down to mathematical operations -- why can you copyright them?
For example: if, we speak in such terms what prevents me from writing --
ab^2 x 69 / 3 = x
-- tacking "(c) 2001 BRx, All Rights Reserved." on it and of it, and poof! Now you can't copy it without my express writing permission?
Mathematics aren't patentable, I agree. But how are they any more copyrightable?
BRx.
What? You're talking about different things. How is the online UK store, operating in the UK, selling things "in the US?" If I am in the US and I buy something from the store, through a system that's patented or patentable in the US, I'm buying it "in the UK." They *ship* the _product_ to the US. The system and all its components reside in the UK, free from US scrutiny. And that's the rub. BRx.
If push came to shove, could you simply not connect all the audio-out ports on your stereo to your soundcard and hit "Record?"
How exactly do these new DataPlay discs thwart music thieves?
I mean: a decent sound system can be wired to a decent sound card to produce a re-digitised product "as good as" the original and then compressed back into MP3, no?
What I find so interesting about Napster and it's recent downhill battle with the RIAA is that it has started forcing people to *think* about the level of corporate control in our lives...
I mean, Napster & it's distributed filesharing equivalents are _insanely popular._ If the laws are, supposedly, by the People and for the People -- shouldn't these People decide whether or not the copyright laws are valid?
I wonder though if Good Old American Apathy will set in, again... I mean, how many Napster users will stand up and say, "I believe this activity is moral and should be legalised." Or, just as everything else from speeding to marijuana, will we simply keep breaking the rules rather than reforming them?
Hm... how does that quote go? To live legally is to live immorally, to live morally is to live illegally?
BRx.
Despite the wonders of the Tight Encoder I have still never been WOW'd by VNC's performance. I have a broadband connection to my LAN at home (3 roommates, 5 computers, 2 cable connections capped to 50KB/s upstream on each connection) and I use VNC to get access to my X desktop from work. One of my co-workers has the same setup but with Win2K Advanced Server w/Terminal Services (and a Win2K session, obviously ;)).
;) I'm always surprised when these threads inevitably show up on Slashdot and large groups of people praise VNC for its sweet goodness when I've never really seen that sort of performance. I have hope for future versions of TightVNC, though... so we shall see...
Frankly, WTS leaves VNC chokin' on the dust
Has anyone had any luck with the new JPEG compression?
BRx.
You know... I hear this all the time. And I figure, it *must* be true. We're talking about the largest software house in the world. The richest company on Earth.
;-)
But, then, you try to actually use this software that these geniuses and most talented coders in the world have invented and your immediate, disgusted, knee-jerk reaction is to their totally counter-intuitive, instable tripe is nothing more than: Gods, it *can't* be true!
I mean, you think writing awful software can't be a business motive -- ergo, it's not a mgmt. fault... yet, if they're hiring the "smartest and most talented coders in the world," it by all rights shouldn't be a *programmer* issue...
I suppose that just baffles me
BRx.
I suppose this isn't a spectacular solution for *email* per se, but, let's say you get an encrypted document and you want to decrypt it and read it without leaving any traces on your physical drive. Could you not, say, mount a floppy disk... copy the encrypted file over, decrypt it straight to the floppy disk and when you are done with it... simply burn the disk...?
A little convoluted, but it sounds safe enough.
BRx.
Precisely :) Why has nobody modded this up? ;)
Erik.
The speed of light is not just a limit to the motion of a particle/wave, but -- from my understanding -- is an expression of an absolute measure of energy.
:-) it's the only way I'll learn ;-))
For instance, as one approaches the speed of light the slower one appears to move through time relative to an observer who is moving much more slowly.
That is: if you are moving close to the speed of light and I am move a deal more slowly relative to you, it appears to me that you are moving in "slow motion," as it were. (Of course, your perception of time remains constant...)
One reasoning behind this is that we have only a finite possible amount of energy which we may exert and we may exert this amount if energy in any number of possible dimensions.
As I accelerate through 3 spatial dimensions, I have less energy in which to travel through the 4th, which is time.
Light, OTOH, or a photon, does not move through time at all... and thus is allowed to exert all its energy in motion through spatial dimensions. That speed is light-speed.
In a roundabout way what I mean to say is that the speed of light is an expression of energy not simply "speed" -- it is a limit which even the "string between planets" and "Newton's Cradle" cannot surpass.
BRx.
(physicists please correct errors!
Gravitational effects are not instantaneous... they travel at the speed of light.
This has to do with the bending of space... for instance, if you have an object of a very large size and density, such as the sun it massively bends the space around it (causing, among other things, the orbits of the planets.)
If you could suddenly and instantaneously remove the sun, it would taks time for space to "unbend" as it were. This time is equivalent to the speed of light. So, we would not notice the missing sun for a period of time equivalent to the time it takes for light to arrive here from the sun (circa 8 minutes.)
BRx.
Yes, but, that's not the point. Microsoft does not *plan* to allow regular end-user development and implementations of themes, which means that they did not design XP with that 'feature' in mind.
Whether or not the OS theme format can be hacked by a third party is a moot point: you can already "hack" Windows and give it a unique look... the question was one of ease and also one of intention.
BRx.
Most Cable and DSL providers I have dealt with loosely enforce a ban on servers (I've been turned off for it on one occassion, mind you.) However, they are usually very polite in informing you of the reason for your service interruption and are usually more than willing to get you back online with a simple slap on the hand.
Remember, these people *want* your $30/mo.
However, if they have cut your service *and have not told you why.* Or _refuse_ to tell you why then they are as much involation of your service contract as [you may be.] Getting in touch with their legal dept. is not such a bad thing: it means you're serious in getting the information you need... information you have a *right to have.*
Best lawyers in the world or no, not even the Telco can't arbitrarily cut your service without providing you at the very least a clear cut reason. (And they know that, which makes me wonder why they wouldn't tell you... since all they've got to say is "You were in violation of TOS" and unless you've got cash to burn there's nothing you can do at that point.)
BRx.
LOL, indeed ;-)
BRx.
The RIAA has done a good job of convincing the general public and miscellanous yahoos that copyright infringement is *theft* haven't they?
Copyright infringement differs greatly from theft. If I *steal* something from you, you can no longer have it because I have taken it from you. So, if I go over to your house and take your table without your permission I have stolen it.
But, if I go back to my house and build an exact replica of your coffee table I have not *stolen* it, I have *copied* it.
You're allowed to enjoy your table as much as I enjoy my replica.
The difference between copying music and copying tables is largely a matter of degree. Lawmakers have seen fit to make the copying of music illict and not the copying of tables. But, that still does not make the former any more "theft" than the latter.
Sheesh.
BRx.
I wonder how many ISP's, end-users and OpenNap operators will fall for this drivel.
/. before, end-users are responsible for their activities, not service providers. The RIAA has no more legal standing to bring suits against OpenNap servers in light of the recent court decision and I would posit they have significantly *less.*
An injunction against Napster does not enjoin unrelated third parties.
Furthermore, the operation and use of OpenNap servers fall under a significantly different set of circumstances than do the operations of Napster's *commercial, for-profit* service. The Circuit Court itself said as much...
The technology is not illegal, the medium is not illegal. As I've posted on
I sincerely hope ISP's ignore letters of these sorts as they rightfully should. Or, better, yet CC on to their lawyers and otherwise ignore.
BRx.
Qualify that statement.
BRx.
--
"People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love Unix use BSD."
The Linux TCP/IP stack is getting better than BSD's? From what orifice did you pull *that* non-sequitur?
*mutters.*
BRx.
--
"If you cut too many corners, eventually you'll fall out of the box." -- Colleen Choma.
It's a ridiculous policy, if you ask me. Cable providers have the bandwidth to spare... they just want you to buy the @Work or equivalent versions of their product so that you can pay 5 times as much for the same connection...
;-)
;)
But that's a rant for another time
BRx
--
exposing capitalist plots everywhere
[soapbox]
;-)).
;-). Ethical free market economy is the way to go, anyways.
The end of capitalism wouldn't be so bad.
A lot of people confuse the free market (which is good) with capitalism (which is bad). (Ok, obviously those are subjective terms but... meh
Capitalists try to tag your goods to track your every move. Capitalists try to remove personal ownership through baroque licencing agreements, terms of use, leasing, renting, blahlblahblah. Capitalists have little concept of the results of their actions beyond the impulsive thrill of dollar signs.
So, yeah, the end of capitalism wouldn't be so awful. And if it were to end in such a way, the irony would be well worth it
[/soapbox]
Hm!
;-)
*fumes.*
BRx
Those are very insightful words. I was glad to read 'em. Good show ;-)
BRx.
The fact that the internet is a remarkably speedy medium in which to copy and exchange data does not change the *nature* of the medium. There should *not* be special laws for the Internet... if we feel laws must change for reasons made evident by the Internet -- such as, a general public willingness to blatantly steal copyrighted music and an otherwise blaze attitude towards such -- then the law much be changed... but it must be changed _across the board._ I don't think Napster did anything wrong. Napster should not be held criminally nor civilly liable for producing the means for end-users to commit crimes. That's silly. Photocopiers can be used to mass produce pirate copies of magazines, but, you don't see the Magazine Publisher's Association (or whoever ;-)) suing Xerox for making this possible.
It's absurd.
VCRs are legal. Paper is legal. The "Napster technology" (re: peer-to-peer distributed file-sharing) ought to be legal.
Now the courts disagree somewhat, but, only so far as to say that Napster, being a for-profit company willfully aided end-users to copy protected works and in fact encouraged such activity. There is culpability there, in other words. The same argument, however, could not be used against something like Gnutella.
Nonetheless, all of such argumentation aside the main point stands: under current law, *Napster* is not the one breaking the obvious laws. The end-users of Napster's services are most definitely and completely and without a single shadow of a double breaking laws.
The question is: do we feel that is right? Do we feel that we (citizens,end-users, whatever) have a right to distribute songs without paying royalties to the authors... If we do, we have to change copyright law to reflect our new attitudes. Otherwise, we can't complain that the RIAA is pissed off and Napster's being shut down.
I mean, think about what's happening right now... Napster is not fighting for your right to copy protected music: it is trying to establish for itself a monopoly position in this industry. If it comes down to it that Napster must team up with record labels so that end-users are allowed to trade songs... suddenly,the end-user is permitted to do what is otherwise illegal thanks to her use of one service... that being Napster.
Song trading would still be illegal on, say... OpenNap...or via FTP...
So what does this mean? Although our attitudes havechanged, our laws have not. And a large company moves in to dominate something we turned to in rebellion against large companies.
But, that's enough ranting for now ;-)
BRx.