You are only required to be identified if the receiver requires it.
While you have every right to "free speach"... you have no right to force someone to listen to said speach.
Quite frankly, I don't want any "Anonymous Cowards" in my home.
I go to Slashdot... and other web sites. But, I bring my mail into my house. At least, in the social sense of things.
So, right off the bat... to me there is a huge difference between encountering information I might not want to encounter because I went somewhere, and encountering the same information because it was sent to me.
Do you think 95% of (U.S.) Americans are smart enough not to be attracted to the religion?
And... that just assumes all of the members of the religion are in the United States.
That gets you within a couple of million people of your target (17+ million) and you haven't even touched the other 6+ Billion (with a B) potential candidates.
So... yea... I could see 17 million people doing it... even if it was totally, completely stupid.
("It" being pretty much anything and not just the topic of this particular post.)
And, how does releasing your code under the GPL keep them from using it in their binary only release?
I'm serious... how could you tell? It is, after all, binary.
If they were stupid enough to do a straight copy and paste, you might find some strings that are similar. But, those obvious things can be changed.
So... while it would not be legal, it is doable.
Your choice of license does not change that... and releasing the code actually increases the chance of it happening.
I personally see this to be one of the biggest problems of our "intellectual property" system.
I think that in order to get copyright protection for software you should submit the code to some system that automatically checks for infringement... and compares the licenses to make sure the use is OK.
That is the only way I can think of (at the moment) to catch the commercial users that are incorporating GPL code into their products.
Sorry, but... in this case, choice is an illusion.
First it will be the default... then it will be the only choice.
This is, of course, the optimist in me... the pessimist says that you will be lucky if this is as bad as it gets.
It could very well be a "transitional" file system. The final file system will actually live on your bank's system... making the movement of money from your account to their's all the more seamless.
The end goal is to create one massive grid computing system that constantly funnels money from the banks of the world into MS's coffers.
Our squid proxy is inline with the firewall. Every bit goes thru the proxy machine which redirects all port 80 traffic to squid.
The user gets a page telling them that they need to reconfigure their browser to use the proxy (on a different port) and authenticate. We could have just as easily set the proxy to work in transparent mode and not have the users bothered by reconfiguring their browsers... but I wanted it to be a PITA to any staff/students that brought a machine from home... which was against the policy.
We did it this way because we wanted to have the ability to rate limit connections by school and by person. Our firewall could not do that and we didn't see a reason to pay for one that did when we could add the functionality this way.
Well, for the last four years I've had a squid proxy set up that required the users to authenticate before they were allowed access to the internet... and it did it long before I ever needed it.
From the article this looks to be what they patented.
The only difference is how the authentication tokens get into the database... and any system architect worth a damn could solve that problem if faced with it.
I'd say that there is prior art... and, that anyone versed in the art could come up with the solution...
Either of these facts alone is supposed to be enough to reject a patent.
See... the thing is... only congress can designate someone as an "enemy".
I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.
Yeah... that must be why they call Linux a "Microsoft like" operating system.
I don't think so.
It does take less time/money to develop a feature once you know what you are trying to develop... but it helps a lot to know who to copy also.
It wasn't MS... it was UNIX.
And... anyone that wants to beat MS to the punch in the GUI department should simply copy Apple directly... instead of waiting for MS to do it and then copying MS.
If true, any normal business would deal with it, except we all know how cheap linux users/coders can be.
And, not many people would blame them.
However... how would you feel about being forced to pay for something you don't want?
Nobody wants illegitimate code in Linux. Everyone is willing to do without the code. Yet, SCO is trying to game the system... by not identifying what it believes to be problematic code.
Why?
Because they can't make you pay for something you aren't using. And, if they identify the code, it will be removed. And... so would their potential income.
Its the Linux Bigots in the world that will destroy the software movement. They dont know how to market, or even how to code very well.
The software movement started dieing when MS stopped including BASIC in the OS. This was their first move towards making programming a commercial activity.
Open Source, and Linux, puts software development tools back in the hands of every computer user that wants them and is actually causing a resurgence in the software movement.
Their strengths are in their shear numbers, and the fact that they value their work at nothing (which would be true for the majority of coders)..
Last time I looked, Linux users were outnumbered almost 10 to 1 by Windows users. And, I bill out at $50 an hour, I'm sure my customers would disagree with your assessment about that being "nothing".
Stupidity reinforcing stupidity.
That happens. I don't believe this to be the case... nor is it specific to Linux.
Im sure some Holier-than-thou I know everything but I dont have a real job linux user will come up and try to argue with what I've said.
Right on the money... unless you count the $60,000 I made in 2003 running my own business and only working 30 hours a week as a job.
;-)
But to tell you the truth, I've heard it. I've heard it a 1000 times on this fucking website, and It didnt make sense the first time I heard it, and it just keeps getting louder and whinier.
Then... go away.
Read a book... Get a life... Listen to music... make love... whatever.
Why in the hell would you voluntarily do shit you don't like?
It needs to be presented as a way to save American *businesses*.
Look at IBM in the three years before getting the "Open Source Religion" and the three years afterwards...
Look at all the (fair) studies showing that the OS development model produces code faster, with less errors... using programmers with sub-optimal skills...
Look at what the model has produced in 10 years and compare it to what the proprietary model employeed by MS has produced in twice the amount of time... and then compare the cost of obtaining each result...
Show them the latest figures concerning losses suffered by American *businesses* due to viruses affecting proprietary software, and the inability of *any* business to solve the problem because the software *is* proprietary...
Put it in terms that a CEO can understand, and let *them* make sure their "representatives" have the facts.
What if you are one of those "fringe" persons that believes freedom means the ability to break the law as long as you are willing to pay the consequences?
When a government goes out of it's way to protect itself from it's own citizens... can it truly be considered representative of the people's will?
Wouldn't it be better to have a justice system that was flexible enough to apply the appropriate sentences to the people that show up in the system?
It really seems to me a case of patching a failure with a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not the place of a printer manufacturer to censor it's clients.
They are deciding what their clients may and may not print.
Today it is money... tomorrow it is legislation they don't approve of.
Whoa there partner...
.
You are only required to be identified if the receiver requires it
While you have every right to "free speach"... you have no right to force someone to listen to said speach.
Quite frankly, I don't want any "Anonymous Cowards" in my home.
I go to Slashdot... and other web sites. But, I bring my mail into my house. At least, in the social sense of things.
So, right off the bat... to me there is a huge difference between encountering information I might not want to encounter because I went somewhere, and encountering the same information because it was sent to me.
Let's try it this way:
Do you think 95% of (U.S.) Americans are smart enough not to be attracted to the religion?
And... that just assumes all of the members of the religion are in the United States.
That gets you within a couple of million people of your target (17+ million) and you haven't even touched the other 6+ Billion (with a B) potential candidates.
So... yea... I could see 17 million people doing it... even if it was totally, completely stupid.
("It" being pretty much anything and not just the topic of this particular post.)
It is a bug in the filesystem software.
;-)
Maybe they should have gone with $0.25 license... instead of the one with the 512 entry limit.
Makes me wonder... when spending over a million dollars, why can't you make sure you have enough memory?
;-)
I remember looking at the specs on this thing, and it seems paltry.
It should be incredibly obvious (by now) how fatal memory errors can be to a computational system, so... why doesn't it:
1) Have enough
and...
2) Have the ability to automatically detect and work around faulty bits
OR... did they fall for the vendor's "on site warranty"?
And, how does releasing your code under the GPL keep them from using it in their binary only release?
I'm serious... how could you tell? It is, after all, binary.
If they were stupid enough to do a straight copy and paste, you might find some strings that are similar. But, those obvious things can be changed.
So... while it would not be legal, it is doable.
Your choice of license does not change that... and releasing the code actually increases the chance of it happening.
I personally see this to be one of the biggest problems of our "intellectual property" system.
I think that in order to get copyright protection for software you should submit the code to some system that automatically checks for infringement... and compares the licenses to make sure the use is OK.
That is the only way I can think of (at the moment) to catch the commercial users that are incorporating GPL code into their products.
I don't really care who the IP belongs to... as long as I'm allowed to redistribute it freely.
;-)
'Cause I have!
Sorry, but... in this case, choice is an illusion.
First it will be the default... then it will be the only choice.
This is, of course, the optimist in me... the pessimist says that you will be lucky if this is as bad as it gets.
It could very well be a "transitional" file system. The final file system will actually live on your bank's system... making the movement of money from your account to their's all the more seamless.
The end goal is to create one massive grid computing system that constantly funnels money from the banks of the world into MS's coffers.
Our squid proxy is inline with the firewall. Every bit goes thru the proxy machine which redirects all port 80 traffic to squid.
The user gets a page telling them that they need to reconfigure their browser to use the proxy (on a different port) and authenticate. We could have just as easily set the proxy to work in transparent mode and not have the users bothered by reconfiguring their browsers... but I wanted it to be a PITA to any staff/students that brought a machine from home... which was against the policy.
We did it this way because we wanted to have the ability to rate limit connections by school and by person. Our firewall could not do that and we didn't see a reason to pay for one that did when we could add the functionality this way.
Yeah, I wasn't very good at Linux for a while either. Keep at it tho, you'll get there.
;-)
Well, for the last four years I've had a squid proxy set up that required the users to authenticate before they were allowed access to the internet... and it did it long before I ever needed it.
From the article this looks to be what they patented.
The only difference is how the authentication tokens get into the database... and any system architect worth a damn could solve that problem if faced with it.
I'd say that there is prior art... and, that anyone versed in the art could come up with the solution...
Either of these facts alone is supposed to be enough to reject a patent.
If the virus were written by Linux zealots, it would do an ftp install of Linux... and DDOS SCO during the install.
Kill two birds with one stone...
;-)
So?
I look for one thing in a president.
Keep congress in check.
That is all... and that is something this one has done piss poorly.
For the record, president's don't create law. But, everyone here knows that... right?
P.S. It may be a bit cynical to only expect one thing from a president, but I've come to realize that expecting more is pretty unrealistic.
See... the thing is... only congress can designate someone as an "enemy".
I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.
So, Mr. Bush... *you* do not have these powers.
Yeah... that must be why they call Linux a "Microsoft like" operating system.
I don't think so.
It does take less time/money to develop a feature once you know what you are trying to develop... but it helps a lot to know who to copy also.
It wasn't MS... it was UNIX.
And... anyone that wants to beat MS to the punch in the GUI department should simply copy Apple directly... instead of waiting for MS to do it and then copying MS.
What if Linux Contains SCO Code?
Then it will be gladly removed, once identified.
If true, any normal business would deal with it, except we all know how cheap linux users/coders can be.
And, not many people would blame them.
However... how would you feel about being forced to pay for something you don't want ?
Nobody wants illegitimate code in Linux. Everyone is willing to do without the code. Yet, SCO is trying to game the system... by not identifying what it believes to be problematic code.
Why?
Because they can't make you pay for something you aren't using. And, if they identify the code, it will be removed. And... so would their potential income.
Its the Linux Bigots in the world that will destroy the software movement. They dont know how to market, or even how to code very well.
The software movement started dieing when MS stopped including BASIC in the OS. This was their first move towards making programming a commercial activity .
Open Source, and Linux, puts software development tools back in the hands of every computer user that wants them and is actually causing a resurgence in the software movement.
Their strengths are in their shear numbers, and the fact that they value their work at nothing (which would be true for the majority of coders)..
Last time I looked, Linux users were outnumbered almost 10 to 1 by Windows users. And, I bill out at $50 an hour, I'm sure my customers would disagree with your assessment about that being "nothing".
Stupidity reinforcing stupidity.
That happens. I don't believe this to be the case... nor is it specific to Linux.
Im sure some Holier-than-thou I know everything but I dont have a real job linux user will come up and try to argue with what I've said.
Right on the money... unless you count the $60,000 I made in 2003 running my own business and only working 30 hours a week as a job.
;-)
But to tell you the truth, I've heard it. I've heard it a 1000 times on this fucking website, and It didnt make sense the first time I heard it, and it just keeps getting louder and whinier.
Then... go away.
Read a book... Get a life... Listen to music... make love... whatever.
Why in the hell would you voluntarily do shit you don't like?
What they tip-toe around is, that more and more, it is the same programmers... Non-US citizens
;-)
All hail the ability of America to produce proprietary software... I mean, pay someone to produce proprietary software!
Review the testimony of the Tobaco Industry and you would think not...
Review the testimony of Martha Stewart and you would think so...
Review the testimony of Ken Lay and you would think not...
My take is that it doesn't matter what you say. They do what the lobbyist pay them to do...
You are right, IMHO.
It needs to be presented as a way to save American *businesses*.
Look at IBM in the three years before getting the "Open Source Religion" and the three years afterwards...
Look at all the (fair) studies showing that the OS development model produces code faster, with less errors... using programmers with sub-optimal skills...
Look at what the model has produced in 10 years and compare it to what the proprietary model employeed by MS has produced in twice the amount of time... and then compare the cost of obtaining each result...
Show them the latest figures concerning losses suffered by American *businesses* due to viruses affecting proprietary software, and the inability of *any* business to solve the problem because the software *is* proprietary...
Put it in terms that a CEO can understand, and let *them* make sure their "representatives" have the facts.
Do you work for the mob?
No... much worse.
;-)
I'm one of those people that expects machines to do what they are told to do... *exactly* what they are told to do.
More importantly, I expect my machines to do exactly what I tell them to do.
Any machine that doesn't, I consider defective.
Might have something to do with why I don't do Windows too...(unless I'm paid for it)
What if you are one of those "fringe" persons that believes freedom means the ability to break the law as long as you are willing to pay the consequences?
When a government goes out of it's way to protect itself from it's own citizens... can it truly be considered representative of the people's will?
Wouldn't it be better to have a justice system that was flexible enough to apply the appropriate sentences to the people that show up in the system?
It really seems to me a case of patching a failure with a bad idea.
How can I justify to management that I bought a printer that won't print what I told it to print?
As far as I'm concerned, the product is defective.
Looks like it is time to remove HP from my printer supplier list...
Any others?
A DIMM isn't that small... where do you put >= 512 of them?
Has to be a typo... probably 512 MB.
Here is how I see it... (IANAL... this is just an opinion... and all the other things that should be painfully obvious...)
The "RIAA Police" just committed a crime. They stole the property of another citizen. And, they may have also committed fraud.
And it also sounds like they threatened battery.
He should take them to court at the very least.
Yes, there is such a thing as a citizen's arrest... but that does not involve confiscation of another's property.
---
Now... did the vendor have illegal goods?
Well... let's just say that isn't the RIAA's call. We have a justice system for that.
That can *ONLY* be determined by due process.
This was not due process.
What else were they going to do... watch reruns?
No television = not sitting on your ass.