They removed linuxconf (good text console based configurator). You can get it here. RedHat still hasn't learned to use a real GCC release and instead they continue to use that lame 2.96. (so you will have to get GCC 2.95.3 for Linux 2.5 kernel compiles (per the directions in their docs)and get GCC 3.0.4 for everything else. This is getting ANNOYING, RedHat. ANNOYING.) "kgcc" (gcc 2.91.66-egcs.1.1.2-release)is still there for 2.4 builds.
KDE 3/ XFree 4.2 had some video corruption for me on a cheesy ATI card in a server, but no show stoppers. Seems like more goodness from the KDE team.
Good - they use glibc 2.2.5 - a standard GNU release, but they compiled it with the LAME 2.96 compiler. We shall SEE if they got the compiler It has been said that if a broken compiler compiles a library the library can be strangely broken and very difficult to debug. This goes to show RedHat why they shouldn't do this, and properly couple GLIBC 2.2.5 with GCC 3.0.4 as intended by GNU. Bero seems adamant about maintaining a 2.96 fork, which is costing time and resources and annoying users. I wouldn't care so much if 1.1.2, 2.95.3, 3.04 and RH-BROKEN.296-special were all included, but such is not the case. Lame.
Now that 2.2.5 can be compiled by GNU GCC, as well as KDE, RedHat is just being spiteful and not properly deprecating GCC 2.96X.
I give this a 5/5, because it's not a bad system, but it will require a man's touch. Mandrake and SuSE are starting to give this a run for its money, for sure.
NOTE: RedHat, please, just make it easier to play with the system and include the stuff that we all will go and download 20 seconds after install. Please. This compiling compilers like 2.95.3 and 3.0.4 is a waste of my time.
All in all, its good to upgrade at this point if you run a server to not have to do all the updates.
Note: About my insinuations about GCC 2.96 brokenness, I work side by side with a person who used to be on the GCC/GNU team, and has found strange bugs in certain version of the glibc that has been compiled by the 2.96 series. It went away when using release glibc compiled by release GCC. I personally have seen evidence that this is not FUD concerning GCC 2.96 - so please, all the flaming Bero zealots explain why is it now better to have a kluged compiler when the GCC team has far superceded it?
While I wouldn't go so far as the AC previous to this post, I have to vehemently disagree with you. I think you may be a bit judgmental here.
I want adult content, I'm paying for this, and I should get what I want. When they orginally marketed cable that touted it as much more than it became - free from absurd broadcast restrictions and advertisements.
As far as any romantic or intellectual denigration you insinuate, either directly or by proxy, I really resent that, you don't even know who I am.
The point of the main post isn't what you seem to be fixated on, I originally said something simple: ads were not supposed to be part of the deal. Then I added on various things I was not happy with. I don't understand why you now seek to accost my morality based on the things which are ancillary to the crux of my original post.
Please reconsider the meaning of the original story, the idea is to get everyone riled up, so we complain to Turner's company. Not to legislate morality, on Slashdot of all places. The real morally bankrupt people here are the TV operators.
As far as my parenting capability, I don't have kids, and if I ever do, I'm going to depend and trust no one but myself and my wife. Sorry, its not anyone's job but your own to raise kids. My parents showed me a few great things, one being less parenting can actually be more effective than most think, and that they trusted no one and "regulated content" as they saw fit - which wasn't very often - I was busy with school, sports, girls, etc - its funny, but kids don't recognize things until they are ready, at least that's how I felt. Kids will repeat a foul word to get a rise out of parents, but they don't know what it means or that its insidious to do so. Goofy parents overreact and seek to scour the earth looking for the source of this foul language, and the only one to blame, well, it ends up being reflexive.
Now to wrap it up, Ted Turner owns the cable service now. He owns the stations. He gets money from both you and the advertisers. We are being bombarded from all direction and they make money any way the cookie crumbles. We need to stop this incursion into our home - it's the last bastion of freedom and its being violated by these strangely crypto-communist companies. Its my house, my business.
Why do I pay for cable? I remember when they were laying out the lines that it was supposed to be that you paid for a subscription to avoid ads!
HAHAHAH.
And cable stations didn't have to following the 7 dirty words and decency regulations.
What a crock. MTV is sanitized, no one shows skin, its all a failure.
Sorry, Turner, you and your mogul pals failed to deliver. How about showing European style ads with breasts showing? I hate American TV for how sanitized it is. Forget you TED.
I feel like getting a Tivo - I have already upgraded several for my friends, I should just do it. Thanks for MFSTools.
As for Turner's content, it's a joke. Time for Direct TV with a Tivo BUILT IN!!!
I don't think there should be any legislation - period.
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com). "Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
I have some thoughts on this, thanks for prompting me!
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com). "Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
A warning to all slashdotters, Henson's company is very much into this DRM/IP anti-fair-use anti freedom of speech thing. The other day something awful had to remove a parody of Muppet movies, with funny things like "DAS BERT" instead of "DAS BOAT," etc. Kyanaka received a letter, which is shown here.
Needless to say I was shocked to see that someone who was making no money form parodying the Muppets, which are simply carpeting glued to wood, was asked to remove parody content.
I really hate when opportunists feed on the carcasses of things. This sort of activity as displayed by the Muppets franchise is so completely wrong. Its not as if Disney was slandering Henson, or parodying and making money off the parody. This company will go so far as to harass independent site owners on the web, they have lawyers trolling to make trouble. I cant say how upset I am at the Henson franchise.
My letter to Henson:
"Henson" is a completely wrong for making www.somethingawful.com remove your "intellectual property." [http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop/muppetmov ies/index.htm]
There are those who search for medicines, cures, new technology, more fuel efficiency and try hard to make things for the betterment of humanity. There are those who comfort me, who engineer better things in life. There are those who make my life better.
Then there are those who piss and whine about intellectual property rights and wont even allow a fair use parody of their stupid stuffed animals whose creator is DEAD. You are a puppet company. C'mon, is there that much gravity to all this?
You are un-American. He wasn't making money off your "beloved" puppets, he was making fun of it without even being NASTY about Henson or Muppets.
Read up on Thomas Jefferson, Madison about "copyright" and realize the Henson's are now representing COMMUNISM.
I'll never solicit Henson garbage again. Or Disney, until these disgusting companies realize copyrights are for those who have things worth protecting, not for a puppeteer with stuffed animals or Mickey Mouse.
This is going to promote piracy, fueled by Asia, and create RESENTMENT in your potential consumers, by trying to squeeze blood from rocks. The RIAA, SSSCA, CDPTA, DMCA, BSA and all the other Gestapo Waffen SS goons for the corporate elite will be resisted, and WE THE PEOPLE will win over time. IT only takes time. Its just funny that a bunch of Asians who pirate and knock off you "intellectual" property will teach you the most American lesson of them all, if you don't do new and innovative , YOU GO AWAY, YOU LOSE MONEY, its that simple. Do something NEW and INNOVATIVE for once instead of invoking a cabal of lawyers to screw with our first amendment.
You dishonor Henson's memory. "Sam the American Eagle (C)(R)TM" should get a HAMMER AND SICKLE to CRUSH THE LIFE out of the American public.
- Extremely upset
Mna mna nah - do do doo doo. Mn my money mna ma - I'm a money grubbing goon. Mna mna nah. Sh sh shylocka a nah. I want my pound of flesh. Mnah mnah.
I'm actually enjoying this thread now. I get the feeling you may not be an enemy. I took off my overly defensive hat.;p
Re:Kodak and others
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I choose meaning two in reference to Best Buy.
Look, don't go looking for things to be offended by, or point it out. I am offended by lots of things, like communists and socialists, but I would never point it out to them. I live and work with people who spout rhetoric which is anti-constitutional and deconstructive of the principles of what I believe in; but I choose to be successful and pursue my own dream rather than try and teach them the "meaning of life," whatever that is - because its subjective anyway.
I hate politically correct. Everything is no holds barred. That's my attitude. Everything and anything one says could be construed as being offensive; I refuse to allow myself to care.
I wanted to paint a grim image of Best Buy; I wanted to use strong words. Reflecting on the Merchant of Venice and when Shylock asked Antonio for his pound of flesh, I realize that Best Buy is even lower! Shylock is too kind of a term for Best Buy - at least Shylock had contractual terms to ask for the payment of his debt.
I have never been offended by a word in particular, that is like trying to ban the use of the work, let's say, Fuck (on TV and Radio). It doesn't work, it still gets used, probably more so because its taboo. I suggest that when reading posts, especially wading through the quagmire that is the comment section on Slashdot, that you not be offended by words, especially when the use of them was not and is not intended to be anti-Semitic or racist in any way.
And finally, about the works kyke and the "N" word. Kyke is derived from a word meaning circle; this is a reference to the kipah or yarmulke. The "N" word, which I dare not say, because this incite the most irrational response, its rooted in a word meaning black, and is used in parlance in ghettos everyday to have more meanings that the word SMURF.
Let forget about it all, but I would suggest you take the Politically Correct hat off, it is annoying.
Puleeeeze. That's like black people getting mad at Mark Twain for the "N" word.
More critical treatment of the play, The Merchant of Venice, show that Shakespeare supported Shylock in an ethical sense, and that he was not wrong for demanding the pound of flesh.
You are wrong to think I have not read The Merchant of Venice, and that I do not understand what it means.
And, you are supporting a Stereotype - YOU. I think Shylock is a cheap ass (although he never broke any laws, in fact, Bassanio did by not fulfilling his end of the agreement).
YOU are the one who correlates being a cheap ass Shylock to being Jewish. I resent the insinuation that I do the same, as I am an ardent supporter of the nation of Israel (and its largely secular and western culture) and am familiar with Judaism.
Shylock was a successful moneylender who is much maligned over the practice of moneylenders such as himself of charging interest. He lends the 3000 ducats Bassanio needs to court Portia and hopefully, pay off his debts to Antonio. There is however a catch; if the debt is not repaid, Antonio as security will forfeit one pound of his flesh. It is Shylock who is responsible for the immortal lines, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" (Act III, Scene I, Lines 63-72).
Re:Kodak and others
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible. They are also trying to shirk with a $30 coupon. Link below.
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522:
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible.
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522:
Re:Best Buy = Best Fraud
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible.
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522:
This is a dangerous game to play, if anything they should have abstained from saying much. They just came out with new (decent) processors for the handheld market, and things like Sharp Zaurus and Palm are legitimately good alternative to Microsoft CE devices.
AMD also had (had?) a contingent of ultra-loyalist OSS tinkerers and others who are not so hept on supporting Chipzilla and Microsoft.
I think that given the XBOX has has questionable market acceptance, that the damage done in supporting microsoft is far worse than the potential gain in chip sales through what is still a vapor product (and seeks to eliminate Nvidia for some odd reason in favor of ATI).
I don't understand how supporting a company that makes use of questionable long term strategies such as horrifically restrictive EULAs helps AMD much. It seems interesting that AMD is willing to use the OSS community to come up with ports of various OSS operating systems and distributions and optimizations in OSS compilers, but is also willing to spit right back in their faces with support companies that do little to promote OSS (unlike, say, IBM.). Also, vendors are not going to be further endeared to a chip company that supports a company that wants to let Microsoft get away with tell OEMs what software they *must* buy for every machine that goes out the door.
The worst thing of all is that the first AMD-64 optimized kernel that will run on the Clawhammer will be Linux, probably on a RedHat distribution.
I think the long term ramifications of this show of support will probably not be a determining factor on AMD survival or ability to make money, but this, in my opinion, is not the best was to serve the shareholders or create revenue, something that AMD has a hard time doing (actually making money) - they usually just break even or make some minute percentage of what Intel makes in profit.
People should know who their friends are.
Re:Titanium is also very flexible.
on
The Sexiest Metal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Uncoated and unalloyed metals are of limited use in general. A pure gold ring will fold quite easily if pressed between your fingers. It must be alloyed with Copper to make it reasonable.
I find that people who don't use alloyed titanium and instead use pure or cheap alloys annoying, because sex appeal is not very important in a functional unit.
As far as interesting metals go, Platinum and Iridium are far more interesting and "sexy". Iridium makes radiant salt and complexes, and both of these metals are very "noble," resisting tarnish. I would think a titanium ring for a wedding band as a trite piece of junk personally.
I have personally seen a forged iridium platinum ring. It was striking. Far better than gold, I think.
There is also an alloy of steel and gold, gold steel, which is a very curious blue color. Alloys are an awesome field, I recently read an article about Damascus steel, and that it has *finally* been recreated.
I think that the statement that Titanium is the sexiest metal is the furthest thing from the truth - its interesting, its useful, but not sexy. Unless the Russians have recently began to set the sex appeal standard in the world;p.
Note that the Alfa class subs the Russians use are able to go several times deeper than a Seawolf class. The Alfas are made from titanium and can go over 4,000 feet deep.
I have provided a link FAS, which shows the real world implications of Titanium and Steel strength. This is also manifested in that fact that because the Russians have a plethora of Titanium, they are able to make cobra-maneuver capable jets like the MiG-29 and Su-27, Su-37, Su-everything, . Titanium is not for sex appeal, its for strength when alloyed with the right things. Even though the Russian planes are more acrobatically capable, Avionics, JSTARS, and AWACS makes the dog fighting concept almost entirely obsolete in modern warfare.
A submarine's hull is normally constructed of steel, or exceptionally of titanium. Special High Yield [HY] steel alloys have been developed to increase the diving depth of submarines, although the improved depth performance of these alloys imposes a price of increased fabrication challenges. These special steels are denominated by their yield stress in thousands of pounds per square inch -- thus HY-80 steel has a yield stress of 80,000 pounds per square inch [corresponding to a depth of 1,800 feet], HY-100 a a yield stress of 100,000 pounds per square inch [corresponding to a depth of 2,250 feet], and so on.
During World War II, American fleet submarines normally operated at a depth of 200 feet, though in emergencies they would dive to a depth of 400 feet. Post-War American submarines, both conventional and nuclear, had improved designs and were constructed of improved materials [the equivalent of "HY-42"]. These boats had normal operating depths of some 700 feet, and a crush depth of 1100 feet. The Thresher, the first American submarine constructed of HY-80 steel, reportedly had a normal operating depth of 1,300 feet, roughly two-thirds the crush depth limit imposed by the HY-80 steel. The Seawolf, the first American submarine constructed of HY-100 steel, is officially claimed by the Navy to have a normal operating depth of "greater than 800 feet," but based on the reported operating depth of the Thresher, it may be assumed that the normally operating depth of the Seawolf is roughly double the official figure. The Soviet Alfa submarines, constructed of titanium, reportedly had an operating depth of nearly 4,000 feet .
Baxter.
Re: plz Censor and Opinion, Mr Marx doesnt agree.
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hardly a troll, it was my opinion. I'm sorry if my take on things doesn't match yours.
I am disgusted that my take on this situation was modded down as flamebait.
I tried to reason on an IRC channel where marcelo (and other kernel 'hackers') hang out. I was kiboshed. I tried to convince them that fixing the tarball called 2.4.18.tar.gz would be a good thing to do.
Here is some of my reasoning, musings and retorts to those who 'know' more than I do.
"Is there a plan to fix the 2.4.18.tar.gz or will I have to patch it. It is really annoying if this isn't going to be fixed to rc4/final, instead I have to patch 2.4.17 with the RC4 patch. This makes it difficult to use kernel.org as a "library". Pretend in some number of months some Joe Schmoe says 'Gee, 2.4.18 has been out for a while and is considered stable,' downloads it, and misses the RC4 patch."
This was rejected as reasonable. I was told that assuming a release is stable is bad practice, particularly based on how long its been out. My impression was this was the stable branch. I'm sure that, for example, RedHat picked 2.4.7 and 2.4.9 and hacked them for their own distributions for some reason or another. They, like the rest of use, should be ensured that what is fixed in the changelog should be included in a given release. I don't like being shunned for being closer to correct.
"I appreciate the need for a releases in software. The line is drawn, certain things are in, other are out. Its just that what was determined to be final and what is being masqueraded as such are two different things. so, the gatekeeper in this case should be able to rectify the mistake."
From the group came no response. The conversation had turned to more pressing things, such as people bragging about compiling XFS into highly experimental versions of the linux kernel. Proper release procedure is not nearly as important as strutting about having XFS working in a situation where it probably shouldn't.
Here is a reply, which was well stated and polite, but I vehemently disagree with: "Zeio: You and Marcelo both:) everyone would have liked this to be a better release than it was, but... mistakes happen. and, once published, one must live with them.:)"
So, with this reasoning, if I published a book. For the sake of argument this book is supposed to have 10,000 copies printed. I catch a typo after shipping 1,000. Wow, the rest of the 9,000 people have to eat the typo because once something is released it shouldn't be changed.
I also state this: "I'm suggesting a viable way of dealing with it[the mis-release], to fix the problem by putting what was supposed to be final in place of the tarball which masquerades itself as a release, or rename it to DONT USE like 2.4.11. I would expect higher standards from the linux maintainer.
Finally, to my dismay, I realize that there is denigration concerning the theory that and open community should be attempting to mold the linux kernel tree into a pillar of perfection. Lines have to be drawn, periodic shortcomings have to be accepted until fixed, but gross errors which are easily fixable should be ignored because 2.4.19 is on the way. I'll lower my expectations of the "stable" 2.4 linux tree for the time being. I'll put 2.4.18 in the same category as 2.4.11 and the "greased turkey" release. Seems this is becoming a norm. I strongly appose nonchalant and half assed attitudes towards maintain something of this importance.
Another joke was made that this only gravely affected SPARC users. This reinforces the wholly incorrect attitude that x86 should come before others. I'd bet that if this 2.4.18 wouldn't boot on x86, they would have re-released it.
Sadly, I had to point out that even Mickey$oft was forced to re-release service pack 6 to 6A. The claim was that 2.4.19pre1 is already out, and that 2.4.19 will likely be out in less time that it took Mickeysoft to put out 6A. These to me are excuses. Inferior ones. I expect more from linux than Microsoft. I expect a group project to put its best foot forward. I'd hate to have to write code for a project where FINAL is a line that is arbitrarily drawn. I know I'm over reacting, but I tend to like testing the latest stable release when they come out, and wouldn't you know it I have a SPARC. Guess I'll wait for 2.4.19, like I had to wait after 2.4.11 (2.4.12 was out soon, albeit with a broken LPT module, but that is when Linus maintained 2.4) and greased turkey. Sorry, I don't like to patch a previous major release, I just don't like doing it, I don't get off on it, I don't want the hassle, even though it is easy and have done it for things like the AIC driver when it was taking them forever to integrate the changes into the stable tree.
Linus, show this kid how to rectify an error and do it quickly.
2 - If the PPC hardware wasn't overpriced or if there really was parity between "similar" systems, why would 3 be valid? Why would Apple lose out? Would people choose the wrong choice simply because it existed? No, people would look at a performance metric and balance that with price considerations, and x86 would, most of the time, win that; over 80% of the market is x86, and like GM, they pay a lot less for nuts and bolts than SAAB does.
About HW/SW integration being worth the premium. I don't buy it, I've used so many computers from so may platforms, and between x86 and Apple, its certainly very easy to build a "highly integrated" x86 box with all the trimmings. Sure, in a laptop you have to rely the manufacturer, but on the desktop, anyone obsessed with integration can build their own souped up hardware - like I have, with no problems, none. And I don' even need support. Bad integration makes me think of Sun, not Dell. In fact, the other day I got my hands on a new Dell C400, they are amazing - 1.2GHz 512K P3 -M, faster than any Powerbook even wet dreamed - and 3.5 lbs to boot with 30GB hard drive. Now if you want to trade 50% of your speed for that built in firewire port that never gets used, go ahead (not that firewire is a bad thing, I think its great.).
I agree with another poster about something, if no X86 port, then "What we need isn't Mac OS X for Intel. What we need are cheap PPC machines, with dull beige designs.."
About this statement:
It's simple. Let's say apple release OSX on Intel. Forget their hardware sales, forget support problems. This would be the future:
1) Office is no longer available on any apple lines, neither is Explorer.
2) Office XP++ doesn't write in any format office X can read.
3) Office was never available for OSX on Intel.
4) Microsoft tells Dell, HP, etc that if they want to offer OSX then windows will cost $$$$ more per copy.
Is a godsend. This go the extra mile to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly.
There is way too much conjecture in this thread, and not enough test marketing or real critical thinking about the viability of the x86 OS X project.
I had a guy at work who knew Steve Jobs from his last job. This was the kind of freak who would print out his correspondence and show it to me to prove he knew Steve. Steve apparently has a flair for brevity or more likely, doesn't know this guy.
Anyways, he was submitting his brain droppings to Steve about various things from time to time, the last of which was the iPod. Each time I begged him to ask Steve to port OS X just as NeXT was. The goofball seemed to think it was a bad idea. Not so. This is essential. Nobody goes and buys a Windows upgrade, every Tom, Dick and Harry just pass along upgrade, Microsoft makes 80% of its sales from Desktop OS and 90% (figures off the top off my head from what I can remember) of those are from OEM pre-builds.
SOME people will go out and buy OS X and remove that festering piece of garbage OS - whatever resides there. The main Caveat is an HCL. Apple should have a fairly short HCL and work with the vendors to bring sanity to the X86 platform (like BeOS did, 'this is what works, here you
go.')
I am dying to buy a PC with OS X on it. I have to use Windows for my job function as a Hardware Release Engineer (Unix based systems) - go figure. I was formerly an IT Manager just to know... The latest rendition of Windows, XP, is a step in the right direction but like Office XP vs. Office 2000, there is hardly enough there to call an OS upgrade. It should be called Plus! For Windows NT 5.
A friend and I argue in jest about Win32 vs. OS X. He seems to think of OS X as a passing afterthought, relegated to niche-dom. I love the OS. I allows me to use bash, the god of shells, and still have a desktop that doesn't promote an eructation of vomit. I surely hope that you can influence Steve Jobs (who I refer to as Steve Slobs, because every time he about to "score with that chick", to use a metaphor, he cuts a nasty fart and she runs for the hills) by producing more fervor of this nature.
Apparently Steve has had it with the clearly inferior PPC. There are may things that make PPC a better architecture, but people who buy fast cars look at the quarter mile, the 0-60 and the 100-0 times. And a skid pad rating for more European types.. The point is that the PPC fails in all three, its slow comparatively, proprietary and expensive. Its has the proper endian, but Intel is out there so most code is Intel endian clean, not PPC making running ports on OS X/PPC slightly problematic. The story goes that Steve told Chris Galvin of Motorola to get out some faster chips, and as part of that demand he send a Dell PC running OS X to Galvin's office. Corporate megalomaniac antics are a far from reality at this point - but I can only hope for x86 OS X. Some zealots will mod down for this, and cry Altivec, go right ahead.
Also, from the corporate IT perspective, I would like to use OS X for all corporate PC desktops. It reduces the amount of "crud" applications that can run there (Napster, Audio-galaxy, spy ware, things that mess with windows registry) its licensing and cost are far better, and Microsoft Office for OS X is better.
This is just another "Steve Jobs Fart." He is about to score, to land the chick, and he does this. Sequesters the best thing Apple has ever done on a niche. He knows that Apple goofs will pay for it, but is still not willing to put his money where his mouth is, if it is truly better and more elegant, he should make it so everyone can put it to the test. These people are the types who sit down in front of a plate of steak, bread, mashed potatoes, and looks at a fork, a spoon and a knife. The pick up the spoon and refuse to use anything else holding the spoon high above and screaming this is the physical incarnation of the savior, the spoon. Its not hard to sell to the spoon only types, as they are zealots.
One can only hope to see OS X on x86. One can only hope to see Steve finally score with that chick without getting kicked aside by some "nerd" named Bill who has better bowel control.
Re:Protect Open Source licenses? If not, Die.
on
A Look Inside the BSA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'd hardly call the linux kernel kid's play. It may not be the best kernel ever conceived or written, but it would be foolish to think that there is nothing meritorious about it. Also, Apache - again, hardly kid's play. Oh, and Mozilla? Sendmail, BIND, gcc, MYSQL? TCP/IP? I certainly think that the intellectual property holders of these things are entitled to have their usage licenses and property right protected.
Most innovation seems to be done in academia first, then stolen by dishonest corporations (not all are dishonest) and touted as their own creations.
I hate the BSA, the only protect large companies intellectual property rights and don't fight for what Is right, they strong arm for the highest bidders, name, Microcrap. I hate the BSA, I have enforcers and chastisers and people who help to create monopolies. I don't know how these animals sleep at night. I'm a conservative, freedom loving capitalist, but the Monopoly and Oligopoly crap and all the B2B commerce associated with such is crap.
Imagine this, a pissed off jerk employee (who was probably fired because he stunk, and losers always whine the most), reports to the BSA false information, just to get back. Who pays for the time it takes to perform the audit if there were no infraction?
Also, the BSA sucks because the don't help enforce violators of GNU/GPL/LGPL/Free licenses from Open Source companies and intellectual property holders.
I think the BSA is a crock of shit. I think they make money off of terrorizing businesses. Why don't these fold go to China and do some real work on piracy, because when the numbers come in, American companies barely steal compared to the rest of the world.
Recently Adobe stopped localizing to the Chinese language. No BSA over there to stop real hard cope IP theft. No, they have to harass innocent businesses who are FORCED to buy licenses for Microsoft crap when the buy a computer from any major vendor.
Death to BSA. They like a roving band of out of control lawyers working for monopolies. I think it should be legal to shoot a BSA auditor dead if he trespasses on your business's property.
I like Outlook/Avocent/Apex KVMs. Cheap sucks. These ones can hot plug. Check out KVM switches here (4 and 8 port models there).
I have an older Belkin omniview pro, sucks. The newer ones that Belkin sells whith user upgradeable firmware look pretty nice, be sure to check those out.
Old adage that bodes well in any time: you get what you pay for, and KISS, keep it simple stupid, that Belkin SOHO looks like a deformed JU JU fruit. I like them old fashioned, boxy, sqaure.
I also thought that the Cybex branded KVMs were very crappy. The Avocent/Outlook ones are hot plug-able.
I agree. 90% of all problems I believe are related (not necessarily caused by - but related) to unconditioned power. I use the cheap and effective yet less known about
APC LINE-R line conditioners, up to 1250 VA.
They can be had from places like
www.pricewatch.com/
and
http://www.streetprices.com/
for about $115-$130. Well worth it, but they offer no battery backup, but *superior* line conditioning, like the integrated line conditioners on their (APC) very high end UPS's. I'd rather pay for a superior conditioner than pay for some lead acid batteries, and inverter and a "regular" conditioner. The cheap UPS's use crappy relays and a fast clamp time, thus they are not "real." TO me anyway, with exacting standards. Watch the tolerance on "conditioned" output on cheap UPS's.
BACK to hard drives, I have had great success with both Maxtor and IBM, and reasonably high success with Seagate SCSI - just not Medalist drives or the types with the nasty-medalist fluid bearing design, some barracudas (none RECENT) suffer from this. I have seen many IDE drives fail, usually on lower memory systems when lots of thrashing / swapping occurs, and secretary's need to have every "office" application open along with www.revlon.com.
Outside of that, since I work in IT, I have seen obscene failure rates with Western Digital products - there are have been times when ONTRACK got $3000+ for someone's hard drive having been failed, needs the "CRITICAL" data, blah blah blah (learn to backup - beeeotch, need to be a BOFH.) Dell was putting these garbage 6GB WDs in the Optiplex systems for a while and were really good at saying F**k You when you wanted them to do something extra nice when the broken hard drive cost you money and downtime. Cute Dell.
Aside from the nasty 75GXP, particularly the ones made in Hungary, the new IBM drives and especially the 120GXP drives are simply superior in performance, I'll get back to you in a few months on MBTF on the 120GXP, but I don't suspect any problems, plus I do in fact check the SMART status with the superior IBM support disks to see if any shit is about to hit the fan. The 60GXP was very reliable, but I never got in more than 3-4 months on that one. None of my drives ever spin down or get shut off, I think cycling the power all the time can piss drives off as well - just a superstition. For Win32 victims, there is decent SMART Defender software to give you an early heads up, I'm sure some *nix variant of SMART polling has appeared or will, I just don't care to monitor *nix operations that carefully because impending hardware failure seems to be easier to see coming... Just a feeling.
Touching on power once again, I would also suggest a PC Power and Cooling (overpriced) or an ENERMAX power supply, there are many other decent vendors, but these seem to get the job done, have a medusa pile of wires - more than any case needs, and are relatively quiet and reliable.
Watch the temp on some of the hard drives as well, keeping the airflow good is essential. I kept an 18GB HDD on for almost 3 years straight until I got my 60GXP (soon to be upgraded to a 120GXP =), and I have had several SCSI drives in other machines as well, and thank goodness knock on wood never had any HDD failure.
Fortunately for DeJap and other translations groups I was able to play the first 6 titles in English (3 for NES, 3 for SNES).
After Square rightfully left Nintendo (being the oppressive dorks who sold into the kiddy Bamboo Kazooie and Luigi with a vacuum cleaner for ghosts and making Link for the game cube look like a gay power puff girl), they became staid and boring. Half assed games with great graphics and systems, but horrible Jinglish translations, flawed plots (like Aris/Aerith dying from Sephiscoff's sword in a cut scene but PCs in battles took guns, swords, bomb hits (oft to the head) all the time).
Square is a crap factory. I fail to see why people have been lulled into buying this crap eye candy over and over again. FF3J(NES)(Never released in US), FF4J(FF2US, SNES), FF5J SNES(Never reelased US) and FF6J (FF3 US/SNES), were so much better than any of the Slowny Playstation 1 games. That materia system sucked without people realizing it, none of the characters were prone to being an archetype. No thief, no warrior, no rogue, no wizard. Everyone could be Jesus Christ Superstar if you spend mindless hours "mastering" materia.
RPGs need to give people a sense of success for task completion and skill mastery, not I got to level 99 by killing a swamp rat a million times and spent 3000 hours doing it, but I could get to level 99 faster by killing a king swamp rat 1500 times or a super duper über swamp rat 500 times.
I'm happy to say I have better things to do with my life than level up on FF version 30, piss away time on EQ (death to Verant I quit so many years ago, I think that game is a waste - the GMs are babies too).
I'll stick to stuff that is completable with high replay value. Neverwinter Nights looks good because you don't have to be subjected to the horribly crappy GMs of Verant and you can start your own server. After that horribly gay Final Loser movie, I hope Western Civilization realizes our cultures are a little more advanced in the art of entertainment, those Japanime cartoons are so staid, Japanese movies generally stink a la Godzilla, and their video games are starting to make more snore.
Thank god for JRR Tolkien, a decent Fantasy movie (based on Tolkien) and an awesome pillar to a real genre of literature. 1000 Square video games and movies will never add up to one Lord of the Rings. Never.
It's a great product; it's hugely scalable and unbelievably fast. It comes out with monthly to quarterly builds, has a free 50 user key for Linux until 2005. Keys and the RPMs are openly available via ftp.
The Linux version is well supported and comes as an RPM (that works). The message store is fast as hell; the web client is excellent and comes in a few flavors.
The sad thing about Slashdot and what keeps me from posting here is that this is old news. Samsung picked up OpenMail months ago. Why I don't bother to post - well, those of us who don't know the editors know why I don't post.
linuxkey@openmail.com is the email address to obtain Linux keys, there is a useful but slightly dated FAQ about installing HPOM here, http://www.hpc-consulting.com/OM-QS-Configuration- Guide-rev1-1.htm , and buried in this ftp (ftp.itrc.hp.com) somewhere are the tarred RPMs.
The licensing is kind of freakish and annoying, Exchange administrators enjoy being able to steal seats, but they also enjoy a broken product. I have investigated Exchange 2000, we flat out denied the product as unscalable and useless, and are very glad we used OpenMail.
Death to Carly Fiorina - the crappy CEO of HP (and the organizer of the Lucent spin off from AT&T a COMPLETE failure). She is a bane to HP. She tried to kill OpenMail, fricking SAMSUNG picked it up. Death to Carly. Walter B. Hewlett, David Woodley Packard, Susan Packard Orr and the Previous CEO of HP, Lewis E Platt, ALL HATE YOU CARLY. YOU ARE WRONG AND THE PACKARD FAMILY IS RIGHT. The merger with Compaq is a bastardization. She actually destroyed the HP RPN calculator division because it wasn't growing fast enough! The division makes money - but doesn't grow fast enough. She has no 30 year vision, she is a horrible CEO, and while Steve Jobs of Apple takes a $1 a year salary (and that's what he deserves for not porting OS X to x86), she took 3 Million on bonus this year even though the STOCK TANKED.
I love OpenMail; I love RPN calculators, and long live the real HP (and Agilent). Death to Carly. (Hey, Carly, I dumped my HP stock when I saw you messing around, and I saved myself a lot of money by doing so.)
PS - HewPaq will fail. They *think* they will compete with IBM, hah. Ha. ha. IBM still makes new technology, not fires whole divisions of engineers. And Carly, learn from your FAILED Price Waterhouse endeavor. You suck as a CEO. You are a bad person.
Alan *never* maintained 2.4.X, he maintains 2.2.X to this day, you can even see a changelog recently involving some weird DMCA secrets withheld from the general populace (do a diff lay-Z people;p) from 2.2.19 to 2.2.20.
The -AC 2.4.X were a testing ground largely for his endeavors to merge as much as possible into the kernel above and beyond Linus' stable-er or more conservative (an approach which is subjective; some such as Alan see the new VM as avant guard) merging approach. I think that part of the aggressive merging going on in 2.4 with the -AC branch seeks to give RedHat the leg up on other distros with regard to the feature-laden-ness of the RedHat official kernel. For example, the RedHat 2.4.9 kernel release that is RPM-able (RPM KERNEL ARE EVIL;p) contains EXT3 (as does the original RH7.2 kernel modification of 2.4.7). This was considerably sooner than 2.4.15. While Alan's 2.4 work is invaluable, he was not the maintainer.
The maintenance of 2.4.X was handed off to Marcelo at 2.4.15 by Linus, according to "The Linux Portaloo" written by Cox sporadically, there was some confabulation regarding who would maintain 2.4. According to some recent posts, Alan fully intends on continuing his tireless and aggressive merges, but in the tie being he is, by my speculation, busy digesting the 2.5.X roadmap and rewriting SCSI drivers (:
As far as the 2.5 kernels go, try them out, complain to the right people, and make sure to love Linux as well should.
It seems that Alan has stopped doing his -AC series...
Linus is finishing up 2.4.X after making some deep changes to the VM (Adrea's new VM), and thankfully adding EXT3, but form what I have been reading, 2.4.15 is the end of the stable kernel series (with no XFS or JFS support which is upsetting).
Andrea has a plethora of experimental/tweaked patches in ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea. What is interesting/worrisome to me is that Marcelo's directory there is empty.
Marcelo must be a great guy, I've seen a lot of banter on newsgroups with him, and a few chages in the stable changelog here and there, but to me it looks like a lot of talk. Alan used to release (past tense, it seems it has stopped) AC patches on a near daily basis, to me, Marcelo is vapor.
Is the maintainer's jobs simple to make small changes to the kernel when errata is found? Or is it, as Alan has done, to integrate and merge a LOT of stuff to produce a useful and robust hybrid kernel and then suggest that maybe the unbroken things should be merged in.
I wish Marcelo luck in this endeavor, but also wish to see loads of "maintainence," Linux really, really needs feverish active development, and there a lot of people, Like Alan and Linus, who put out quite a bit. I am hoping Marcelo will set a new precedent for uber-feverish maintenance - maybe even see XFS and JFS and other things that the distributions have to waste huge amounts of time tinkering and adding various enterprise-ish things to make the Linux kernel stand up for, as they put it, prime time.
Slashdot Mirror
They removed linuxconf (good text console based configurator). You can get it here. RedHat still hasn't learned to use a real GCC release and instead they continue to use that lame 2.96. (so you will have to get GCC 2.95.3 for Linux 2.5 kernel compiles (per the directions in their docs) and get GCC 3.0.4 for everything else. This is getting ANNOYING, RedHat. ANNOYING.) "kgcc" (gcc 2.91.66-egcs.1.1.2-release)is still there for 2.4 builds.
KDE 3/ XFree 4.2 had some video corruption for me on a cheesy ATI card in a server, but no show stoppers. Seems like more goodness from the KDE team.
Good - they use glibc 2.2.5 - a standard GNU release, but they compiled it with the LAME 2.96 compiler. We shall SEE if they got the compiler It has been said that if a broken compiler compiles a library the library can be strangely broken and very difficult to debug. This goes to show RedHat why they shouldn't do this, and properly couple GLIBC 2.2.5 with GCC 3.0.4 as intended by GNU. Bero seems adamant about maintaining a 2.96 fork, which is costing time and resources and annoying users. I wouldn't care so much if 1.1.2, 2.95.3, 3.04 and RH-BROKEN.296-special were all included, but such is not the case. Lame.
Now that 2.2.5 can be compiled by GNU GCC, as well as KDE, RedHat is just being spiteful and not properly deprecating GCC 2.96X.
I give this a 5/5, because it's not a bad system, but it will require a man's touch. Mandrake and SuSE are starting to give this a run for its money, for sure.
NOTE: RedHat, please, just make it easier to play with the system and include the stuff that we all will go and download 20 seconds after install. Please. This compiling compilers like 2.95.3 and 3.0.4 is a waste of my time.
All in all, its good to upgrade at this point if you run a server to not have to do all the updates.
Note: About my insinuations about GCC 2.96 brokenness, I work side by side with a person who used to be on the GCC/GNU team, and has found strange bugs in certain version of the glibc that has been compiled by the 2.96 series. It went away when using release glibc compiled by release GCC. I personally have seen evidence that this is not FUD concerning GCC 2.96 - so please, all the flaming Bero zealots explain why is it now better to have a kluged compiler when the GCC team has far superceded it?
While I wouldn't go so far as the AC previous to this post, I have to vehemently disagree with you. I think you may be a bit judgmental here.
I want adult content, I'm paying for this, and I should get what I want. When they orginally marketed cable that touted it as much more than it became - free from absurd broadcast restrictions and advertisements.
As far as any romantic or intellectual denigration you insinuate, either directly or by proxy, I really resent that, you don't even know who I am.
The point of the main post isn't what you seem to be fixated on, I originally said something simple: ads were not supposed to be part of the deal. Then I added on various things I was not happy with. I don't understand why you now seek to accost my morality based on the things which are ancillary to the crux of my original post.
Please reconsider the meaning of the original story, the idea is to get everyone riled up, so we complain to Turner's company. Not to legislate morality, on Slashdot of all places. The real morally bankrupt people here are the TV operators.
As far as my parenting capability, I don't have kids, and if I ever do, I'm going to depend and trust no one but myself and my wife. Sorry, its not anyone's job but your own to raise kids. My parents showed me a few great things, one being less parenting can actually be more effective than most think, and that they trusted no one and "regulated content" as they saw fit - which wasn't very often - I was busy with school, sports, girls, etc - its funny, but kids don't recognize things until they are ready, at least that's how I felt. Kids will repeat a foul word to get a rise out of parents, but they don't know what it means or that its insidious to do so. Goofy parents overreact and seek to scour the earth looking for the source of this foul language, and the only one to blame, well, it ends up being reflexive.
Now to wrap it up, Ted Turner owns the cable service now. He owns the stations. He gets money from both you and the advertisers. We are being bombarded from all direction and they make money any way the cookie crumbles. We need to stop this incursion into our home - it's the last bastion of freedom and its being violated by these strangely crypto-communist companies. Its my house, my business.
Why do I pay for cable? I remember when they were laying out the lines that it was supposed to be that you paid for a subscription to avoid ads!
HAHAHAH.
And cable stations didn't have to following the 7 dirty words and decency regulations.
What a crock. MTV is sanitized, no one shows skin, its all a failure.
Sorry, Turner, you and your mogul pals failed to deliver. How about showing European style ads with breasts showing? I hate American TV for how sanitized it is. Forget you TED.
I feel like getting a Tivo - I have already upgraded several for my friends, I should just do it. Thanks for MFSTools.
As for Turner's content, it's a joke. Time for Direct TV with a Tivo BUILT IN!!!
End rant;
I don't think there should be any legislation - period.
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
I have some thoughts on this, thanks for prompting me!
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
The other day something awful had to remove a parody of Muppet movies, with funny things like "DAS BERT" instead of "DAS BOAT," etc. Kyanaka received a letter, which is shown here.
Needless to say I was shocked to see that someone who was making no money form parodying the Muppets, which are simply carpeting glued to wood, was asked to remove parody content.
I would be very careful if I was RedHat. Its funny how companies like the Church of Scientology (The cult I mean) have more lawyers after the leader dies, in the SOC case, Hubbar croaks, and people are marauding around using racketeering and extortion on "worshippers." Such is the case, to a smaller degree obviously, with Henson. Because the magician, the creator, the worthy one is dead they assemble a cabal of lawyers to viciously and rabidly attack anyone "using" the franchise because they now are charge with protecting against something that is non-Novel, replaceable, duplicateable, old. On another note, Tolkein's son, who tries to "continue" the LOTR franchise by printing his father's notes, was against the move LOTR. JRR's grandson was for it. Its time to let go, and let more creative people take a stab at things sometimes - we are all glad that JRR's son wasn't able to stop the movie. Excerpt - I think some stories are meant to be read, not to be seen. Before seeing this Oscar-nominated movie, Tolkien's son Christopher said, "My own position is that The Lord of the Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." Filmmakers disagree. Two sequels based on Tolkien's Rings characters, filmed at the same time as The Fellowship of the Ring, are scheduled for release in 2002 and 2003. Ah, yes. The franchise cometh.
I really hate when opportunists feed on the carcasses of things. This sort of activity as displayed by the Muppets franchise is so completely wrong. Its not as if Disney was slandering Henson, or parodying and making money off the parody. This company will go so far as to harass independent site owners on the web, they have lawyers trolling to make trouble. I cant say how upset I am at the Henson franchise.
My letter to Henson:
I'm actually enjoying this thread now. I get the feeling you may not be an enemy. I took off my overly defensive hat. ;p
I choose meaning two in reference to Best Buy.
Look, don't go looking for things to be offended by, or point it out. I am offended by lots of things, like communists and socialists, but I would never point it out to them. I live and work with people who spout rhetoric which is anti-constitutional and deconstructive of the principles of what I believe in; but I choose to be successful and pursue my own dream rather than try and teach them the "meaning of life," whatever that is - because its subjective anyway.
I hate politically correct. Everything is no holds barred. That's my attitude. Everything and anything one says could be construed as being offensive; I refuse to allow myself to care.
I wanted to paint a grim image of Best Buy; I wanted to use strong words. Reflecting on the Merchant of Venice and when Shylock asked Antonio for his pound of flesh, I realize that Best Buy is even lower! Shylock is too kind of a term for Best Buy - at least Shylock had contractual terms to ask for the payment of his debt.
I have never been offended by a word in particular, that is like trying to ban the use of the work, let's say, Fuck (on TV and Radio). It doesn't work, it still gets used, probably more so because its taboo. I suggest that when reading posts, especially wading through the quagmire that is the comment section on Slashdot, that you not be offended by words, especially when the use of them was not and is not intended to be anti-Semitic or racist in any way.
And finally, about the works kyke and the "N" word. Kyke is derived from a word meaning circle; this is a reference to the kipah or yarmulke. The "N" word, which I dare not say, because this incite the most irrational response, its rooted in a word meaning black, and is used in parlance in ghettos everyday to have more meanings that the word SMURF.
Let forget about it all, but I would suggest you take the Politically Correct hat off, it is annoying.
Puleeeeze. That's like black people getting mad at Mark Twain for the "N" word.
More critical treatment of the play, The Merchant of Venice, show that Shakespeare supported Shylock in an ethical sense, and that he was not wrong for demanding the pound of flesh.
You are wrong to think I have not read The Merchant of Venice, and that I do not understand what it means.
And, you are supporting a Stereotype - YOU. I think Shylock is a cheap ass (although he never broke any laws, in fact, Bassanio did by not fulfilling his end of the agreement).
YOU are the one who correlates being a cheap ass Shylock to being Jewish. I resent the insinuation that I do the same, as I am an ardent supporter of the nation of Israel (and its largely secular and western culture) and am familiar with Judaism.
Shylock was a successful moneylender who is much maligned over the practice of moneylenders such as himself of charging interest. He lends the 3000 ducats Bassanio needs to court Portia and hopefully, pay off his debts to Antonio. There is however a catch; if the debt is not repaid, Antonio as security will forfeit one pound of his flesh. It is Shylock who is responsible for the immortal lines, "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" (Act III, Scene I, Lines 63-72).
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible. They are also trying to shirk with a $30 coupon. Link below.
:
i teria=item_criteria_here]
l
1 . tml Worst Buy Highway Robbery Inc. Trying to give only $30 bucks for mistake.
s tbuy_gf4deal.html
_ arrest.html
3 .
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522
Pricewatch Search for 30001522
Tip on searching Pricewatch (my favorite); the url format is: [http://brook.pricewatch.com/search/search.asp?cr
Streetprices Search for 30001522
Pricegrabber Search, I don't like Price-grabber, but its here to show that even a crappy Shylock engine is better than Worst Buy ©(TM)®.
BEST BUY charged with FRAUD:
Best Buy & HRS Credit Insurance Fraud to their customers. Big Ripoff Scam!
Story also covered here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/10020202.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24005.htm
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/19176/
http://courses.wcupa.edu/jredingt/BestBuy.htm
http://www.hardocp.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/2404
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/be
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/bb
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/11357/303
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
I had a similar Problem with Buy.COM and there was a class action lawsuit and 3 years later I got a $60 coupon for my troubles. I would have liked to have gotten a $50 Hitachi monitor for th $163 dollars they promised it for.
& th=5c9f98e92d07422b&seekm=36C0A7EF.7AF4%40uclink4. berkeley.edu#link1
:
i teria=item_criteria_here]
l
1 . tml Worst Buy Highway Robbery Inc. Trying to give only $30 bucks for mistake.
s tbuy_gf4deal.html
_ arrest.html
3 .
It has been committed in history FORVER, here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible.
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522
Pricewatch Search for 30001522
Tip on searching Pricewatch (my favorite); the url format is: [http://brook.pricewatch.com/search/search.asp?cr
Streetprices Search for 30001522
Pricegrabber Search, I don't like Price-grabber, but its here to show that even a crappy Shylock engine is better than Worst Buy ©(TM)®.
BEST BUY charged with FRAUD:
Best Buy & HRS Credit Insurance Fraud to their customers. Big Ripoff Scam!
Story also covered here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/10020202.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24005.htm
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/19176/
http://courses.wcupa.edu/jredingt/BestBuy.htm
http://www.hardocp.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/2404
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/be
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/bb
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/11357/303
I have had horrible experience with them as well. I won't even go into it, but they tried to do something fraudulent and were obstinate about owning up to it.
:
i teria=item_criteria_here]
l
1 . tml Worst Buy Highway Robbery Inc. Trying to give only $30 bucks for mistake.
s tbuy_gf4deal.html
_ arrest.html
3 .
The worst part of this all is that the "new" price of $399 is horrible.
Here are a few links to show you how to find a deal on this card, Vision Tek part number 30001522
Pricewatch Search for 30001522
Tip on searching Pricewatch (my favorite); the url format is: [http://brook.pricewatch.com/search/search.asp?cr
Streetprices Search for 30001522
Pricegrabber Search, I don't like Price-grabber, but its here to show that even a crappy Shylock engine is better than Worst Buy ©(TM)®.
BEST BUY charged with FRAUD:
Best Buy & HRS Credit Insurance Fraud to their customers. Big Ripoff Scam!
Story also covered here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/10020202.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24005.htm
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/19176/
http://courses.wcupa.edu/jredingt/BestBuy.htm
http://www.hardocp.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/2404
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/be
http://hypothermia.gamershardware.com/articles/bb
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/11357/303
This is a dangerous game to play, if anything they should have abstained from saying much. They just came out with new (decent) processors for the handheld market, and things like Sharp Zaurus and Palm are legitimately good alternative to Microsoft CE devices.
AMD also had (had?) a contingent of ultra-loyalist OSS tinkerers and others who are not so hept on supporting Chipzilla and Microsoft.
I think that given the XBOX has has questionable market acceptance, that the damage done in supporting microsoft is far worse than the potential gain in chip sales through what is still a vapor product (and seeks to eliminate Nvidia for some odd reason in favor of ATI).
I don't understand how supporting a company that makes use of questionable long term strategies such as horrifically restrictive EULAs helps AMD much. It seems interesting that AMD is willing to use the OSS community to come up with ports of various OSS operating systems and distributions and optimizations in OSS compilers, but is also willing to spit right back in their faces with support companies that do little to promote OSS (unlike, say, IBM.). Also, vendors are not going to be further endeared to a chip company that supports a company that wants to let Microsoft get away with tell OEMs what software they *must* buy for every machine that goes out the door.
The worst thing of all is that the first AMD-64 optimized kernel that will run on the Clawhammer will be Linux, probably on a RedHat distribution.
I think the long term ramifications of this show of support will probably not be a determining factor on AMD survival or ability to make money, but this, in my opinion, is not the best was to serve the shareholders or create revenue, something that AMD has a hard time doing (actually making money) - they usually just break even or make some minute percentage of what Intel makes in profit.
People should know who their friends are.
I find that people who don't use alloyed titanium and instead use pure or cheap alloys annoying, because sex appeal is not very important in a functional unit.
As far as interesting metals go, Platinum and Iridium are far more interesting and "sexy". Iridium makes radiant salt and complexes, and both of these metals are very "noble," resisting tarnish. I would think a titanium ring for a wedding band as a trite piece of junk personally.
I have personally seen a forged iridium platinum ring. It was striking. Far better than gold, I think.
There is also an alloy of steel and gold, gold steel, which is a very curious blue color.
Alloys are an awesome field, I recently read an article about Damascus steel, and that it has *finally* been recreated.
I think that the statement that Titanium is the sexiest metal is the furthest thing from the truth - its interesting, its useful, but not sexy. Unless the Russians have recently began to set the sex appeal standard in the world
Note that the Alfa class subs the Russians use are able to go several times deeper than a Seawolf class. The Alfas are made from titanium and can go over 4,000 feet deep.
I have provided a link FAS, which shows the real world implications of Titanium and Steel strength. This is also manifested in that fact that because the Russians have a plethora of Titanium, they are able to make cobra-maneuver capable jets like the MiG-29 and Su-27, Su-37, Su-everything, . Titanium is not for sex appeal, its for strength when alloyed with the right things. Even though the Russian planes are more acrobatically capable, Avionics, JSTARS, and AWACS makes the dog fighting concept almost entirely obsolete in modern warfare.
Baxter.
Hardly a troll, it was my opinion. I'm sorry if my take on things doesn't match yours.
I am disgusted that my take on this situation was modded down as flamebait.
I tried to reason on an IRC channel where marcelo (and other kernel 'hackers') hang out. I was kiboshed. I tried to convince them that fixing the tarball called 2.4.18.tar.gz would be a good thing to do.
:) everyone would have liked this to be a better release than it was, but ... mistakes happen. and, once published, one must live with them. :)"
Here is some of my reasoning, musings and retorts to those who 'know' more than I do.
"Is there a plan to fix the 2.4.18.tar.gz or will I have to patch it. It is really annoying if this isn't going to be fixed to rc4/final, instead I have to patch 2.4.17 with the RC4 patch. This makes it difficult to use kernel.org as a "library". Pretend in some number of months some Joe Schmoe says 'Gee, 2.4.18 has been out for a while and is considered stable,' downloads it, and misses the RC4 patch."
This was rejected as reasonable. I was told that assuming a release is stable is bad practice, particularly based on how long its been out. My impression was this was the stable branch. I'm sure that, for example, RedHat picked 2.4.7 and 2.4.9 and hacked them for their own distributions for some reason or another. They, like the rest of use, should be ensured that what is fixed in the changelog should be included in a given release. I don't like being shunned for being closer to correct.
"I appreciate the need for a releases in software. The line is drawn, certain things are in, other are out. Its just that what was determined to be final and what is being masqueraded as such are two different things. so, the gatekeeper in this case should be able to rectify the mistake."
From the group came no response. The conversation had turned to more pressing things, such as people bragging about compiling XFS into highly experimental versions of the linux kernel. Proper release procedure is not nearly as important as strutting about having XFS working in a situation where it probably shouldn't.
Here is a reply, which was well stated and polite, but I vehemently disagree with:
"Zeio: You and Marcelo both
So, with this reasoning, if I published a book. For the sake of argument this book is supposed to have 10,000 copies printed. I catch a typo after shipping 1,000. Wow, the rest of the 9,000 people have to eat the typo because once something is released it shouldn't be changed.
I also state this:
"I'm suggesting a viable way of dealing with it[the mis-release], to fix the problem by putting what was supposed to be final in place of the tarball which masquerades itself as a release, or rename it to DONT USE like 2.4.11. I would expect higher standards from the linux maintainer.
Finally, to my dismay, I realize that there is denigration concerning the theory that and open community should be attempting to mold the linux kernel tree into a pillar of perfection. Lines have to be drawn, periodic shortcomings have to be accepted until fixed, but gross errors which are easily fixable should be ignored because 2.4.19 is on the way. I'll lower my expectations of the "stable" 2.4 linux tree for the time being. I'll put 2.4.18 in the same category as 2.4.11 and the "greased turkey" release. Seems this is becoming a norm. I strongly appose nonchalant and half assed attitudes towards maintain something of this importance.
Another joke was made that this only gravely affected SPARC users. This reinforces the wholly incorrect attitude that x86 should come before others. I'd bet that if this 2.4.18 wouldn't boot on x86, they would have re-released it.
Sadly, I had to point out that even Mickey$oft was forced to re-release service pack 6 to 6A. The claim was that 2.4.19pre1 is already out, and that 2.4.19 will likely be out in less time that it took Mickeysoft to put out 6A. These to me are excuses. Inferior ones. I expect more from linux than Microsoft. I expect a group project to put its best foot forward. I'd hate to have to write code for a project where FINAL is a line that is arbitrarily drawn. I know I'm over reacting, but I tend to like testing the latest stable release when they come out, and wouldn't you know it I have a SPARC. Guess I'll wait for 2.4.19, like I had to wait after 2.4.11 (2.4.12 was out soon, albeit with a broken LPT module, but that is when Linus maintained 2.4) and greased turkey. Sorry, I don't like to patch a previous major release, I just don't like doing it, I don't get off on it, I don't want the hassle, even though it is easy and have done it for things like the AIC driver when it was taking them forever to integrate the changes into the stable tree.
Linus, show this kid how to rectify an error and do it quickly.
2 - If the PPC hardware wasn't overpriced or if there really was parity between "similar" systems, why would 3 be valid? Why would Apple lose out? Would people choose the wrong choice simply because it existed? No, people would look at a performance metric and balance that with price considerations, and x86 would, most of the time, win that; over 80% of the market is x86, and like GM, they pay a lot less for nuts and bolts than SAAB does.
About HW/SW integration being worth the premium. I don't buy it, I've used so many computers from so may platforms, and between x86 and Apple, its certainly very easy to build a "highly integrated" x86 box with all the trimmings. Sure, in a laptop you have to rely the manufacturer, but on the desktop, anyone obsessed with integration can build their own souped up hardware - like I have, with no problems, none. And I don' even need support. Bad integration makes me think of Sun, not Dell. In fact, the other day I got my hands on a new Dell C400, they are amazing - 1.2GHz 512K P3 -M, faster than any Powerbook even wet dreamed - and 3.5 lbs to boot with 30GB hard drive. Now if you want to trade 50% of your speed for that built in firewire port that never gets used, go ahead (not that firewire is a bad thing, I think its great.).
I agree with another poster about something, if no X86 port, then "What we need isn't Mac OS X for Intel. What we need are cheap PPC machines, with dull beige designs.." About this statement:
Is a godsend. This go the extra mile to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly.There is way too much conjecture in this thread, and not enough test marketing or real critical thinking about the viability of the x86 OS X project.
I had a guy at work who knew Steve Jobs from his last job. This was the kind of freak who would print out his correspondence and show it to me to prove he knew Steve. Steve apparently has a flair for brevity or more likely, doesn't know this guy.
Anyways, he was submitting his brain droppings to Steve about various things from time to time, the last of which was the iPod. Each time I begged him to ask Steve to port OS X just as NeXT was. The goofball seemed to think it was a bad idea. Not so. This is essential. Nobody goes and buys a Windows upgrade, every Tom, Dick and Harry just pass along upgrade, Microsoft makes 80% of its sales from Desktop OS and 90% (figures off the top off my head from what I can remember) of those are from OEM pre-builds.
SOME people will go out and buy OS X and remove that festering piece of garbage OS - whatever resides there. The main Caveat is an HCL. Apple should have a fairly short HCL and work with the vendors to bring sanity to the X86 platform (like BeOS did, 'this is what works, here you go.')
I am dying to buy a PC with OS X on it. I have to use Windows for my job function as a Hardware Release Engineer (Unix based systems) - go figure. I was formerly an IT Manager just to know... The latest rendition of Windows, XP, is a step in the right direction but like Office XP vs. Office 2000, there is hardly enough there to call an OS upgrade. It should be called Plus! For Windows NT 5.
A friend and I argue in jest about Win32 vs. OS X. He seems to think of OS X as a passing afterthought, relegated to niche-dom. I love the OS. I allows me to use bash, the god of shells, and still have a desktop that doesn't promote an eructation of vomit. I surely hope that you can influence Steve Jobs (who I refer to as Steve Slobs, because every time he about to "score with that chick", to use a metaphor, he cuts a nasty fart and she runs for the hills) by producing more fervor of this nature.
Apparently Steve has had it with the clearly inferior PPC. There are may things that make PPC a better architecture, but people who buy fast cars look at the quarter mile, the 0-60 and the 100-0 times. And a skid pad rating for more European types.. The point is that the PPC fails in all three, its slow comparatively, proprietary and expensive. Its has the proper endian, but Intel is out there so most code is Intel endian clean, not PPC making running ports on OS X/PPC slightly problematic. The story goes that Steve told Chris Galvin of Motorola to get out some faster chips, and as part of that demand he send a Dell PC running OS X to Galvin's office. Corporate megalomaniac antics are a far from reality at this point - but I can only hope for x86 OS X. Some zealots will mod down for this, and cry Altivec, go right ahead.
Also, from the corporate IT perspective, I would like to use OS X for all corporate PC desktops. It reduces the amount of "crud" applications that can run there (Napster, Audio-galaxy, spy ware, things that mess with windows registry) its licensing and cost are far better, and Microsoft Office for OS X is better.
This is just another "Steve Jobs Fart." He is about to score, to land the chick, and he does this. Sequesters the best thing Apple has ever done on a niche. He knows that Apple goofs will pay for it, but is still not willing to put his money where his mouth is, if it is truly better and more elegant, he should make it so everyone can put it to the test. These people are the types who sit down in front of a plate of steak, bread, mashed potatoes, and looks at a fork, a spoon and a knife. The pick up the spoon and refuse to use anything else holding the spoon high above and screaming this is the physical incarnation of the savior, the spoon. Its not hard to sell to the spoon only types, as they are zealots.
One can only hope to see OS X on x86. One can only hope to see Steve finally score with that chick without getting kicked aside by some "nerd" named Bill who has better bowel control.
I'd hardly call the linux kernel kid's play. It may not be the best kernel ever conceived or written, but it would be foolish to think that there is nothing meritorious about it. Also, Apache - again, hardly kid's play. Oh, and Mozilla? Sendmail, BIND, gcc, MYSQL? TCP/IP? I certainly think that the intellectual property holders of these things are entitled to have their usage licenses and property right protected.
Most innovation seems to be done in academia first, then stolen by dishonest corporations (not all are dishonest) and touted as their own creations.
I hate the BSA, the only protect large companies intellectual property rights and don't fight for what Is right, they strong arm for the highest bidders, name, Microcrap. I hate the BSA, I have enforcers and chastisers and people who help to create monopolies. I don't know how these animals sleep at night. I'm a conservative, freedom loving capitalist, but the Monopoly and Oligopoly crap and all the B2B commerce associated with such is crap.
Imagine this, a pissed off jerk employee (who was probably fired because he stunk, and losers always whine the most), reports to the BSA false information, just to get back. Who pays for the time it takes to perform the audit if there were no infraction?
Also, the BSA sucks because the don't help enforce violators of GNU/GPL/LGPL/Free licenses from Open Source companies and intellectual property holders.
I think the BSA is a crock of shit. I think they make money off of terrorizing businesses. Why don't these fold go to China and do some real work on piracy, because when the numbers come in, American companies barely steal compared to the rest of the world.
Recently Adobe stopped localizing to the Chinese language. No BSA over there to stop real hard cope IP theft. No, they have to harass innocent businesses who are FORCED to buy licenses for Microsoft crap when the buy a computer from any major vendor.
Death to BSA. They like a roving band of out of control lawyers working for monopolies. I think it should be legal to shoot a BSA auditor dead if he trespasses on your business's property.
I have an older Belkin omniview pro, sucks. The newer ones that Belkin sells whith user upgradeable firmware look pretty nice, be sure to check those out.
Old adage that bodes well in any time: you get what you pay for, and KISS, keep it simple stupid, that Belkin SOHO looks like a deformed JU JU fruit. I like them old fashioned, boxy, sqaure.
I also thought that the Cybex branded KVMs were very crappy. The Avocent/Outlook ones are hot plug-able.
Monday and Tuesday mornings suck ;-).
BACK to hard drives, I have had great success with both Maxtor and IBM, and reasonably high success with Seagate SCSI - just not Medalist drives or the types with the nasty-medalist fluid bearing design, some barracudas (none RECENT) suffer from this. I have seen many IDE drives fail, usually on lower memory systems when lots of thrashing / swapping occurs, and secretary's need to have every "office" application open along with www.revlon.com.
Outside of that, since I work in IT, I have seen obscene failure rates with Western Digital products - there are have been times when ONTRACK got $3000+ for someone's hard drive having been failed, needs the "CRITICAL" data, blah blah blah (learn to backup - beeeotch, need to be a BOFH.) Dell was putting these garbage 6GB WDs in the Optiplex systems for a while and were really good at saying F**k You when you wanted them to do something extra nice when the broken hard drive cost you money and downtime. Cute Dell.
Aside from the nasty 75GXP, particularly the ones made in Hungary, the new IBM drives and especially the 120GXP drives are simply superior in performance, I'll get back to you in a few months on MBTF on the 120GXP, but I don't suspect any problems, plus I do in fact check the SMART status with the superior IBM support disks to see if any shit is about to hit the fan. The 60GXP was very reliable, but I never got in more than 3-4 months on that one. None of my drives ever spin down or get shut off, I think cycling the power all the time can piss drives off as well - just a superstition. For Win32 victims, there is decent SMART Defender software to give you an early heads up, I'm sure some *nix variant of SMART polling has appeared or will, I just don't care to monitor *nix operations that carefully because impending hardware failure seems to be easier to see coming... Just a feeling.
Touching on power once again, I would also suggest a PC Power and Cooling (overpriced) or an ENERMAX power supply, there are many other decent vendors, but these seem to get the job done, have a medusa pile of wires - more than any case needs, and are relatively quiet and reliable.
Watch the temp on some of the hard drives as well, keeping the airflow good is essential. I kept an 18GB HDD on for almost 3 years straight until I got my 60GXP (soon to be upgraded to a 120GXP =), and I have had several SCSI drives in other machines as well, and thank goodness knock on wood never had any HDD failure.
Fortunately for DeJap and other translations groups I was able to play the first 6 titles in English (3 for NES, 3 for SNES).
After Square rightfully left Nintendo (being the oppressive dorks who sold into the kiddy Bamboo Kazooie and Luigi with a vacuum cleaner for ghosts and making Link for the game cube look like a gay power puff girl), they became staid and boring. Half assed games with great graphics and systems, but horrible Jinglish translations, flawed plots (like Aris/Aerith dying from Sephiscoff's sword in a cut scene but PCs in battles took guns, swords, bomb hits (oft to the head) all the time).
Square is a crap factory. I fail to see why people have been lulled into buying this crap eye candy over and over again. FF3J(NES)(Never released in US), FF4J(FF2US, SNES), FF5J SNES(Never reelased US) and FF6J (FF3 US/SNES), were so much better than any of the Slowny Playstation 1 games. That materia system sucked without people realizing it, none of the characters were prone to being an archetype. No thief, no warrior, no rogue, no wizard. Everyone could be Jesus Christ Superstar if you spend mindless hours "mastering" materia.
RPGs need to give people a sense of success for task completion and skill mastery, not I got to level 99 by killing a swamp rat a million times and spent 3000 hours doing it, but I could get to level 99 faster by killing a king swamp rat 1500 times or a super duper über swamp rat 500 times.
I'm happy to say I have better things to do with my life than level up on FF version 30, piss away time on EQ (death to Verant I quit so many years ago, I think that game is a waste - the GMs are babies too).
I'll stick to stuff that is completable with high replay value. Neverwinter Nights looks good because you don't have to be subjected to the horribly crappy GMs of Verant and you can start your own server. After that horribly gay Final Loser movie, I hope Western Civilization realizes our cultures are a little more advanced in the art of entertainment, those Japanime cartoons are so staid, Japanese movies generally stink a la Godzilla, and their video games are starting to make more snore.
Thank god for JRR Tolkien, a decent Fantasy movie (based on Tolkien) and an awesome pillar to a real genre of literature. 1000 Square video games and movies will never add up to one Lord of the Rings. Never.
It's a great product; it's hugely scalable and unbelievably fast. It comes out with monthly to quarterly builds, has a free 50 user key for Linux until 2005. Keys and the RPMs are openly available via ftp.
- Guide-rev1-1.htm , and buried in this ftp (ftp.itrc.hp.com) somewhere are the tarred RPMs.
:)
The Linux version is well supported and comes as an RPM (that works). The message store is fast as hell; the web client is excellent and comes in a few flavors.
The sad thing about Slashdot and what keeps me from posting here is that this is old news. Samsung picked up OpenMail months ago. Why I don't bother to post - well, those of us who don't know the editors know why I don't post.
linuxkey@openmail.com is the email address to obtain Linux keys, there is a useful but slightly dated FAQ about installing HPOM here, http://www.hpc-consulting.com/OM-QS-Configuration
The licensing is kind of freakish and annoying, Exchange administrators enjoy being able to steal seats, but they also enjoy a broken product. I have investigated Exchange 2000, we flat out denied the product as unscalable and useless, and are very glad we used OpenMail.
Death to Carly Fiorina - the crappy CEO of HP (and the organizer of the Lucent spin off from AT&T a COMPLETE failure). She is a bane to HP. She tried to kill OpenMail, fricking SAMSUNG picked it up. Death to Carly. Walter B. Hewlett, David Woodley Packard, Susan Packard Orr and the Previous CEO of HP, Lewis E Platt, ALL HATE YOU CARLY. YOU ARE WRONG AND THE PACKARD FAMILY IS RIGHT. The merger with Compaq is a bastardization. She actually destroyed the HP RPN calculator division because it wasn't growing fast enough! The division makes money - but doesn't grow fast enough. She has no 30 year vision, she is a horrible CEO, and while Steve Jobs of Apple takes a $1 a year salary (and that's what he deserves for not porting OS X to x86), she took 3 Million on bonus this year even though the STOCK TANKED.
I love OpenMail; I love RPN calculators, and long live the real HP (and Agilent). Death to Carly. (Hey, Carly, I dumped my HP stock when I saw you messing around, and I saved myself a lot of money by doing so.)
PS - HewPaq will fail. They *think* they will compete with IBM, hah. Ha. ha. IBM still makes new technology, not fires whole divisions of engineers. And Carly, learn from your FAILED Price Waterhouse endeavor. You suck as a CEO. You are a bad person.
Long live OpenMail!
Alan *never* maintained 2.4.X, he maintains 2.2.X to this day, you can even see a changelog recently involving some weird DMCA secrets withheld from the general populace (do a diff lay-Z people ;p) from 2.2.19 to 2.2.20.
;p) contains EXT3 (as does the original RH7.2 kernel modification of 2.4.7). This was considerably sooner than 2.4.15. While Alan's 2.4 work is invaluable, he was not the maintainer.
The -AC 2.4.X were a testing ground largely for his endeavors to merge as much as possible into the kernel above and beyond Linus' stable-er or more conservative (an approach which is subjective; some such as Alan see the new VM as avant guard) merging approach. I think that part of the aggressive merging going on in 2.4 with the -AC branch seeks to give RedHat the leg up on other distros with regard to the feature-laden-ness of the RedHat official kernel. For example, the RedHat 2.4.9 kernel release that is RPM-able (RPM KERNEL ARE EVIL
The maintenance of 2.4.X was handed off to Marcelo at 2.4.15 by Linus, according to "The Linux Portaloo" written by Cox sporadically, there was some confabulation regarding who would maintain 2.4. According to some recent posts, Alan fully intends on continuing his tireless and aggressive merges, but in the tie being he is, by my speculation, busy digesting the 2.5.X roadmap and rewriting SCSI drivers (:
As far as the 2.5 kernels go, try them out, complain to the right people, and make sure to love Linux as well should.
-Z
This is a mixed question/comment.
What is going on here?
It seems that Alan has stopped doing his -AC series...
Linus is finishing up 2.4.X after making some deep changes to the VM (Adrea's new VM), and thankfully adding EXT3, but form what I have been reading, 2.4.15 is the end of the stable kernel series (with no XFS or JFS support which is upsetting).
Andrea has a plethora of experimental/tweaked patches in ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea. What is interesting/worrisome to me is that Marcelo's directory there is empty.
Marcelo must be a great guy, I've seen a lot of banter on newsgroups with him, and a few chages in the stable changelog here and there, but to me it looks like a lot of talk. Alan used to release (past tense, it seems it has stopped) AC patches on a near daily basis, to me, Marcelo is vapor.
Is the maintainer's jobs simple to make small changes to the kernel when errata is found? Or is it, as Alan has done, to integrate and merge a LOT of stuff to produce a useful and robust hybrid kernel and then suggest that maybe the unbroken things should be merged in.
I wish Marcelo luck in this endeavor, but also wish to see loads of "maintainence," Linux really, really needs feverish active development, and there a lot of people, Like Alan and Linus, who put out quite a bit. I am hoping Marcelo will set a new precedent for uber-feverish maintenance - maybe even see XFS and JFS and other things that the distributions have to waste huge amounts of time tinkering and adding various enterprise-ish things to make the Linux kernel stand up for, as they put it, prime time.