I got a new laptop, so I decided to give my old one to my brother. The old laptop is a Dell 5100, with a Pentium 4, 2.53 GHz, video card is Mobile Radeon 7500, bought in March of 2003. It was set to dual-boot Windows XP-SP1, and Mandrake/Mandriva Linux. Before I handed it down to my brother, I wanted to update it with the latest versions/patches. First, I updated the BIOS, available from Dell. Putting Mandriva 2006 on it was a breeze, it even runs better than on my new laptop. Then I installed SP2 for Windows-XP. Guess what - Windows refused to run after that. The problem seemed to be the Radeon video card, and after a couple of days trying to reinstall the Windows partition, the whole hard disk got re-partitioned only for Linux.
...and by the time you turn keylock off, the call goes bye-bye.
Your phone doesn't let you answer an incoming call with keylock on? My Siemens S46 (i.e. about 4-5 years old model) handles this just fine - you can answer the call without having to turn keylock off...
Yes, Slashdot gets referral credit for all books reviewed. This is not a secret, and is probably in a FAQ somewhere. By using the link in the article, you are supporting Slashdot, but no one is making you use that link.
Even if the artist bolts for another label, you can always exploit the material of theirs you own with yet another "greatest hits" collection or "retrospective" or "complete box set" every few years.
This is the key to the travesty that passes for "music business" these days. Why do people think it is OK for a publisher to "own" somebody's creative work? Aren't there better ways to do "music business"?
Tell me again when the DMCA was passed? Oh, right, 1998. Telecommunications act, which resulted in massive cosolidations and generally screwed users? Oh, right, 1996.
Yep, passed by a Republican Congress. The same shady individuals who are still running the legislative branch of the government....
I am wondering if this is indeed related to secrecy, or if it has more practical (read "monetary") implications. If a patent is granted, do you want Halluburton (as the default DoD contractor) to pay a license fee? Or do you just give them the information to use as they see fit (and probably charge the governament for R&D in the process)?
Never underestimate the corruption of the political elite...
1 - You're right, no crime has technically been committed if no one was aware that Plame was undercover at the time since you can't expose someone who you don't know to be undercover.
The following is paraphrased from what I've heard on radio or TV, so any clarifications/contrary evidence is most welcome.
AFAIK, there is a rule of handling this type of information, which is part of the set of documents everyone with certain types of clearance signs. The rule is that no confirmation (negative or positive) of a CIA employee's status can be made, unless it is known that they are not undercover operatives. There is a specific form that has to be sent to the CIA for a status inquiry, and until a response is received, no discussion is allowed, period.
In other words, if you don't know the status, but discuss/confirm CIA affiliation, it is still a crime...
Gentoo users have to plan their needs a little further in advance;-)
Not really - I just added MythTV to my general multimedia Gentoo box, and at no point was the system off-line or unusable while I was setting it up (once I added the pchdtv card, of course). I use Debian, Gentoo and Mandrake, and pretty much for any of these distributions it is equally easy to add the necessary software.
I strongly believe that the way things are presented, including the exact words used, has a great impact on our perceptions. George Orwell built on that with "Newspeak" in his "1984". We are seeing this every day to a greater and greater extent from politicians and people in power (PATRIOT act, for example).
This is why I think it is very important to pay attention to the words used. In this particular case, the "music industry" implies that musicians, composers, authors are all lumped together. We need to distinguish between the greedy b****rds who run the music publishing cartel from the rest of the "music industry".
Similarly, we should expand DRM to "Digital Restrictions Management" because that is what it actually is.
It may not make an immediate impact, but over time more and more people will understand what the opponents of DRM and RIAA have been trying to say for a long time now. Education is the most effective weapon against oppression, and using the right words is one part of educating those who "don't get it".
You said that Linus doesn't listen to his target audience, based only on the quote provided by the parent of your post. This made his point about slashdot being a place where uninformed opinions are prevalent.
As the continuation of the quote shows, he does follow slashdot, so your opinion about him being arrogant, and not listenning to his target audience was an uninformed one.
I should have said: The practice to lump together copyright, patents, and trademarks as "Intelectual Property" in order to dumb down these concepts, doesn't make them the same...
The big deal in Australia is that Jeremy Malcolm sent the letter to people and companies who have no intentions to use Linux as part of their product names, service names or brands. They had mentioned Linux as one of the platforms their products run on, yet they still got a letter. The letter was also worded poorly (think RIAA-type legalese), that is why the whole uproar started.
I hope Linus, Maddog, and LMI understand that they need to control how the enforcement of the mark is done before they let seemingly well-intentioned lawyers take a short cut and mass-mail a hard-to-comprehend legal form...
Trademark law is different from copyright law. The fact that in the US the same governmental agency handles both doesn't make them the same.
The software is free, and you don't have to pay to use it. If you want to register a trademark which contains "Linux" in it, then you need to license the use of "Linux".
There are many misconceptions regarding this issue. Here are some clarifications:
The Linux(R) trademark has been registered for a long time in many countries all over the world. Linus, through Linux International, has been enforcing this consistently, as required by Trademark law.
Linux is not currently a registered trademark in Australia. The newly formed LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has started the process of registering the trademark. Part of the process, aparently, is to gather evidence/acceptance from existing companies using Linux in their products/names as to the proposed registration of Linux as a trademark belonging to Linus Torvalds.
So here is where things got screwed up. The lawyer (Jeremy), who is handling the process, used a RIAA-like method of sending letters to anyone and everyone who mentions Linux on their web site. While the letters are probably correctly formed, and cover all the necessary points from a legal standpoint, the legalese used and the spam-like method of distributing them caused this uproar.
It is important to realise that the combination of not properly choosing the recepients and the lack of explanation in plain English (or would that be "plain 'strain"?:-) of what the letters mean and that no money is being required, does make an important issue. It is a screw-up, and the involved should own up to it.
I think LMI and Jeremy should produce a point by point explanation of what is required by Australian law to register the Linux trademark, and send it with an apology to all who received the original letter. I also think that Jeremy should excuse himself from handling this, and LMI should find another lawyer to deal with the process.
Linus owns the Linux(R) trademark since at least 1995, and he has been enforcing it as well. This is not news. The news is the idiotic approach (which may be due to idiotic Australian laws) to registering the Linux trademark in Australia.
Nice back-pedalling:-). It is not true that she "approved" the trip, and that is what you said. It is true that she was involved, but that is not what I was repsonding to.
So now, the whole Iraq issue is that they violated the UN Security Council resolutions? Oh my, how did I miss that?
Of course Iraq was violating the post-Gulf War resolutions. The reason given to go to war, however, was to prevent an existing and immediate threat of materializing. Wilson's trip was to investigate a specific report, not whether Iraq had tried to buy uranium at some time in general.
As for impropriety, this is always determined by the power and decision making structures involving the participants. Was Valerie Plame the person who initiated the trip? Did she make the decision who will go on that trip? Was she in the position to make that decision? AFAIK, the answer of all three questions is "No."
As to the childish reasoning that she only got involved because the White House wanted to discredit Wilson's article, why does the administration have a need to discredit the truth? (BTW, this is where the Senate's report is relevant - even with Iraq's violations of the UN resolutions, there was, and is no evidence that they did anything with their nuclear program). Even if you really believe that it was simply incompetence not to know about the rules regarding CIA operatives' identities (i.e. always assume it is secret, unless specifically told otherwise), it is still criminal incompetence.
To get back to the original issue - "outing" Valerie Plame was a goivernment retaliation against a published article. Whether it was to discredit the author, to ruin his wife's carrier, or to endanger her life, it doesn't matter - it is still a free speach issue, especially since the intelligence supports the aformentioned article.
The "free speach zones" cannot be excused by accusations that "some of these assemblies are hardly peaceable". Note that these "zones" were introduced during Clinton's administration, so this is not a dem/rep issue, it is an issue of prinicple - something that those in Washington have long forgotten. Even by Washington, DC standards, however, the current administration is claiming new heights in hypocricy, and (allegedly) criminal behavior.
Both of your statements are untrue and outdated - even the article you link to is an year old. There are much newer sources of information (based on testimonies under oath in front of a Grand Jury). Wilson's wife brought him in the CIA for a meeting - that is what her involvement was. She had neither the power, nor the influence to "approve trips to Africa". And the reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that were to be investigated, were not for 1998, but from this century.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a new laptop, so I decided to give my old one to my brother. The old laptop is a Dell 5100, with a Pentium 4, 2.53 GHz, video card is Mobile Radeon 7500, bought in March of 2003. It was set to dual-boot Windows XP-SP1, and Mandrake/Mandriva Linux. Before I handed it down to my brother, I wanted to update it with the latest versions/patches. First, I updated the BIOS, available from Dell. Putting Mandriva 2006 on it was a breeze, it even runs better than on my new laptop. Then I installed SP2 for Windows-XP. Guess what - Windows refused to run after that. The problem seemed to be the Radeon video card, and after a couple of days trying to reinstall the Windows partition, the whole hard disk got re-partitioned only for Linux.
So much for Windows running on old hardware...
...and by the time you turn keylock off, the call goes bye-bye.
Your phone doesn't let you answer an incoming call with keylock on? My Siemens S46 (i.e. about 4-5 years old model) handles this just fine - you can answer the call without having to turn keylock off...
Hodgkin's disease is not a viral infection, it is a type of cancer...
47 senators were against it, that was enough to prevent the termination of discussion, and therefore prevent bringing it to a vote...
Yes, Slashdot gets referral credit for all books reviewed. This is not a secret, and is probably in a FAQ somewhere. By using the link in the article, you are supporting Slashdot, but no one is making you use that link.
I have a similar reaction when someone goes on about a virgin birth
Virgin birth, or immaculate conception? The former is at least plausible technically if you take into account heavy petting and mutual masturbation...
Even if the artist bolts for another label, you can always exploit the material of theirs you own with yet another "greatest hits" collection or "retrospective" or "complete box set" every few years.
This is the key to the travesty that passes for "music business" these days. Why do people think it is OK for a publisher to "own" somebody's creative work? Aren't there better ways to do "music business"?
Tell me again when the DMCA was passed? Oh, right, 1998. Telecommunications act, which resulted in massive cosolidations and generally screwed users? Oh, right, 1996.
Yep, passed by a Republican Congress. The same shady individuals who are still running the legislative branch of the government....
The parrent is referring to the Prisoner, a TV show, where the Warden was one of the main characters... This is a funny post, not a troll...
The pentagon is more paranoid than the NSA.
I am wondering if this is indeed related to secrecy, or if it has more practical (read "monetary") implications. If a patent is granted, do you want Halluburton (as the default DoD contractor) to pay a license fee? Or do you just give them the information to use as they see fit (and probably charge the governament for R&D in the process)?
Never underestimate the corruption of the political elite...
1 - You're right, no crime has technically been committed if no one was aware that Plame was undercover at the time since you can't expose someone who you don't know to be undercover.
The following is paraphrased from what I've heard on radio or TV, so any clarifications/contrary evidence is most welcome.
AFAIK, there is a rule of handling this type of information, which is part of the set of documents everyone with certain types of clearance signs. The rule is that no confirmation (negative or positive) of a CIA employee's status can be made, unless it is known that they are not undercover operatives. There is a specific form that has to be sent to the CIA for a status inquiry, and until a response is received, no discussion is allowed, period.
In other words, if you don't know the status, but discuss/confirm CIA affiliation, it is still a crime...
Gmail is better, because it has great localization/internationalization (including, for example, a Bulgarian spellchecker)...
Gentoo users have to plan their needs a little further in advance ;-)
Not really - I just added MythTV to my general multimedia Gentoo box, and at no point was the system off-line or unusable while I was setting it up (once I added the pchdtv card, of course). I use Debian, Gentoo and Mandrake, and pretty much for any of these distributions it is equally easy to add the necessary software.
I strongly believe that the way things are presented, including the exact words used, has a great impact on our perceptions. George Orwell built on that with "Newspeak" in his "1984". We are seeing this every day to a greater and greater extent from politicians and people in power (PATRIOT act, for example).
This is why I think it is very important to pay attention to the words used. In this particular case, the "music industry" implies that musicians, composers, authors are all lumped together. We need to distinguish between the greedy b****rds who run the music publishing cartel from the rest of the "music industry".
Similarly, we should expand DRM to "Digital Restrictions Management" because that is what it actually is.
It may not make an immediate impact, but over time more and more people will understand what the opponents of DRM and RIAA have been trying to say for a long time now. Education is the most effective weapon against oppression, and using the right words is one part of educating those who "don't get it".
The Microsoft supported DVD+R spec did not trump the Apple backed DVD-R format and now combo drives are the norm.
It is the other way around - Apple only supports DVD+R/RW.
You said that Linus doesn't listen to his target audience, based only on the quote provided by the parent of your post. This made his point about slashdot being a place where uninformed opinions are prevalent.
As the continuation of the quote shows, he does follow slashdot, so your opinion about him being arrogant, and not listenning to his target audience was an uninformed one.
To complete the quote from Linus:
Doesn't look like arrogance to me...
Doh! I mixed copyright with patents...
I should have said: The practice to lump together copyright, patents, and trademarks as "Intelectual Property" in order to dumb down these concepts, doesn't make them the same...
The big deal in Australia is that Jeremy Malcolm sent the letter to people and companies who have no intentions to use Linux as part of their product names, service names or brands. They had mentioned Linux as one of the platforms their products run on, yet they still got a letter. The letter was also worded poorly (think RIAA-type legalese), that is why the whole uproar started.
I hope Linus, Maddog, and LMI understand that they need to control how the enforcement of the mark is done before they let seemingly well-intentioned lawyers take a short cut and mass-mail a hard-to-comprehend legal form...
Trademark law is different from copyright law. The fact that in the US the same governmental agency handles both doesn't make them the same.
The software is free, and you don't have to pay to use it. If you want to register a trademark which contains "Linux" in it, then you need to license the use of "Linux".
The Linux(R) trademark has been registered for a long time in many countries all over the world. Linus, through Linux International, has been enforcing this consistently, as required by Trademark law.
Linux is not currently a registered trademark in Australia. The newly formed LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has started the process of registering the trademark. Part of the process, aparently, is to gather evidence/acceptance from existing companies using Linux in their products/names as to the proposed registration of Linux as a trademark belonging to Linus Torvalds.
So here is where things got screwed up. The lawyer (Jeremy), who is handling the process, used a RIAA-like method of sending letters to anyone and everyone who mentions Linux on their web site. While the letters are probably correctly formed, and cover all the necessary points from a legal standpoint, the legalese used and the spam-like method of distributing them caused this uproar.
It is important to realise that the combination of not properly choosing the recepients and the lack of explanation in plain English (or would that be "plain 'strain"? :-) of what the letters mean and that no money is being required, does make an important issue. It is a screw-up, and the involved should own up to it.
I think LMI and Jeremy should produce a point by point explanation of what is required by Australian law to register the Linux trademark, and send it with an apology to all who received the original letter. I also think that Jeremy should excuse himself from handling this, and LMI should find another lawyer to deal with the process.
Linus owns the Linux(R) trademark since at least 1995, and he has been enforcing it as well. This is not news. The news is the idiotic approach (which may be due to idiotic Australian laws) to registering the Linux trademark in Australia.
Nice back-pedalling :-). It is not true that she "approved" the trip, and that is what you said. It is true that she was involved, but that is not what I was repsonding to.
So now, the whole Iraq issue is that they violated the UN Security Council resolutions? Oh my, how did I miss that?
Of course Iraq was violating the post-Gulf War resolutions. The reason given to go to war, however, was to prevent an existing and immediate threat of materializing. Wilson's trip was to investigate a specific report, not whether Iraq had tried to buy uranium at some time in general.
As for impropriety, this is always determined by the power and decision making structures involving the participants. Was Valerie Plame the person who initiated the trip? Did she make the decision who will go on that trip? Was she in the position to make that decision? AFAIK, the answer of all three questions is "No."
As to the childish reasoning that she only got involved because the White House wanted to discredit Wilson's article, why does the administration have a need to discredit the truth? (BTW, this is where the Senate's report is relevant - even with Iraq's violations of the UN resolutions, there was, and is no evidence that they did anything with their nuclear program). Even if you really believe that it was simply incompetence not to know about the rules regarding CIA operatives' identities (i.e. always assume it is secret, unless specifically told otherwise), it is still criminal incompetence.
To get back to the original issue - "outing" Valerie Plame was a goivernment retaliation against a published article. Whether it was to discredit the author, to ruin his wife's carrier, or to endanger her life, it doesn't matter - it is still a free speach issue, especially since the intelligence supports the aformentioned article.
The "free speach zones" cannot be excused by accusations that "some of these assemblies are hardly peaceable". Note that these "zones" were introduced during Clinton's administration, so this is not a dem/rep issue, it is an issue of prinicple - something that those in Washington have long forgotten. Even by Washington, DC standards, however, the current administration is claiming new heights in hypocricy, and (allegedly) criminal behavior.
Both of your statements are untrue and outdated - even the article you link to is an year old. There are much newer sources of information (based on testimonies under oath in front of a Grand Jury). Wilson's wife brought him in the CIA for a meeting - that is what her involvement was. She had neither the power, nor the influence to "approve trips to Africa". And the reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that were to be investigated, were not for 1998, but from this century.
I guess it would be too much to ask, since you linked to the Washington Post page, that you would read the Senate's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assemssment on Iraq" or at least its Conclusions - after all, they are linked off that same page...
For your edification, here is a small excerpt:
The assessment that "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program" was not supported by the intelligence provided to the committee.