What I found amazing was that, during the prep-work, they would compare catalogs from previous seasons, and match skull frags with specimens they found two years ago. When he got back from his last In Gall dig, Paul Sereno complained about the difficulties of cataloging thousands of specimens, some (most?) no bigger than a quarter. Maybe this proves that the effort is worth it, no matter how much time it takes.
You are one who could well spend some time learning to see things through the eyes of others.
This isn't about those such as we inhabitants of/. who are accustomed to devoting a great deal of attention to our computers and what goes into them. The frequent claim that those who don't do the same deserve the kind of harm this misbegotten program does is arrogant, presumptuous and insulting. We're talking real people in the real world, who use computers the way we use microwave ovens, as appliances, not as subjects of enthusiasm or study in themselves. That is not wrong, stupid or irresponsible. It's just realistic. Many, perhaps most, are intimidated by them, and that is no reflection on their intelligence or wisdom. Any decent human being is willing to see things through their eyes, and admit that there are other sciences and realities of life that we neither understand nor investigate any more than they pick apart the software they install the way we do habitutally.
If physicians were to post to a kind of medical Slashdot the kind of attitude your post expresses, they'd be ridiculing us all for not recognizing symptoms of disease as readily as they do. After all, aren't our bodies even more important than our computers? (Some may disagree.)
(Frequent comment)
"If they're so stupid that they'd install xxx, or don't know they installed yyy along with it, they deserve what they get."
(Equivalent medical comment)
"If they're so stupid that they don't know melanoma when they see it, they deserve to die of cancer."
(Equivalent mechanic's comment)
"If they don't know when their reverse-flow-widget valve is clogged up, they shouldn't be driving."
(Equivalent attorney comment)
"If they don't remember that painting their garage doors yellow violates Title II paragraph a(2-2112)/rev. 909 USC bleah then they shouldn't be allowed to own homes."
Get it?
I think it was Will Rogers to said, as best I remember, "We're all ignorant, just about different things." Maybe Mark Twain. Regardless, it applies.
Yes, folks, no joke, no lie; if you visit Symantec'sproductspage with MSIE and TopText/ContextPro active and click their "Virus Protection" products link, right up there in the upper left, you'll be sent to -- I kind you not -- McAfee. TopText does not discriminate between links and plain text.
I have screencaps of each step of the process, along with some relevant links at http://www.sylvan-glade.com/intrusion/ And, of course, it's easy to download, install and try this out yourself. I use Netscape/Mozilla for my serious work anyway, so I don't mind leaving it in to see just how bad it gets.
I've tried to get hold of someone at Symantec to let them know they're advertising for their competitor, but I was referred to the feedback for for web site problems. I don't think the people I spoke to understood what I was saying. Does anyone know how to get hold of someone there who might get the point and set fire to this issue?
It may seem a bit Machievellian of me, but I suspect that if Symantec were to see for themselves how this little gem is making their web site work against them, they might raise enough stink that their weight might make a difference.
As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a glorified Trojan. At the very least it is trespass into my system [1], corrupting the intellectual property of web publishers everywhere, most likely trampling on the spirit if not the letter of copyright protection, and responsible for erectile dysfunction in ex-politicians.
Hey; maybe if Symantec gets upset enough they'll define TopText as a Trojan and have Norton AV remove it. j/k of course, but it's a pleasant fantasy...
Ray Simard
ray.sdot@sylvan-glade.com
[1] Well, not mine, since I installed it to research its effects. But you know what I mean.:-)
PS: eZula, maker of TopText/ContextPro, says you can get their keyword list by contacting them. Has anyone done so? It would be interesting to see just what it's looking for and who's being vectored to by them.
It is quite obvious to me that you my friend are either in-bred, or were born without a fully functioning brain. New Zealand is actually not all sheep farms they are quite civalised and have a rugby team that would destroy any of your weak head gear wearing cotton-ball protected footballers that the your pathetic NFL could throw at them.
Nice comment:(
They didnt mention the several people injured by the broken glass, and one man blinded.
The real question is, did someone travel into the future and exact vengeance on their enemy by sending this "rock" to fall in the right place at the right time to blind the future from the enemies of the past...
In this as in everything else (with one notable exception ie the Nuclear Free Pacific) New Zealand is just the lap dog for America. What ever they say we do! So it's no wonder we are looking at a Digital copyright act along the same lines as the abortive one you have in America. Why oh why can we not learn from the mistakes of those who go before us rather than rushing in to do the same things.
"The Internet is an important cultural phenomenon, but that doesn't excuse its failure to comply with basic economic laws," said Thomas Nolle, a New Jersey telecommunications consultant. "The problem is that it was devised by a bunch of hippie anarchists who didn't have a strong profit motive. But this is a business, not a government-sponsored network."
Failure? Just who is defining success and failure in this context?
Far from the anti-Establishment attitude this guy alleges, the crafters of the 'net were not in the least antagonistic to commercial use - once the system was ready for it. What this commentator seems to find unpleasant is that the 'net's structure isn't specifically oriented toward his and his clients' wishes. The egalitarian nature of the 'net that flows inherently from its application-independent, decentralized design must frustrate those who'd like to centralize control under agencies that could ultimately make access to, and therefore the usefulness of, the 'net a function of what one can pay for it.
From A Brief History of the Internet, Cerf, Kahn, Postel et. al.:
In this paper, 3 several of us involved in the development and evolution of the Internet share our views of its origins and history. This history revolves around four distinct aspects. There is the technological evolution that began with early research on packet switching and the ARPANET (and related technologies), and where current research continues to expand the horizons of the infrastructure along several dimensions, such as scale, performance, and higher level functionality. There is the operations and management aspect of a global and complex operational infrastructure. There is the social aspect, which resulted in a broad community of Internauts working together to create and evolve the technology. And there is the commercialization aspect, resulting in an extremely effective transition of research results into a broadly deployed and available information infrastructure.
The Internet today is a widespread information infrastructure, the initial prototype of what is often called the National (or Global or Galactic) Information Infrastructure. Its history is complex and involves many aspects - technological, organizational, and community. And its influence reaches not only to the technical fields of computer communications but throughout society as we move toward increasing use of online tools to accomplish electronic commerce, information acquisition, and community operations.
Did this go to court, or settle out of court? If it was fought in court, please include the name of the case so that people can look up the judgement.
If this happened, then it has become legal precedent and people should know about it.
I have no doubt that the GPL is enforceable - why shouldn't it be? Simply because it requires other code that uses GPL'ed code to be GPL'ed instead of asking for money? I've never understood why so many people try to call into question the validity of the license. (Other than FUD)
If they're going to try to revive Tron, they really should re-make the original before they make a sequel. They'd just look far too weird next to each other.
As for how the original movie handled computers...they were somewhat inept in their handling of computers and the lingo, but...fewer people were exposed to computers then. I find it much more offensive now that writers still flub the big picture, much less the smaller details, when they're probably writing the script at a computer connected to the Internet where they could look up almost anything they needed to check. It's just pure laziness not to get it right now - hell, if nothing else just pull a geek in to "consult" for a few days to repair the inaccuracies in the script...
Hmmm. That gives me an idea. Since there are doctors that consult on shows like ER, and probably make a pretty penny doing it...maybe there's room for a geek in Hollywood to go over scripts that deal with computer professionals....
They shouldn't HAVE to remove ads from something they just paid for - that's the whole point.
I didn't switch anything - I was never talking about spyware. I'm talking about how companies are double-dipping (or more) by taking your money and then also taking advantage of the business relationship to make further money by selling ads or your personal data.
You know, I've built dozens of computers for myself and other people and I still take exception to this - people should be able to buy product A without being subjected to advertising via mail, email, telephone or carrier pidgeon for products B, C, D, ad infinitum. Sorry, just because some of us enjoy tinkering with the internals of a PC doesn't mean everyone else does or even knows how -- or someone else who does. (Try that argument on a grandmother who buys a PC so she can email her grandkids. It's bullshit.)
The attitude that customers are just targets for repeat marketing is something that needs to change. The computer manufacturers are only one aspect of this. I have a Bally's membership, and now I find that they're re-selling my personal information. That's bullshit, I bought a membership to a health club. It's a business transaction, not an invitation for them to strip mine personal data for their further benefit. I pay for the use of the club, they should leave it at that.
People should be justifiably angry at all these large companies abusing their relationship with customers. People shouldn't have to build their own PC, car and health club to escape the damn ads.
Clout? Peer review publications don't waste much time with trolls. You have to have a reputation, or do something for someone with a reputation, to be considered for review. Your article is sent out to a random selection of peers who offer suggestions or approve your article, then it's published. Oh yeah, none of the reviewers is paid. That's as much clout as you can get.
I guess you didn't read the entire thread. I wasn't strictly referring to the scientific journals, I was talking about authors (who get paid) in general.
For instance, the average reporter who slaves away churning out stories five days a week doesn't typically have any rights to those stories. However, after years of being a reporter they may actually develop some standing and be able to write a column or books - at that point, they have a little more clout and they can negotiate higher rates, and retaining the rights to their columns.
Many writers, whether they be scientists or freelance columnists or journalists, are forced to sign draconian contracts where in order to get their work published, they are forced to relinquish all rights to it.
Um, while it's true authors often relinquish the rights to a work for a limited period or even permanently, they're never forced to do so. It's a voluntary thing. I write an article, I sign a contract giving the publisher certain rights and a while later I get a check. If I want to get paid for my work, it's not unreasonable to expect a publisher to want some rights -- possibly all rights -- to the work in exchange for money.
The shameful thing isn't that authors have to sign contracts - it's that in the case of scientific journals the authors aren't being compensated and the works that they essentially donate are being restricted.
The only way for an author to get paid and and retain all rights is to become established and have the clout to negotiate a decent contract.
They may not be joking, but the justice department wasn't joking when it tried to enforce the CPA (I think) several years ago -- and it got shot down for being full of holes.
There are quite a few precedents of laws being passed only to be overturned when they actually get taken to court. Legislators don't always draft laws that will hold up to scrutiny, and I'm pretty sure this is one of them.
I'm officially ashamed to be a citizen of the United States. We've just managed to create what will end up being an international incident to protect the "intellectual property" of a corporation.
This really sucks for him, but maybe this will be the straw that breaks the DMCA's back. (Please, oh Please....) If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see how the law would survive scrutiny...
Welcome to the 21st century version of feudalism. Anyone who thinks they're living in a "free market" is sorely mistaken, and this should be an eye-opener. The power in this country has effectively been taken from the voters and common citizenry and placed in the hands of the corporations and major political parties. I wonder if it's too late to undo the damage that we've allowed to happen.
that both sides should just go back to the negotiating table and put this silly shit behind them. It's not doing anyone any good and it's giving corporate drones a good excuse to just buy SQLServer from Microsoft instead. C'mon guys -- learn to suck it up and make some compromises. NuSphere definitely needs to get off their ass and GPL the Gemini code yesterday, and they both need to work at resolving this. There's plenty of room for two commercial companies supporting MySQL without playing dirty tricks or slinging mud.
BTW -- Just b/c you GPL something doesn't mean you give up the rights to the name of the program, just that others have rights to the CODE. If I create something I have (unless I share them) exclusive rights to the name, and NO that doesn't go against the spirit of the GPL or take any rights away from users. It just means that corporation B can't fuck corporation A that's spent five years building brand recognition without screwing its customers. As far as the BSD license being the answer, you've got to be kidding. Why create something just to get robbed a few years later when a larger company appropriates it without giving anything back? That's just frigging stupid.
According to Patrick V. Slackware had been profitable, and we'll see if they can be again. I think they can because they're not trying to be something they're not -- they take Linux and other Open Source/Free Software and bundle it, put it together with a decent installer and make a nice convenient distro. They sell enough to make a small profit and grow moderately. Not impossible.
I agree, Linux isn't a commercial OS -- but there are plenty of business models that support using Linux -- but boxed sales and *overpriced* appliances aren't one of them. Lineo may (they're not public, so it's hard to tell) be making a decent profit off of Linux in appliances.
Frankly, I'd love to see an appliance priced so that I could buy one for my grandparents and friends who don't have computers -- so they could use email and whatnot. Linux would be ideal for such an appliance, but a $500 or $1500 appliance is way too expensive. Most people don't really NEED a PC.
Oh well, I just hope that Linux doesn't fade away completely when all these Dell and Microsoft wannabes fade away.
Is it? I can't honestly say I've read the Artistic License in the last few years. I think I browsed it once a long time ago, but it's been too long for me to recall.
This was just something that came up when I was working for a Linux company and evil business types started infiltrating the company looking to "develop" GPL'ed software and trying to convince developers to switch licenses b/c the management couldn't conceive of a way to make money without proprietary licensing.
Frankly, I think that MS, for instance, could still make a killing with Windows and Office even if they were GPL'ed just by enforcing the trademark. Most people are still going to go ahead and pay for software to get a brand they feel they can trust. Sure, the majority of Slashdotters are willing to download and tweak code - but slashdotters are a very insignificant minority when it comes to software sales. Companies would still be willing to pay Microsoft for "support" and OEMs would be willing to pay (lesser) fees to have branded Microsoft Windows. Look at what happened with MS-DOS and other versions - consumers weren't willing to take the chance on "off-brands" of DOS.
Actually, I don't think the two are contradictory - Lets say you want to build a for-profit company around Free Software, giving your users the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the code, but still need a way to distinguish yourself.
One way to do this would be to say that anyone can make changes to the code and whatever, but they cannot distribute alternate versions of the code under the name of your program -- I don't see anything wrong with this, really, b/c they have no way of performing quality control over someone else's code. They could still build a product based on this code, but they'd have to rename it rather than riding on the coattails of your success.
This has already been covered to some extent with Red Hat. You can redistribute versions of Red Hat, but you can't brand it as official "Red Hat Linux." Again, I don't think that's contrary to the spirit or terms of the GPL. Even RMS might have a problem if someone started distributing a fork of GNU Emacs this way -- especially if they included proprietary add-ons. Even if it was all GPL'ed, though - there could be questions of quality or whatnot.
Actually, SPAM doesn't fall under the protection of the first amendment. Sure, they have a right to talk about their products or whatever, but they don't have a right to force you to listen - which is what they do when they send unsolicited email.
I am 100% sure that the people who framed the Constitution were not in the least concerned with protecting these pricks. As far as I'm concerned, spammers are just one rung above child molesters and one rung below drunk drivers on the moral ladder. If Dante were alive today he would have added an extra layer to Hell just for spammers...
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community.
Actually, that's exactly why it's needed - this is a shot at getting ahead of the game rather than always being behind the game. If the OSS/FS community could deploy a.NET-like technology before Microsoft even gets out of the gate with theirs, it might cut them off at the pass(port).
It's a longshot - but if IBM, Sun, HP and the rest got behind a true open standard Web services framework, Microsoft wouldn't be able to deny its competitors an equal playing field -- which is exactly what it wants to do with.NET -- they want to deploy pieces of.NET to other OSes to lure people in to using it, but the choice bits will only work with Windows. An open.NET would allow everyone to have an equal footing. Sure, Microsoft could still play ball, but they'd lose some of their bully power.
I think there are some Exchange replacements in the works, but I don't recall exactly what company is behind them.
I'm responding to your request for other people to stop posting their opinion, and the comments about people "growing up" and whatnot. That's a clear evaluation of other people's opinion rather than stating one of your own about the topic at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Backup on their site
3 66 .jpgs cf1367 .jpgs cf1368 .jpgs cf1369 .jpgs cf1370 .jpg
http://www.bit-tech.net/images/article/72/dscf1
http://www.bit-tech.net/images/article/72/d
http://www.bit-tech.net/images/article/72/d
http://www.bit-tech.net/images/article/72/d
http://www.bit-tech.net/images/article/72/d
Posted by insane.idoru:
What I found amazing was that, during the prep-work, they would compare catalogs from previous seasons, and match skull frags with specimens they found two years ago. When he got back from his last In Gall dig, Paul Sereno complained about the difficulties of cataloging thousands of specimens, some (most?) no bigger than a quarter. Maybe this proves that the effort is worth it, no matter how much time it takes.
You are one who could well spend some time learning to see things through the eyes of others.
This isn't about those such as we inhabitants of /. who are accustomed to devoting a great deal of attention to our computers and what goes into them. The frequent claim that those who don't do the same deserve the kind of harm this misbegotten program does is arrogant, presumptuous and insulting. We're talking real people in the real world, who use computers the way we use microwave ovens, as appliances, not as subjects of enthusiasm or study in themselves. That is not wrong, stupid or irresponsible. It's just realistic. Many, perhaps most, are intimidated by them, and that is no reflection on their intelligence or wisdom. Any decent human being is willing to see things through their eyes, and admit that there are other sciences and realities of life that we neither understand nor investigate any more than they pick apart the software they install the way we do habitutally.
If physicians were to post to a kind of medical Slashdot the kind of attitude your post expresses, they'd be ridiculing us all for not recognizing symptoms of disease as readily as they do. After all, aren't our bodies even more important than our computers? (Some may disagree.)
(Frequent comment)
"If they're so stupid that they'd install xxx, or don't know they installed yyy along with it, they deserve what they get."
(Equivalent medical comment)
"If they're so stupid that they don't know melanoma when they see it, they deserve to die of cancer."
(Equivalent mechanic's comment)
"If they don't know when their reverse-flow-widget valve is clogged up, they shouldn't be driving."
(Equivalent attorney comment)
"If they don't remember that painting their garage doors yellow violates Title II paragraph a(2-2112)/rev. 909 USC bleah then they shouldn't be allowed to own homes."
Get it?
I think it was Will Rogers to said, as best I remember, "We're all ignorant, just about different things." Maybe Mark Twain. Regardless, it applies.
Ray
Yes, folks, no joke, no lie; if you visit Symantec'sproductspage with MSIE and TopText/ContextPro active and click their "Virus Protection" products link, right up there in the upper left, you'll be sent to -- I kind you not -- McAfee. TopText does not discriminate between links and plain text.
I have screencaps of each step of the process, along with some relevant links at http://www.sylvan-glade.com/intrusion/ And, of course, it's easy to download, install and try this out yourself. I use Netscape/Mozilla for my serious work anyway, so I don't mind leaving it in to see just how bad it gets.
I've tried to get hold of someone at Symantec to let them know they're advertising for their competitor, but I was referred to the feedback for for web site problems. I don't think the people I spoke to understood what I was saying. Does anyone know how to get hold of someone there who might get the point and set fire to this issue?
It may seem a bit Machievellian of me, but I suspect that if Symantec were to see for themselves how this little gem is making their web site work against them, they might raise enough stink that their weight might make a difference.
As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a glorified Trojan. At the very least it is trespass into my system [1], corrupting the intellectual property of web publishers everywhere, most likely trampling on the spirit if not the letter of copyright protection, and responsible for erectile dysfunction in ex-politicians.
Hey; maybe if Symantec gets upset enough they'll define TopText as a Trojan and have Norton AV remove it. j/k of course, but it's a pleasant fantasy...
Ray Simard
ray.sdot@sylvan-glade.com
[1] Well, not mine, since I installed it to research its effects. But you know what I mean. :-)
PS: eZula, maker of TopText/ContextPro, says you can get their keyword list by contacting them. Has anyone done so? It would be interesting to see just what it's looking for and who's being vectored to by them.
Posted by cyclist1200:
Soon they built a nanotube so big, it destroyed them all! Ahh Hah Hah Hah!
Posted by madcow15:
:(
It is quite obvious to me that you my friend are either in-bred, or were born without a fully functioning brain. New Zealand is actually not all sheep farms they are quite civalised and have a rugby team that would destroy any of your weak head gear wearing cotton-ball protected footballers that the your pathetic NFL could throw at them. Nice comment
Posted by dxkj:
They didnt mention the several people injured by the broken glass, and one man blinded. The real question is, did someone travel into the future and exact vengeance on their enemy by sending this "rock" to fall in the right place at the right time to blind the future from the enemies of the past...
Posted by thebitninja:
In this as in everything else (with one notable exception ie the Nuclear Free Pacific) New Zealand is just the lap dog for America. What ever they say we do! So it's no wonder we are looking at a Digital copyright act along the same lines as the abortive one you have in America. Why oh why can we not learn from the mistakes of those who go before us rather than rushing in to do the same things.
From the Times article: Failure? Just who is defining success and failure in this context?
Far from the anti-Establishment attitude this guy alleges, the crafters of the 'net were not in the least antagonistic to commercial use - once the system was ready for it. What this commentator seems to find unpleasant is that the 'net's structure isn't specifically oriented toward his and his clients' wishes. The egalitarian nature of the 'net that flows inherently from its application-independent, decentralized design must frustrate those who'd like to centralize control under agencies that could ultimately make access to, and therefore the usefulness of, the 'net a function of what one can pay for it.
From A Brief History of the Internet, Cerf, Kahn, Postel et. al.:
Anti-business hippie-pinkos? Hardly.Posted by polar_bear:
Did this go to court, or settle out of court? If it was fought in court, please include the name of the case so that people can look up the judgement.
If this happened, then it has become legal precedent and people should know about it.
I have no doubt that the GPL is enforceable - why shouldn't it be? Simply because it requires other code that uses GPL'ed code to be GPL'ed instead of asking for money? I've never understood why so many people try to call into question the validity of the license. (Other than FUD)
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
so this is what Yahoo Serious did after he split the beer atom
Posted by polar_bear:
If they're going to try to revive Tron, they really should re-make the original before they make a sequel. They'd just look far too weird next to each other.
As for how the original movie handled computers...they were somewhat inept in their handling of computers and the lingo, but...fewer people were exposed to computers then. I find it much more offensive now that writers still flub the big picture, much less the smaller details, when they're probably writing the script at a computer connected to the Internet where they could look up almost anything they needed to check. It's just pure laziness not to get it right now - hell, if nothing else just pull a geek in to "consult" for a few days to repair the inaccuracies in the script...
Hmmm. That gives me an idea. Since there are doctors that consult on shows like ER, and probably make a pretty penny doing it...maybe there's room for a geek in Hollywood to go over scripts that deal with computer professionals....
Posted by polar_bear:
They shouldn't HAVE to remove ads from something they just paid for - that's the whole point.
I didn't switch anything - I was never talking about spyware. I'm talking about how companies are double-dipping (or more) by taking your money and then also taking advantage of the business relationship to make further money by selling ads or your personal data.
Posted by polar_bear:
If you're too lazy to build your own computer
You know, I've built dozens of computers for myself and other people and I still take exception to this - people should be able to buy product A without being subjected to advertising via mail, email, telephone or carrier pidgeon for products B, C, D, ad infinitum. Sorry, just because some of us enjoy tinkering with the internals of a PC doesn't mean everyone else does or even knows how -- or someone else who does. (Try that argument on a grandmother who buys a PC so she can email her grandkids. It's bullshit.)
The attitude that customers are just targets for repeat marketing is something that needs to change. The computer manufacturers are only one aspect of this. I have a Bally's membership, and now I find that they're re-selling my personal information. That's bullshit, I bought a membership to a health club. It's a business transaction, not an invitation for them to strip mine personal data for their further benefit. I pay for the use of the club, they should leave it at that.
People should be justifiably angry at all these large companies abusing their relationship with customers. People shouldn't have to build their own PC, car and health club to escape the damn ads.
Posted by polar_bear:
Clout? Peer review publications don't waste much time with trolls. You have to have a reputation, or do something for someone with a reputation, to be considered for review. Your article is sent out to a random selection of peers who offer suggestions or approve your article, then it's published. Oh yeah, none of the reviewers is paid. That's as much clout as you can get.
I guess you didn't read the entire thread. I wasn't strictly referring to the scientific journals, I was talking about authors (who get paid) in general.
For instance, the average reporter who slaves away churning out stories five days a week doesn't typically have any rights to those stories. However, after years of being a reporter they may actually develop some standing and be able to write a column or books - at that point, they have a little more clout and they can negotiate higher rates, and retaining the rights to their columns.
Posted by polar_bear:
Many writers, whether they be scientists or freelance columnists or journalists, are forced to sign draconian contracts where in order to get their work published, they are forced to relinquish all rights to it.
Um, while it's true authors often relinquish the rights to a work for a limited period or even permanently, they're never forced to do so. It's a voluntary thing. I write an article, I sign a contract giving the publisher certain rights and a while later I get a check. If I want to get paid for my work, it's not unreasonable to expect a publisher to want some rights -- possibly all rights -- to the work in exchange for money.
The shameful thing isn't that authors have to sign contracts - it's that in the case of scientific journals the authors aren't being compensated and the works that they essentially donate are being restricted.
The only way for an author to get paid and and retain all rights is to become established and have the clout to negotiate a decent contract.
Posted by polar_bear:
They may not be joking, but the justice department wasn't joking when it tried to enforce the CPA (I think) several years ago -- and it got shot down for being full of holes.
There are quite a few precedents of laws being passed only to be overturned when they actually get taken to court. Legislators don't always draft laws that will hold up to scrutiny, and I'm pretty sure this is one of them.
Posted by polar_bear:
I'm officially ashamed to be a citizen of the United States. We've just managed to create what will end up being an international incident to protect the "intellectual property" of a corporation.
This really sucks for him, but maybe this will be the straw that breaks the DMCA's back. (Please, oh Please....) If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see how the law would survive scrutiny...
Welcome to the 21st century version of feudalism. Anyone who thinks they're living in a "free market" is sorely mistaken, and this should be an eye-opener. The power in this country has effectively been taken from the voters and common citizenry and placed in the hands of the corporations and major political parties. I wonder if it's too late to undo the damage that we've allowed to happen.
Posted by polar_bear:
that both sides should just go back to the negotiating table and put this silly shit behind them. It's not doing anyone any good and it's giving corporate drones a good excuse to just buy SQLServer from Microsoft instead. C'mon guys -- learn to suck it up and make some compromises. NuSphere definitely needs to get off their ass and GPL the Gemini code yesterday, and they both need to work at resolving this. There's plenty of room for two commercial companies supporting MySQL without playing dirty tricks or slinging mud.
BTW -- Just b/c you GPL something doesn't mean you give up the rights to the name of the program, just that others have rights to the CODE. If I create something I have (unless I share them) exclusive rights to the name, and NO that doesn't go against the spirit of the GPL or take any rights away from users. It just means that corporation B can't fuck corporation A that's spent five years building brand recognition without screwing its customers. As far as the BSD license being the answer, you've got to be kidding. Why create something just to get robbed a few years later when a larger company appropriates it without giving anything back? That's just frigging stupid.
Posted by polar_bear:
According to Patrick V. Slackware had been profitable, and we'll see if they can be again. I think they can because they're not trying to be something they're not -- they take Linux and other Open Source/Free Software and bundle it, put it together with a decent installer and make a nice convenient distro. They sell enough to make a small profit and grow moderately. Not impossible.
I agree, Linux isn't a commercial OS -- but there are plenty of business models that support using Linux -- but boxed sales and *overpriced* appliances aren't one of them. Lineo may (they're not public, so it's hard to tell) be making a decent profit off of Linux in appliances.
Frankly, I'd love to see an appliance priced so that I could buy one for my grandparents and friends who don't have computers -- so they could use email and whatnot. Linux would be ideal for such an appliance, but a $500 or $1500 appliance is way too expensive. Most people don't really NEED a PC.
Oh well, I just hope that Linux doesn't fade away completely when all these Dell and Microsoft wannabes fade away.
Posted by polar_bear:
Is it? I can't honestly say I've read the Artistic License in the last few years. I think I browsed it once a long time ago, but it's been too long for me to recall.
This was just something that came up when I was working for a Linux company and evil business types started infiltrating the company looking to "develop" GPL'ed software and trying to convince developers to switch licenses b/c the management couldn't conceive of a way to make money without proprietary licensing.
Frankly, I think that MS, for instance, could still make a killing with Windows and Office even if they were GPL'ed just by enforcing the trademark. Most people are still going to go ahead and pay for software to get a brand they feel they can trust. Sure, the majority of Slashdotters are willing to download and tweak code - but slashdotters are a very insignificant minority when it comes to software sales. Companies would still be willing to pay Microsoft for "support" and OEMs would be willing to pay (lesser) fees to have branded Microsoft Windows. Look at what happened with MS-DOS and other versions - consumers weren't willing to take the chance on "off-brands" of DOS.
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, I don't think the two are contradictory - Lets say you want to build a for-profit company around Free Software, giving your users the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the code, but still need a way to distinguish yourself.
One way to do this would be to say that anyone can make changes to the code and whatever, but they cannot distribute alternate versions of the code under the name of your program -- I don't see anything wrong with this, really, b/c they have no way of performing quality control over someone else's code. They could still build a product based on this code, but they'd have to rename it rather than riding on the coattails of your success.
This has already been covered to some extent with Red Hat. You can redistribute versions of Red Hat, but you can't brand it as official "Red Hat Linux." Again, I don't think that's contrary to the spirit or terms of the GPL. Even RMS might have a problem if someone started distributing a fork of GNU Emacs this way -- especially if they included proprietary add-ons. Even if it was all GPL'ed, though - there could be questions of quality or whatnot.
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, SPAM doesn't fall under the protection of the first amendment. Sure, they have a right to talk about their products or whatever, but they don't have a right to force you to listen - which is what they do when they send unsolicited email.
I am 100% sure that the people who framed the Constitution were not in the least concerned with protecting these pricks. As far as I'm concerned, spammers are just one rung above child molesters and one rung below drunk drivers on the moral ladder. If Dante were alive today he would have added an extra layer to Hell just for spammers...
Posted by polar_bear:
.NET sounds cool, but it is still vaporware. There is no real need for it yet in the OSS/FS community.
.NET-like technology before Microsoft even gets out of the gate with theirs, it might cut them off at the pass(port).
.NET -- they want to deploy pieces of .NET to other OSes to lure people in to using it, but the choice bits will only work with Windows. An open .NET would allow everyone to have an equal footing. Sure, Microsoft could still play ball, but they'd lose some of their bully power.
Actually, that's exactly why it's needed - this is a shot at getting ahead of the game rather than always being behind the game. If the OSS/FS community could deploy a
It's a longshot - but if IBM, Sun, HP and the rest got behind a true open standard Web services framework, Microsoft wouldn't be able to deny its competitors an equal playing field -- which is exactly what it wants to do with
I think there are some Exchange replacements in the works, but I don't recall exactly what company is behind them.
Posted by polar_bear:
I'm responding to your request for other people to stop posting their opinion, and the comments about people "growing up" and whatnot. That's a clear evaluation of other people's opinion rather than stating one of your own about the topic at hand.
Bye bye.