Randal: Man, name brand word association is one of the more subtle threats to this nation's free trade. It gives the larger well-known companies an unfair advantage. I'm doing my part to keep the playing field level by weening people off refering to generic products with brand names. Dante: Way to show some backbone. Randal: No spine of JELLO here my friend.
Why don't people change the name? The same reason that it seems the term "Hacker" is forever doomed to be considered a person who breaks into a computer despite the protests of true hackers and english language etymologists.. Because the public has accepted calling it "UNIX". As much as we'd like to change names to avoid confusion, It's seemingly not going to sway public opinion. Whatever. I'm still gonna call myself an aspiring UNIX hacker even though I don't use any UNIX systems nor do I break into these computers illegally.
Re:Remember, Bill Shatner and Lorne Green, ...
on
Dancing Barefoot
·
· Score: 1
For the last time, Keanu, No you don't.
("Is the hot tea hot or cold? Keanu Reeves!" "Is it Iced tea?" "No.... it's HOT TEA" "Well then I have no clue.")
Okay, look. Back then, the $50 DVD player was a myth. DVD players ran about $200+.
And people _don't_ just buy Widescreen because of "image quality". Personally, I buy widescreen whenever possible because I despise Pan & Scan. I could care less about aspect ratio, I just don't like missing 50% of the viewing screen. Especially with godawful tapes like Ghostbusters where the Panning is blaringly obviously done in editing.... It completely detracts from the movie itself.
Very simple. There's a lot of alternatives to Microsoft software. If you're stupid enough to fall for MS's "We render the Hacker Obsolete" despite protestations of a good percentage of industry professionals, it's your problem. Cope. You can't expect software to be perfect, _ESPECIALLY_ Microsoft products. Maybe this will coerce these companies that have had trouble to go with more secure open source alternatives and maybe understand that there is plenty of alternative to Microsoft.
One thing that's true to just about ANY EULA, including BSD, GPL, etc., is that there is no warranty on software security exploits. It's pretty explicitly stated on the Microsoft EULA as well. These companies can cope. It's a bullshit lawsuit and I don't even know why it's coming about unless it's to ward people away from Microsoft. Frankly, I think it'll garner more animosity than converts if you ask me.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
Learn your history before you start criticising.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.
I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
Very simple. Freedom has become a buzz-word in the states. The flag, the white house, apple pie, Declaration of Independence. It's all become symbol.
Canadians pride themselves not on their past accomplishments. I know of relatively few Canadians that happen to know about the actions taken at Vimy Ridge during WWI where they took what the British and French had been trying to take for years in half a day, even fewer know about how a Canadian was the first to enact the Uniting For Peace resolution in the UN.
But we don't base our freedom on these past actions. We base our freedom on our current standard of living and how we live our day to day lives.
Let me put it this way. Read 1984. It's all based around having relatable symbols to your "freedom": Big Brother, Minutes of Hate, slogans and catchphrases. This is the one way to guarantee your own personal attachment to your government and as such gives more way to control the people. What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These aren't things you pledge alleigance to, these are things that you do to make life more for the living.
As far as I'm concerned, my patriotism means having a country that makes me happy with my life. It doesn't mean being blissfully in love with a flag or a pledge that you have to say every day at the beginning of class or of a history of accomplishments.
At least that's my take on it. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but not because I was told to be.
Windows has one: InstallShield. Even though Windows itself may not be directly responsible for it, it's still the best one I've seen from anywhere. It's insanely easy to use (doubleclick the file you downloaded, follow the instructions).
Linux is at a severe disadvantage moreso not because of its structure, but because of the way in which the public views it. People and development companies alike still view Windows as the standard system for their needs. So, as a result, companies are more willing to build up things like really nice installers and users therefore find it a lot easier to use.
Because Linux needs to change people's minds rather than simply say that they've been right all along with their choice of OS, they need to work a lot harder to get people to switch. This is one thing Linux has an advantage for though: A _LOT_ of people willing to work very hard for it. The only problem is that most of the people working for it are people who don't mind typing stuff like "# rpm -ivh wine-200303091.i386.rpm --nodeps"
Regular Joe-average user hasn't used DOS in ages, and there's a reason. People don't like CLIs. Sure, admins and superusers adore it (I know I do) but if Linux is going to compete in the desktop market, it's still got a bit to go.
Frankly, though, I do think it's headed in the right direction, and we can thank Red Hat and Mandrake for that. And the best thing about that is that they're offering user-friendly versions of the package systems that we've grown to love (urpmi, apt-rpm, etc.). All it needs is nice frontends that make these things easier to use than InstallShield.
Since I started using linux (and I've been very happy with it) I've been saying a few things around "what it needs" in order to be a full-on desktop computer. Apps aren't the problem (Openoffice is great, mozilla/galeon/konqueror are great, Evolution is great, sylpheed is great etc. etc. etc.). The problem is overall use.
First of all, it needs a good package system. RPMs almost do it. Apt is great, but hasn't yet been implemented in a decent distro with user-friendliness abound (Not to mention debian stable trees are in serious need of more consistent updating. Gnome 1.6 just doesn't do it for me.)
Basically, what's in dire need is a decent implementation of a software installer. Something similar to RPMs with a decent program-specific gui. I guess what I'm really hoping for is self-extracting shell scripts. But the main problem I have with this is running them from a graphical mode. These days, I use mandrake's software installer, though that does nothing to help configure the programs themselves for my personal use, something that InstallShield has a definate advantage of. The Software Installer has a great implementation of urpmi and handles dependencies rather well.
Package management is the main difference between distros and is the one thing that makes one distro better/worse than another, other than installers. Frankly, though, I think that Mandrake and Red Hat installers have gotten to the point where they're about as good as a Windows installer. They just need a "really dumb user mode" that holds your hand down the whole way.
I dislike what the author of the article says about removing legacy support. This is what really bugs me about Lindows and Xandros: They're more user friendly but they do so by eliminating a lot of the advantages of linux other than the very low-level "keep it from crashing" stuff. I think the important idea is to render all the low-level uber-user stuff obsolete but still keep it available. Removing Legacy support falls right underneath this category. One of the main issues people have had with MacOS releases and Windows is that they only work on top-of-the-line hardware and the like.
Yeah, sure, some stuff _should_ require top-of-the-line hardware. I don't expect that UT2003 should run on my old 486. But the OS that runs it should, imo. Cross-compatibility for legacy hardware is probably one of the main reasons linux came into being and is one of the main reasons for its stability. This is what open source is thoroughly about: Making something everybody can use.
The main thing that linux needs though if you ask me on a developer standpoint is a user-friendly and powerful software package manager. Rpms and debs just don't do it. However, the _really_ important thing in getting linux to the end user in a nice package is simply to promote its use. The more it gets used, the more support there will be for it, the more support the better drivers and the like there will be. One of the main problems I've seen with people using stuff like Drake or Redhat is problems getting their hardware to run perfectly (under X and the like, soundcards and so on). There need to be better auto-detection and driver support, as there always has been. Probably the main reason I'm still using Linux today as my primary OS is that the first time I used Mandrake, _everything_ got detected right off the bat. Of course, I had problems with the software in 8.2, but by the time I got to where I am now, in 9.1, the ONLY problem I have is with getting wine running (Bamboo doesn't have the wine with glibc support, and I'm getting a plethora of other problems with the Cooker build).
So yeah. I guess that's all I wanted to say about that. Distro's are getting very close to being a feasible alternative for the desktop to Windows. It just needs more exposure and fewer people writing Windows-only apps.
I'm so glad that you understand the concept of fair use so incredibly well.
Alright. So you buy a CD, right? You own that CD, so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it: Copy, distribute, throw around as a frisbee, whatever.
But there's this thing called Intellectual Property. Alright, fair enough. If you go around distributing CDs then yeah, I suppose you're technically stealing because you can plausibly be making money off of something that isn't yours, right? Fine. That works. So while you own the CD itself and can use that for a frisbee/toaster/or whatever, the _CONTENTS_ of the CD are technically on a license from you. Fair enough. So I'm allowed to listen to the contents of my CD, and nobody else really is (in theory, let's just assume this to be true. You own a license to listen to the music and nobody else does without buying the CD. Extreme example but use your suspension of disbelief for right now).
Now, let's say that you want to use that CD as a frisbee, but lo and behold, it gets scratched. Technically you still own the license to listen to said music, so why can't you copy it without distributing it?
Now, what if you didn't think to copy it? So you go on the internet and download the mp3s of it, and burn _THOSE_ onto a new disc. Is this illegal? You technically own the license to listen to those songs, so what's illegal about downloading them off the net? I don't see the RIAA companies offering anything like "If you damage your CD, send it in and we'll replace it for you!"
This is the idea behind "fair use" and is the main thing fighting against the RIAA. I have a large number of RIAA mp3s that I do actually own in some other format (CD, vinyl, etc.) but would rather listen to on an mp3 playlist that to have to sift through CDs and records and tapes. Most of these mp3s I haven't actually ripped, but rather downloaded off the internet. So how do they know that the stuff being downloaded off the internet is illegal? All those cases against Napster and Kazaa and AudioGalaxy are silly on the mere basis that they claim all this lost revenue but yet can't prove that any of these MP3s are illegally owned. In fact, I'd like to see them try and tell me that I'm not allowed my mp3s, and I'll show them that actually, I do own every single one of them.
Fair Use isn't something about justifying stealing. It's about being allowed to use the products you own without looking like a criminal.
By the looks of it, yes. Seemingly, Marvel had a license with Sony about the Merchandise, but now it looks like Sony has broken the terms of that license and now Marvel is asking to have it chucked out. The report has got to be one of the worst written articles I've ever seen and it doesn't explain much, most importantly it seems we have ZERO clue what the main clauses are that are going to be used since it seems that the license may not be publically available until the case itself.
I think it's quite possible that Marvel has a case. Pretty probable too... big companies tend not to go up against bigger better companies that could buy their ass out unless they happen to be faltering *coughSCOcough*.
Marvel's doing better than ever. Movie exposure is enticing more and more people to read superhero comics and it seems to have moved once again away from the stereotypical fanboy and more into the traditional playgrounds of childhood fantasy.
Marvel wouldn't cut the rug out from underneath them by ending a contract with SONY without good reason. Obviously there's tension between the two companies and Marvel wants out of the contract so they can build a better relationship with a different company.
Fine. No real harsh damage done to anything really except that Sony doesn't get a third Spidey movie. I don't even know if Sam Raimi's going to want to touch a third Spidey movie, and most likely there's going to be lots of FUD around a third movie any ways, cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet.
How incredibly wonderful must such a "great" nation be if its prosecutors don't even believe in their Judicial system.
Yes, there are some people who don't get reformed. Those people tend to get convicted again and again and it would seem pretty obvious. But from my experience, most "hackers" who get busted tend to be teenagers who just haven't grown up. A year or two in prison tends to rectify that. Seriously, look at Mark Abene, who, after he served his sentence got a job straight out of prison. Or any of the old New York MOD hackers who got busted.
I dunno. I just find it interesting that Painter seems to believe that there's no such thing as reformation. Why exactly is he doing his job then?
[i]You are required to agree to accept the terms and conditions of this license prior to proceeding with the products' installation.[/i]
Since when? There's no shrinkwrap EULA that says I need to agree to your EULA.
The only time I agree to any licensing is when I click on the "OK" button. Now, seriously, how many people have reverse engineered the installer _BEFORE_ actually installing and set it up so that it installs even if you say you Disagree?
If I don't agree to the EULA, but still manage to install it (because I paid for it) seems pretty legal to me.
Personally, I think that's doing your job. You say "It's a bad idea. I won't do it unless I have it in writing that I was opposed so I don't get blamed for doing what I think it is going to do"
If anything, it might convince the higher-ups that maybe it's not such a smart idea if the expert is so adamant about assuming responsibility for what he expects to happen.
If you show that you're happy to do something you disagree with (albeit not without avoiding misrepresentation of your actions) then you'd look a lot better in management's eyes.
Hopefully, the important lesson is this: If you're going to slashdot your server, at least have one capable of handling such an effort.
I got about half of the images broken and the other half weren't even found.
*sigh*
Anyways, for all the flame mongers out there complaining about how it's not "worth it", please. This is what hacking is about. If you sit around asking "Why? This is useless!" how do you expect to have any fun in life?
Flying cars and voice-operated light switches are pretty useless, doesn't mean I wouldn't want one.
But, once again, it doesn't say "News for Computer users and developers" it says "News for Nerds" Why is this such a problem to understand? And why is it always such a problem around here when someone does something nerdy? Honestly, I see people flamed all the time for that kind of stuff. Every once in a while people need a kick in the butt to remind themselves of where this comes from. I personally like that they go overboard with the jokes. Gives me more stuff to laugh at.
I'm placing this in here because apparently if I use so many caps, I get hit by the lameness filter. C'mon, Taco... can't we at least have a little fun on April Fools?
Is this so hard to understand? We're the type of people who laughed at three Austin Powers Movies worth of the same jokes. The type of people who felt kinship with the horrible jokes of Revenge of the Nerds. The type of people who thought Hackers was hilarious (Oooo! A 28.8bps modem!!!)
By all means, laugh at us rather than with us. It's not like nobody ever has before. I mean, they call us nerds for a reason.
Why must so many people have such contempt for nerdy action on a website with the slugline "News For Nerds"?
Well, good discussion (dear Lord... Intelligence on Slashdot?) but the main point of disagreeance is here:
After all, what is the point of OpenSource software if not to be freely available to everyone?
This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions in the software world, and it's the same as all the FUD that Microsoft tries to put forth.
There's a difference between Free as in accessibility and Free as in Beer. Free as in Beer is saying "You don't need to pay for anything that we provide. It's all free of charge." FSF and the GNU GPL say nothing to this point. Linux happens to be publically available simply because Linus decided to make it so, and as such Linux is Free as in beer.
Free as in accessibility is based on a simple enough concept: Once you have a piece of software, it's _YOURS_. EULAs these days seem to be based around "Well, its yours but you're not allowed to reverse-engineer it or do anything you want to with it outside of what we say." This isn't so much a business model (which is why FSF and GNU aren't businesses) as it is just a principle of distribution. So the GPL merely says distribute source code and allow people to tinker with it all they want once they become the proprietors of the product. The only stipulation is that anybody who wants to redistribute any part of the code must release said modifications under the GPL.
Again, often Linux is not the best business example of GPL use because Linux is not a business. But any software can be released under the GPL and still be made to pay for (See: Lindows).
Mandrake is based on the Honour System more than anything. Try out their latest product for as long as you want. Beta Test, give us bug reports, if you really like what we do, consider sending us money. Sure, you're perfectly available not to (I haven't yet... although as soon as I get gainful employment I assure you I'll be signing up for MandrakeClub) but the idea is: Mandrake is currently on the brink of Bankruptcy. I _really_ like their product, and I would hate to see them go down. As a result, I'm going to do what I can to prevent that happening: Give them money. It's the same deal as Public Television... Pledge your money, the product remains, you get a perk or two (Limited Edition Red Dwarf T-shirt, Citizen Kane DVD, Subscription to magazine, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Randal: Man, name brand word association is one of the more subtle threats to this nation's free trade. It gives the larger well-known companies an unfair advantage. I'm doing my part to keep the playing field level by weening people off refering to generic products with brand names.
Dante: Way to show some backbone.
Randal: No spine of JELLO here my friend.
Okay.
Now you go tell everybody. Go ahead.
Why don't people change the name? The same reason that it seems the term "Hacker" is forever doomed to be considered a person who breaks into a computer despite the protests of true hackers and english language etymologists.. Because the public has accepted calling it "UNIX". As much as we'd like to change names to avoid confusion, It's seemingly not going to sway public opinion. Whatever. I'm still gonna call myself an aspiring UNIX hacker even though I don't use any UNIX systems nor do I break into these computers illegally.
For the last time, Keanu, No you don't.
("Is the hot tea hot or cold? Keanu Reeves!" "Is it Iced tea?" "No.... it's HOT TEA" "Well then I have no clue.")
*sigh*
Okay, look. Back then, the $50 DVD player was a myth. DVD players ran about $200+.
And people _don't_ just buy Widescreen because of "image quality". Personally, I buy widescreen whenever possible because I despise Pan & Scan. I could care less about aspect ratio, I just don't like missing 50% of the viewing screen. Especially with godawful tapes like Ghostbusters where the Panning is blaringly obviously done in editing.... It completely detracts from the movie itself.
Very simple. There's a lot of alternatives to Microsoft software. If you're stupid enough to fall for MS's "We render the Hacker Obsolete" despite protestations of a good percentage of industry professionals, it's your problem. Cope. You can't expect software to be perfect, _ESPECIALLY_ Microsoft products. Maybe this will coerce these companies that have had trouble to go with more secure open source alternatives and maybe understand that there is plenty of alternative to Microsoft.
One thing that's true to just about ANY EULA, including BSD, GPL, etc., is that there is no warranty on software security exploits. It's pretty explicitly stated on the Microsoft EULA as well. These companies can cope. It's a bullshit lawsuit and I don't even know why it's coming about unless it's to ward people away from Microsoft. Frankly, I think it'll garner more animosity than converts if you ask me.
Right.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
Learn your history before you start criticising.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.
I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
Very simple. Freedom has become a buzz-word in the states. The flag, the white house, apple pie, Declaration of Independence. It's all become symbol.
Canadians pride themselves not on their past accomplishments. I know of relatively few Canadians that happen to know about the actions taken at Vimy Ridge during WWI where they took what the British and French had been trying to take for years in half a day, even fewer know about how a Canadian was the first to enact the Uniting For Peace resolution in the UN.
But we don't base our freedom on these past actions. We base our freedom on our current standard of living and how we live our day to day lives.
Let me put it this way. Read 1984. It's all based around having relatable symbols to your "freedom": Big Brother, Minutes of Hate, slogans and catchphrases. This is the one way to guarantee your own personal attachment to your government and as such gives more way to control the people. What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These aren't things you pledge alleigance to, these are things that you do to make life more for the living.
As far as I'm concerned, my patriotism means having a country that makes me happy with my life. It doesn't mean being blissfully in love with a flag or a pledge that you have to say every day at the beginning of class or of a history of accomplishments.
At least that's my take on it. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but not because I was told to be.
Yes, they've been saying this for quite a while now. There's news involved here?
Is it just me or does it look like they're going to reveal the source code right after Duke Nukem Forever is out and they make Evil Dead 4.
Windows has one: InstallShield. Even though Windows itself may not be directly responsible for it, it's still the best one I've seen from anywhere. It's insanely easy to use (doubleclick the file you downloaded, follow the instructions).
Linux is at a severe disadvantage moreso not because of its structure, but because of the way in which the public views it. People and development companies alike still view Windows as the standard system for their needs. So, as a result, companies are more willing to build up things like really nice installers and users therefore find it a lot easier to use.
Because Linux needs to change people's minds rather than simply say that they've been right all along with their choice of OS, they need to work a lot harder to get people to switch. This is one thing Linux has an advantage for though: A _LOT_ of people willing to work very hard for it. The only problem is that most of the people working for it are people who don't mind typing stuff like "# rpm -ivh wine-200303091.i386.rpm --nodeps"
Regular Joe-average user hasn't used DOS in ages, and there's a reason. People don't like CLIs. Sure, admins and superusers adore it (I know I do) but if Linux is going to compete in the desktop market, it's still got a bit to go.
Frankly, though, I do think it's headed in the right direction, and we can thank Red Hat and Mandrake for that. And the best thing about that is that they're offering user-friendly versions of the package systems that we've grown to love (urpmi, apt-rpm, etc.). All it needs is nice frontends that make these things easier to use than InstallShield.
Since I started using linux (and I've been very happy with it) I've been saying a few things around "what it needs" in order to be a full-on desktop computer. Apps aren't the problem (Openoffice is great, mozilla/galeon/konqueror are great, Evolution is great, sylpheed is great etc. etc. etc.). The problem is overall use.
First of all, it needs a good package system. RPMs almost do it. Apt is great, but hasn't yet been implemented in a decent distro with user-friendliness abound (Not to mention debian stable trees are in serious need of more consistent updating. Gnome 1.6 just doesn't do it for me.)
Basically, what's in dire need is a decent implementation of a software installer. Something similar to RPMs with a decent program-specific gui. I guess what I'm really hoping for is self-extracting shell scripts. But the main problem I have with this is running them from a graphical mode. These days, I use mandrake's software installer, though that does nothing to help configure the programs themselves for my personal use, something that InstallShield has a definate advantage of. The Software Installer has a great implementation of urpmi and handles dependencies rather well.
Package management is the main difference between distros and is the one thing that makes one distro better/worse than another, other than installers. Frankly, though, I think that Mandrake and Red Hat installers have gotten to the point where they're about as good as a Windows installer. They just need a "really dumb user mode" that holds your hand down the whole way.
I dislike what the author of the article says about removing legacy support. This is what really bugs me about Lindows and Xandros: They're more user friendly but they do so by eliminating a lot of the advantages of linux other than the very low-level "keep it from crashing" stuff. I think the important idea is to render all the low-level uber-user stuff obsolete but still keep it available. Removing Legacy support falls right underneath this category. One of the main issues people have had with MacOS releases and Windows is that they only work on top-of-the-line hardware and the like.
Yeah, sure, some stuff _should_ require top-of-the-line hardware. I don't expect that UT2003 should run on my old 486. But the OS that runs it should, imo. Cross-compatibility for legacy hardware is probably one of the main reasons linux came into being and is one of the main reasons for its stability. This is what open source is thoroughly about: Making something everybody can use.
The main thing that linux needs though if you ask me on a developer standpoint is a user-friendly and powerful software package manager. Rpms and debs just don't do it. However, the _really_ important thing in getting linux to the end user in a nice package is simply to promote its use. The more it gets used, the more support there will be for it, the more support the better drivers and the like there will be. One of the main problems I've seen with people using stuff like Drake or Redhat is problems getting their hardware to run perfectly (under X and the like, soundcards and so on). There need to be better auto-detection and driver support, as there always has been. Probably the main reason I'm still using Linux today as my primary OS is that the first time I used Mandrake, _everything_ got detected right off the bat. Of course, I had problems with the software in 8.2, but by the time I got to where I am now, in 9.1, the ONLY problem I have is with getting wine running (Bamboo doesn't have the wine with glibc support, and I'm getting a plethora of other problems with the Cooker build).
So yeah. I guess that's all I wanted to say about that. Distro's are getting very close to being a feasible alternative for the desktop to Windows. It just needs more exposure and fewer people writing Windows-only apps.
Yeah. They sure The Lone Gunmen are Deaded that one...
I'll pick blurred consistent lines any day.
Very simply, analogue scales much better than digital.
If it's new, can it really be improved?
I'm so glad that you understand the concept of fair use so incredibly well.
Alright. So you buy a CD, right? You own that CD, so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it: Copy, distribute, throw around as a frisbee, whatever.
But there's this thing called Intellectual Property. Alright, fair enough. If you go around distributing CDs then yeah, I suppose you're technically stealing because you can plausibly be making money off of something that isn't yours, right? Fine. That works. So while you own the CD itself and can use that for a frisbee/toaster/or whatever, the _CONTENTS_ of the CD are technically on a license from you. Fair enough. So I'm allowed to listen to the contents of my CD, and nobody else really is (in theory, let's just assume this to be true. You own a license to listen to the music and nobody else does without buying the CD. Extreme example but use your suspension of disbelief for right now).
Now, let's say that you want to use that CD as a frisbee, but lo and behold, it gets scratched. Technically you still own the license to listen to said music, so why can't you copy it without distributing it?
Now, what if you didn't think to copy it? So you go on the internet and download the mp3s of it, and burn _THOSE_ onto a new disc. Is this illegal? You technically own the license to listen to those songs, so what's illegal about downloading them off the net? I don't see the RIAA companies offering anything like "If you damage your CD, send it in and we'll replace it for you!"
This is the idea behind "fair use" and is the main thing fighting against the RIAA. I have a large number of RIAA mp3s that I do actually own in some other format (CD, vinyl, etc.) but would rather listen to on an mp3 playlist that to have to sift through CDs and records and tapes. Most of these mp3s I haven't actually ripped, but rather downloaded off the internet. So how do they know that the stuff being downloaded off the internet is illegal? All those cases against Napster and Kazaa and AudioGalaxy are silly on the mere basis that they claim all this lost revenue but yet can't prove that any of these MP3s are illegally owned. In fact, I'd like to see them try and tell me that I'm not allowed my mp3s, and I'll show them that actually, I do own every single one of them.
Fair Use isn't something about justifying stealing. It's about being allowed to use the products you own without looking like a criminal.
By the looks of it, yes. Seemingly, Marvel had a license with Sony about the Merchandise, but now it looks like Sony has broken the terms of that license and now Marvel is asking to have it chucked out. The report has got to be one of the worst written articles I've ever seen and it doesn't explain much, most importantly it seems we have ZERO clue what the main clauses are that are going to be used since it seems that the license may not be publically available until the case itself.
I think it's quite possible that Marvel has a case. Pretty probable too... big companies tend not to go up against bigger better companies that could buy their ass out unless they happen to be faltering *coughSCOcough*.
Marvel's doing better than ever. Movie exposure is enticing more and more people to read superhero comics and it seems to have moved once again away from the stereotypical fanboy and more into the traditional playgrounds of childhood fantasy.
Marvel wouldn't cut the rug out from underneath them by ending a contract with SONY without good reason. Obviously there's tension between the two companies and Marvel wants out of the contract so they can build a better relationship with a different company.
Fine. No real harsh damage done to anything really except that Sony doesn't get a third Spidey movie. I don't even know if Sam Raimi's going to want to touch a third Spidey movie, and most likely there's going to be lots of FUD around a third movie any ways, cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet.
How incredibly wonderful must such a "great" nation be if its prosecutors don't even believe in their Judicial system.
Yes, there are some people who don't get reformed. Those people tend to get convicted again and again and it would seem pretty obvious. But from my experience, most "hackers" who get busted tend to be teenagers who just haven't grown up. A year or two in prison tends to rectify that. Seriously, look at Mark Abene, who, after he served his sentence got a job straight out of prison. Or any of the old New York MOD hackers who got busted.
I dunno. I just find it interesting that Painter seems to believe that there's no such thing as reformation. Why exactly is he doing his job then?
[i]You are required to agree to accept the terms and conditions of this license prior to proceeding with the products' installation.[/i]
Since when? There's no shrinkwrap EULA that says I need to agree to your EULA.
The only time I agree to any licensing is when I click on the "OK" button. Now, seriously, how many people have reverse engineered the installer _BEFORE_ actually installing and set it up so that it installs even if you say you Disagree?
If I don't agree to the EULA, but still manage to install it (because I paid for it) seems pretty legal to me.
Personally, I think that's doing your job. You say "It's a bad idea. I won't do it unless I have it in writing that I was opposed so I don't get blamed for doing what I think it is going to do"
If anything, it might convince the higher-ups that maybe it's not such a smart idea if the expert is so adamant about assuming responsibility for what he expects to happen.
If you show that you're happy to do something you disagree with (albeit not without avoiding misrepresentation of your actions) then you'd look a lot better in management's eyes.
Hopefully, the important lesson is this: If you're going to slashdot your server, at least have one capable of handling such an effort.
I got about half of the images broken and the other half weren't even found.
*sigh*
Anyways, for all the flame mongers out there complaining about how it's not "worth it", please. This is what hacking is about. If you sit around asking "Why? This is useless!" how do you expect to have any fun in life?
Flying cars and voice-operated light switches are pretty useless, doesn't mean I wouldn't want one.
Sure, great, wonderful.
But, once again, it doesn't say "News for Computer users and developers" it says "News for Nerds" Why is this such a problem to understand? And why is it always such a problem around here when someone does something nerdy? Honestly, I see people flamed all the time for that kind of stuff. Every once in a while people need a kick in the butt to remind themselves of where this comes from. I personally like that they go overboard with the jokes. Gives me more stuff to laugh at.
THIS IS THE MOST INFORMATIVE POST EVAR!!!!!1
I'm placing this in here because apparently if I use so many caps, I get hit by the lameness filter. C'mon, Taco... can't we at least have a little fun on April Fools?
Because we're nerds.
Is this so hard to understand? We're the type of people who laughed at three Austin Powers Movies worth of the same jokes. The type of people who felt kinship with the horrible jokes of Revenge of the Nerds. The type of people who thought Hackers was hilarious (Oooo! A 28.8bps modem!!!)
By all means, laugh at us rather than with us. It's not like nobody ever has before. I mean, they call us nerds for a reason.
Why must so many people have such contempt for nerdy action on a website with the slugline "News For Nerds"?
It's available for free, and people complain.
Sheesh.
No pleasing some people, y'know.
I usually get questioned on "What's a kernel", but that's about it.
Well, good discussion (dear Lord... Intelligence on Slashdot?) but the main point of disagreeance is here:
After all, what is the point of OpenSource software if not to be freely available to everyone?
This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions in the software world, and it's the same as all the FUD that Microsoft tries to put forth.
There's a difference between Free as in accessibility and Free as in Beer. Free as in Beer is saying "You don't need to pay for anything that we provide. It's all free of charge." FSF and the GNU GPL say nothing to this point. Linux happens to be publically available simply because Linus decided to make it so, and as such Linux is Free as in beer.
Free as in accessibility is based on a simple enough concept: Once you have a piece of software, it's _YOURS_. EULAs these days seem to be based around "Well, its yours but you're not allowed to reverse-engineer it or do anything you want to with it outside of what we say." This isn't so much a business model (which is why FSF and GNU aren't businesses) as it is just a principle of distribution. So the GPL merely says distribute source code and allow people to tinker with it all they want once they become the proprietors of the product. The only stipulation is that anybody who wants to redistribute any part of the code must release said modifications under the GPL.
Again, often Linux is not the best business example of GPL use because Linux is not a business. But any software can be released under the GPL and still be made to pay for (See: Lindows).
Mandrake is based on the Honour System more than anything. Try out their latest product for as long as you want. Beta Test, give us bug reports, if you really like what we do, consider sending us money. Sure, you're perfectly available not to (I haven't yet... although as soon as I get gainful employment I assure you I'll be signing up for MandrakeClub) but the idea is: Mandrake is currently on the brink of Bankruptcy. I _really_ like their product, and I would hate to see them go down. As a result, I'm going to do what I can to prevent that happening: Give them money. It's the same deal as Public Television... Pledge your money, the product remains, you get a perk or two (Limited Edition Red Dwarf T-shirt, Citizen Kane DVD, Subscription to magazine, etc.).