Ummmmmm....No. The only situation in which the GPL would be the ideal license for a goverment is one where that government has no enemies, and no threats. Sorry, I just finished looking around, and didn't find any of those. All goverments have a legitimate right (and indeed, even a responisbility) to keep some information secret for national security purposes, as well as for other threats, such as criminal actions (the mob hacking into a government server, for instance). That's my big problem with using the GPL in government systems. For some agencies, such as the department of defense, and the department of justice, we need a license that would allow innovations in security, without the obligation to make it public. If say, the Navy develops a version of BSD that's super-secure, and adds some features specifically for use on warships, how eager do you think they're going to be to publish the source code? I've never bought the arguement that Security through Obscurity is dead. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I don't care how smart or talented you are. The less you know about a system to start out with, the harder it's going to be to crack it. MS isn't really a closed system. Windows code has been distributed to various business partners (which has no doubt been obtained by theives, via industrial espionage), and I'm pretty sure really good hackers have found ways to reverse-engineer Windows all along. If the very distribution of install disks is restricted to selected personnel, security becomes that much better. So, while I like the idea of MORE openess in code use, and the adherence to standards, I cannot agree with the blanket adoption of the GPL for government use. For some govermnet use, sure, but not across the board. That rules out Linux in the DOD. NSA has been developing Secure Linux, but it has, and will likely remain, an experiment. What I think is likely to happen is that the U.S. govermnet will probably develop a non-GPL'd Unix at some point, for use in secure situations.I see Linux in a lot of other government agencies though, especially local government.
A couple of years ago, I attented a seminar on computer security, with Prof. Gene Spafford as the featured speaker. He runs the CERIUS institute at Purde University, and was talking about why MS products had such poor security properties. Quoting him, "Microsoft has world class security people. Unfortunately, the marketing department rules that company". So I would indeed concur with your assesment about why NT isn't as good as it COULD be.
Out of curiosity, what is the process involved in appealing these disputes? I see that some have taken ICANN to court, but doesn't ICANN have international authority in assigning these names? If I was a citizen of, oh, say Egypt, how much authority would Egyptian courts have over ICANN? Ultimately, what legal recourse does one really have when getting an unfavorable ruling from this body?
...is that far fewer Japanese own homes than Americans do. Americans typicaly spend much more money on things like mortgages, cars, and insurance than the Japanese do. Costs of things like real estate are just too prohibitive for the average worker there. So they typically spend more of their income on the "latest and greatest" electronics than we do. The Betamax took off in Japan, but not here, and Sony couldn't understand why. Because Americans went "look, the VHS works fine, and I'd rather buy the bigger house. Thanks, but no thanks". It's not only a cultural difference, but an economic one as well.
Oh, he shouldn't be reading/. ? When did you get to decide this? Whether or not you like it, people here have a whole range of opinions. Better get used to it, Comrade.......
Why is Bill Gates laughing? Because everytime he reads a post like this, he know's Linux users are fighting half of his battle for him. It's thinking like this guy's that chaps my ass. I wish people like this would understand one thing; there is no required consensus about much of anything in the Linux community. I got into Linux because I liked Unix, and I liked the volunteerism aspect of Linux. The first time I'm expected to submit to some quasi-religous code, I'm out, and headed to FreeBSD land. "United Linux has become our enemy..." What a crock of shit. Do you know how that sounds? He sounds like some Al Queada outfit, pointing fingers at the "unbelievers" in our midst. There are as many differing opinions among us as any other group. We should NOT allow Linux to become a "priesthood", where only believers in the Purer Faith can practice.
Ok, obviously I don't know enough about the GPL or I wouldn't have to ask this....does the GPL only require that source is available? Or does it also require binaries to be freely available as well? If there is no binary requirement, then Caldera hasn't violated the GPL. You may not like their position, but again, if that's what the GPL says, then Caldera's in the clear. If not, all of you budding Lawrence Lessigs out there have one hell of a class action case awaiting you.
Now about per seat licensing. Again, does the GPL specifically forbid that? Same point as above. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the GPL prohibits it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will helpfully point it out.
I have my doubts about whether United Linux will succeed. Frankly, as much as I hate it, I think we're heading for an era where the only linux vendors remaining will be Red Hat, Mandrake, and Debian. I think this because 1) Red Hat has taken virtually all the mindshare from business, 2) Mandrake is sold in places like Wal Mart, Kmart, etc, where interested newbies think 30 dollars is a bargain for an operating system (and their development costs are low, as Mandrake basically IS Red Hat), 3) Debian will always be the home of the die-hard open source/free software users. Why is there not more pure linux commercial success? Because the GPL makes selling software a losing issue. HP, IBM, and soon Sun will basically make Linux a commodity, a value added product to get customers "inside", as a way to get them to eventually buy thier proprietary products. Basically, the same thing MS did with IE and is now doing with its media player and messaging. That's why they're charging little or nothing. Red Hat has only recently made a profit. To continue to do so, they'll have to hold on to that mindshare and hope that other linux companies continue to die off (joining stormlinux, Corel's linux product, etc). I don't think we'll see consolodation as much as we'll just see attrition. Besides, Red Hat can no longer really be called a "linux" company. They've wisely diversified to the point where they don't have to depend on linux alone. Caldera is trying the same thing with Volution, but I fear it's too late for them. If it wasn't for that overwhelming mindshare, Red Hat would be in just as tenuous a position as their competitors. I think they're still going to have to claw, scratch, and reach for further profits. TurboLinux is not long for this world I think. Suse has longer because of their European following, and perhaps they can survive there. But they'll never be a force here.
You're kidding, right? With the exception of the hard sciences, academics are some of the worst purveyors of "my opinion is right". And even physicists, chemists, etc, sometimes let their personal opinions color their work. There is no such thing as unbiased thinking, only honestly held opinions and faith (for whatever reason) in your position/belifes.
I've long been a proponent of stronger ethics education for our students, especially in the internet age. The problem is, we're still in the middle of a civil war of sorts concerning what is and is not ethical on the internet. Is distributing MP3's to the masses without authorization unethical? I would certainly think so, but others will argue till their last breath that the times they are a 'changin, and that people like me will just have to get over it. In short, we have to come to an agreement at what ethics are before we can teach them. This is what is REALLY needed. How do we do this? Damn good question. Congressional hearings? Blue Ribbon panel? There's lots of chattering in places like/. among the tech crowd, but we need a truly universal debate to settle these issues. Otherwise, things will proceed as they've been, and all of these issues will have to continue to be settled in the courts.
They'll spend a lot of time keeping it patched, but if they're willing to, so what? It's probably NT 4, but that's not real surprising. Not everyone is a Unix/Linux admin. However, since it seems they have a good deal of cash, if they want ease of administration and security, the fast and easy road to a better server would be OSX.
Usually, the connection is not hardwired, but transmitted from one site to another. I'm an IT Manager at a regional airport, and that's the system we use. We have a large Air Force base only 10 minutes away, and they got expensive upgrades before we did, so they basically just transmit their ATC data on over to us via microwave. This is not unusual. This kind of resource sharing is pretty common between military and civilian installations. We have have an Air National Guard squadron here as well, and we also share resources with them (firefighting in particular). It just makes more sense that way.
As for the new ATC system, I think any kind of mission critical system should be Unix based. As much as I like Linux, I'd still feel better with a QNX type system that goes down perhaps once a year or so. You have to wonder what the procurement people are thinking sometimes.....
Given the fact that lots of games are violent, I think most parents would put the kibosh on this. However, the concept is not in itself a bad one. Think about it. Schools are places for learning, and it's long been thought that certain kinds of play are healthy and neccessary for a well balanced learning expierience. This is why gym is called "Physical Education". Now what about computer game play? It's not physically athletic, but certain kinds of games do stimulate the mind. And with LAN play, you have the opportunity to teach teamwork skills. I'd be against school sponsored "Resident Evil" tournaments, but what if a computer strategy game could be created that could teach kids to think on multiple levels? A game that didn't involve blowing things all to hell, but required good motor skills and teamwork as well? A game that was truly a kind of teaching tool. That kind of scenario I'd be in favor of. It would be a great way to have team challenges as well.
Has anyone ever tried to compile stats on security holes in browsers? What I'd like to see is a comparison of browsers in this case, with each version listed with the various vulnerabilities found? Obviously, IE is going to come out on top here, but I'd be interested to see such a list anyway. I've looked around the SANS site and didn't see anything like that. I'd even settle for a short summary. Something like IE has X amount of holes, Netscape has Y amount of holes, Opera has Z amount, and so on.
What? There are institutions in Washington D.C. that put forward only a certain viewpoint? Jesus, why are people surprised at this? And before I hear any swill about them all being tools of conservatives and business, there are liberal leaning think tanks as well (the Brookings Institution, the Center for Science and the Public Interest, etc). There are good institutes and bad on both sides. Some are nothing more than paid hacks, but some of the best minds in the world work for these institutes. For every De Toquville institute, you're going to have a Public Citizen type organization to oppose it.
You are indeed a coward. You wont give a name, nor will you give the country that we Hellish, awful Americans have so aggrieved. Tell me Anonymous, what is it that we Yanks have done to garner so much ill will, hmm? Is it that we're the "leader of the free world"? Can someone else do a better job? There HAS to be one. Nature abhors a vacuum. SOME country was going to step up and lead. We are by no means always perfect or right in what we do, but I refuse to apologize for my country anymore. And I'm damn tired of little trolls like yourself that bitch and howl in rage at us, and for what? What truly democratic country have we ever picked a fight with? Do we exert influence across the world? Of course we do. Only a nation of fools would not. What world power has ever refused to use it's influence, and remained a world power? As I said, there has to be someone. You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States, and not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. We ARE the freeest nation in the world, and want to influence other nations to be as well. Don't like it? By all means, protest and suggest something different then. Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
I'm not even going to give my personal opinion on filtering or child porn. No, what I want is an answer, a definitive answer to the question of federal funds vs rights. The governments position was that if the libraries took federal money, they had to use the filtering software. The judges ruled this was a violation of the first ammendment, federal funds or no.
So what makes this different from other situations where federal money is handed out? The general rule over the years has been, if you take federal dollars, you abide by the federal will, even if it means local and individual authority and autonomy is thrown out. This is why laws like Title IX were enacted. How many universities were forced to do something, such as admit women or increase minority enrollment, because they were taking federal funds, be it direct grants or student aid?
And now the court tosses that reasoning on it's head. Rights come first, even if federal dollars are involved. I want clarity here. I want the courts to rule, one way or the other. Does taking the money take precedence over rights and local autonomy, or vice versa? A definitive legal answer, please.
Where to start with this tripe? Let's begin with the notion that the studios, or any enterprise for that matter, has no right to complain if they are successful and have attained great wealth. Sorry, but the Great Socialist Utopia went to/dev/hell in the late 80's and early 90's. Wealth is not inherently wrong, and it's usually those that are pissed that it wasn't handed to them complaining the loudest about it. Next, let's tackle the notion that independant filmmakers are automatically getting the short end of the stick. Here's a fact. Studios want to make money. Studios are going to seek out people they think can make lots of money for them. This implies that they want people that will make movies people will LIKE. This is why they hire people like James Cameron, George Lucas, etc. And it seems they have a pretty good track record in providing the kind of fare the public wants. Do they always get it right? Of course not. Lucas, visionary that he is, has made some stinkers (Howard the Duck comes to mind). But Hollywood would be bankrupt if they weren't doing something right. As for the independants? There are plenty of venues for the display of their works, Sundance first and foremost. Looking back, I see many independants that used these venues, got noticed, and then became "majory players". Quinton Tarentino, Robert Rodgiguez are good examples. Has it ever occured to this man that perhaps too few people like his films for them to get truly major distribution? There's are words for what he's feeling, and they're as old as man himself; envy, and jealousy. And, what of his IMPLIED notion that because he's "independant" he has a right for exposure of his films? Sorry, see the Socialist comment above. This is just one more Euro-Leftist angry that the Revolution never came. The fact that this story came from the Gaurdian should have tipped folks off to that right away. There may be plenty of crap from Hollywood in my opinion and yours, but ours is not the only opinion. I may despise "Steel Magnolias", but there are plenty of people that genuinely like it, and will pay money to see it. This model in action is called a Market, and I suspect this is what Cox most despises.
Has there ever been a definitive legal ruling at high levels on this debate? I'm still forming my opinions on this one. If anyone knows of a legal judgement summary on this subject online, I'd be grateful for a link. I'd like to see the pro and con opinions on this one from you guys, too.
Here's where I got the quote on the Naval PostGrad school link to the game.... http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-921144.ht ml
Quoting the story; "Commander Brian Osborne, a Naval Post-Graduate School student who developed the software engine for "Soldiers" as his doctoral thesis..."
So it seems at least part of the game was independantly developed, unless this story is in error. Most academic theses are available to the public; I would think that's also true of the NPS, although I could be wrong. If the public COULD get the source, that would certainly be very interesting to have a look at....
There may be a chance that the military can be convinced to release the source. Didn't they say the rendering engine was developed for a PhD thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School? It might be available in and of itself, in that case. Someone should look into this.
No consistant humor or sex on TNG? Riker was almost as big a horndog as Kirk. TNG not as loved as the TOS? You're welcome to your opinion, but I wonder what series you've been watching? Doesn't sound like the TNG I remember. As for the bashing of Episode 1, I have to agree with Lucas. A lot of it was coming from "37 year old men that didn't like Jar Jar Binks". He correctly pointed out that these same guys also though C3P0 was lame. It was overhyped, but let's face it, a lot of it kicked ass (the Qui Gon/ObiWan/Maul fight alone was worth the price of admission). Also, I think you'll get a bit of an arguement that ESB is the best of the first trilogy. Sorry, it was really good, but Star Wars (IV, New Hope) was Revolutionary. There is a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmmmm....No. The only situation in which the GPL would be the ideal license for a goverment is one where that government has no enemies, and no threats. Sorry, I just finished looking around, and didn't find any of those. All goverments have a legitimate right (and indeed, even a responisbility) to keep some information secret for national security purposes, as well as for other threats, such as criminal actions (the mob hacking into a government server, for instance). That's my big problem with using the GPL in government systems. For some agencies, such as the department of defense, and the department of justice, we need a license that would allow innovations in security, without the obligation to make it public. If say, the Navy develops a version of BSD that's super-secure, and adds some features specifically for use on warships, how eager do you think they're going to be to publish the source code? I've never bought the arguement that Security through Obscurity is dead. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I don't care how smart or talented you are. The less you know about a system to start out with, the harder it's going to be to crack it. MS isn't really a closed system. Windows code has been distributed to various business partners (which has no doubt been obtained by theives, via industrial espionage), and I'm pretty sure really good hackers have found ways to reverse-engineer Windows all along. If the very distribution of install disks is restricted to selected personnel, security becomes that much better. So, while I like the idea of MORE openess in code use, and the adherence to standards, I cannot agree with the blanket adoption of the GPL for government use. For some govermnet use, sure, but not across the board. That rules out Linux in the DOD. NSA has been developing Secure Linux, but it has, and will likely remain, an experiment. What I think is likely to happen is that the U.S. govermnet will probably develop a non-GPL'd Unix at some point, for use in secure situations.I see Linux in a lot of other government agencies though, especially local government.
A couple of years ago, I attented a seminar on computer security, with Prof. Gene Spafford as the featured speaker. He runs the CERIUS institute at Purde University, and was talking about why MS products had such poor security properties. Quoting him, "Microsoft has world class security people. Unfortunately, the marketing department rules that company". So I would indeed concur with your assesment about why NT isn't as good as it COULD be.
Out of curiosity, what is the process involved in appealing these disputes? I see that some have taken ICANN to court, but doesn't ICANN have international authority in assigning these names? If I was a citizen of, oh, say Egypt, how much authority would Egyptian courts have over ICANN? Ultimately, what legal recourse does one really have when getting an unfavorable ruling from this body?
...is that far fewer Japanese own homes than Americans do. Americans typicaly spend much more money on things like mortgages, cars, and insurance than the Japanese do. Costs of things like real estate are just too prohibitive for the average worker there. So they typically spend more of their income on the "latest and greatest" electronics than we do. The Betamax took off in Japan, but not here, and Sony couldn't understand why. Because Americans went "look, the VHS works fine, and I'd rather buy the bigger house. Thanks, but no thanks". It's not only a cultural difference, but an economic one as well.
Mom! Taco left the door open again, and there's a troll in the house! You just wait 'till Dad gets home!
Oh, he shouldn't be reading /. ? When did you get to decide this? Whether or not you like it, people here have a whole range of opinions. Better get used to it, Comrade.......
"Anonymous Coward"....how richly that label fits you, whoever you are...along with "Troll", that is.
Why is Bill Gates laughing? Because everytime he reads a post like this, he know's Linux users are fighting half of his battle for him. It's thinking like this guy's that chaps my ass. I wish people like this would understand one thing; there is no required consensus about much of anything in the Linux community. I got into Linux because I liked Unix, and I liked the volunteerism aspect of Linux. The first time I'm expected to submit to some quasi-religous code, I'm out, and headed to FreeBSD land. "United Linux has become our enemy..." What a crock of shit. Do you know how that sounds? He sounds like some Al Queada outfit, pointing fingers at the "unbelievers" in our midst. There are as many differing opinions among us as any other group. We should NOT allow Linux to become a "priesthood", where only believers in the Purer Faith can practice.
Ok, obviously I don't know enough about the GPL or I wouldn't have to ask this....does the GPL only require that source is available? Or does it also require binaries to be freely available as well? If there is no binary requirement, then Caldera hasn't violated the GPL. You may not like their position, but again, if that's what the GPL says, then Caldera's in the clear. If not, all of you budding Lawrence Lessigs out there have one hell of a class action case awaiting you.
Now about per seat licensing. Again, does the GPL specifically forbid that? Same point as above. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the GPL prohibits it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will helpfully point it out.
I have my doubts about whether United Linux will succeed. Frankly, as much as I hate it, I think we're heading for an era where the only linux vendors remaining will be Red Hat, Mandrake, and Debian. I think this because 1) Red Hat has taken virtually all the mindshare from business, 2) Mandrake is sold in places like Wal Mart, Kmart, etc, where interested newbies think 30 dollars is a bargain for an operating system (and their development costs are low, as Mandrake basically IS Red Hat), 3) Debian will always be the home of the die-hard open source/free software users. Why is there not more pure linux commercial success? Because the GPL makes selling software a losing issue. HP, IBM, and soon Sun will basically make Linux a commodity, a value added product to get customers "inside", as a way to get them to eventually buy thier proprietary products. Basically, the same thing MS did with IE and is now doing with its media player and messaging. That's why they're charging little or nothing. Red Hat has only recently made a profit. To continue to do so, they'll have to hold on to that mindshare and hope that other linux companies continue to die off (joining stormlinux, Corel's linux product, etc). I don't think we'll see consolodation as much as we'll just see attrition. Besides, Red Hat can no longer really be called a "linux" company. They've wisely diversified to the point where they don't have to depend on linux alone. Caldera is trying the same thing with Volution, but I fear it's too late for them. If it wasn't for that overwhelming mindshare, Red Hat would be in just as tenuous a position as their competitors. I think they're still going to have to claw, scratch, and reach for further profits. TurboLinux is not long for this world I think. Suse has longer because of their European following, and perhaps they can survive there. But they'll never be a force here.
You're kidding, right? With the exception of the hard sciences, academics are some of the worst purveyors of "my opinion is right". And even physicists, chemists, etc, sometimes let their personal opinions color their work. There is no such thing as unbiased thinking, only honestly held opinions and faith (for whatever reason) in your position/belifes.
I've long been a proponent of stronger ethics education for our students, especially in the internet age. The problem is, we're still in the middle of a civil war of sorts concerning what is and is not ethical on the internet. Is distributing MP3's to the masses without authorization unethical? I would certainly think so, but others will argue till their last breath that the times they are a 'changin, and that people like me will just have to get over it. In short, we have to come to an agreement at what ethics are before we can teach them. This is what is REALLY needed. How do we do this? Damn good question. Congressional hearings? Blue Ribbon panel? There's lots of chattering in places like /. among the tech crowd, but we need a truly universal debate to settle these issues. Otherwise, things will proceed as they've been, and all of these issues will have to continue to be settled in the courts.
They'll spend a lot of time keeping it patched, but if they're willing to, so what? It's probably NT 4, but that's not real surprising. Not everyone is a Unix/Linux admin. However, since it seems they have a good deal of cash, if they want ease of administration and security, the fast and easy road to a better server would be OSX.
Usually, the connection is not hardwired, but transmitted from one site to another. I'm an IT Manager at a regional airport, and that's the system we use. We have a large Air Force base only 10 minutes away, and they got expensive upgrades before we did, so they basically just transmit their ATC data on over to us via microwave. This is not unusual. This kind of resource sharing is pretty common between military and civilian installations. We have have an Air National Guard squadron here as well, and we also share resources with them (firefighting in particular). It just makes more sense that way.
As for the new ATC system, I think any kind of mission critical system should be Unix based. As much as I like Linux, I'd still feel better with a QNX type system that goes down perhaps once a year or so. You have to wonder what the procurement people are thinking sometimes.....
Given the fact that lots of games are violent, I think most parents would put the kibosh on this. However, the concept is not in itself a bad one. Think about it. Schools are places for learning, and it's long been thought that certain kinds of play are healthy and neccessary for a well balanced learning expierience. This is why gym is called "Physical Education". Now what about computer game play? It's not physically athletic, but certain kinds of games do stimulate the mind. And with LAN play, you have the opportunity to teach teamwork skills. I'd be against school sponsored "Resident Evil" tournaments, but what if a computer strategy game could be created that could teach kids to think on multiple levels? A game that didn't involve blowing things all to hell, but required good motor skills and teamwork as well? A game that was truly a kind of teaching tool. That kind of scenario I'd be in favor of. It would be a great way to have team challenges as well.
Has anyone ever tried to compile stats on security holes in browsers? What I'd like to see is a comparison of browsers in this case, with each version listed with the various vulnerabilities found? Obviously, IE is going to come out on top here, but I'd be interested to see such a list anyway. I've looked around the SANS site and didn't see anything like that. I'd even settle for a short summary. Something like IE has X amount of holes, Netscape has Y amount of holes, Opera has Z amount, and so on.
What? There are institutions in Washington D.C. that put forward only a certain viewpoint? Jesus, why are people surprised at this? And before I hear any swill about them all being tools of conservatives and business, there are liberal leaning think tanks as well (the Brookings Institution, the Center for Science and the Public Interest, etc). There are good institutes and bad on both sides. Some are nothing more than paid hacks, but some of the best minds in the world work for these institutes. For every De Toquville institute, you're going to have a Public Citizen type organization to oppose it.
You are indeed a coward. You wont give a name, nor will you give the country that we Hellish, awful Americans have so aggrieved. Tell me Anonymous, what is it that we Yanks have done to garner so much ill will, hmm? Is it that we're the "leader of the free world"? Can someone else do a better job? There HAS to be one. Nature abhors a vacuum. SOME country was going to step up and lead. We are by no means always perfect or right in what we do, but I refuse to apologize for my country anymore. And I'm damn tired of little trolls like yourself that bitch and howl in rage at us, and for what? What truly democratic country have we ever picked a fight with? Do we exert influence across the world? Of course we do. Only a nation of fools would not. What world power has ever refused to use it's influence, and remained a world power? As I said, there has to be someone. You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States, and not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. We ARE the freeest nation in the world, and want to influence other nations to be as well. Don't like it? By all means, protest and suggest something different then. Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
I'm not even going to give my personal opinion on filtering or child porn. No, what I want is an answer, a definitive answer to the question of federal funds vs rights. The governments position was that if the libraries took federal money, they had to use the filtering software. The judges ruled this was a violation of the first ammendment, federal funds or no.
So what makes this different from other situations where federal money is handed out? The general rule over the years has been, if you take federal dollars, you abide by the federal will, even if it means local and individual authority and autonomy is thrown out. This is why laws like Title IX were enacted. How many universities were forced to do something, such as admit women or increase minority enrollment, because they were taking federal funds, be it direct grants or student aid?
And now the court tosses that reasoning on it's head. Rights come first, even if federal dollars are involved. I want clarity here. I want the courts to rule, one way or the other. Does taking the money take precedence over rights and local autonomy, or vice versa? A definitive legal answer, please.
Where to start with this tripe? Let's begin with the notion that the studios, or any enterprise for that matter, has no right to complain if they are successful and have attained great wealth. Sorry, but the Great Socialist Utopia went to /dev/hell in the late 80's and early 90's. Wealth is not inherently wrong, and it's usually those that are pissed that it wasn't handed to them complaining the loudest about it. Next, let's tackle the notion that independant filmmakers are automatically getting the short end of the stick. Here's a fact. Studios want to make money. Studios are going to seek out people they think can make lots of money for them. This implies that they want people that will make movies people will LIKE. This is why they hire people like James Cameron, George Lucas, etc. And it seems they have a pretty good track record in providing the kind of fare the public wants. Do they always get it right? Of course not. Lucas, visionary that he is, has made some stinkers (Howard the Duck comes to mind). But Hollywood would be bankrupt if they weren't doing something right. As for the independants? There are plenty of venues for the display of their works, Sundance first and foremost. Looking back, I see many independants that used these venues, got noticed, and then became "majory players". Quinton Tarentino, Robert Rodgiguez are good examples. Has it ever occured to this man that perhaps too few people like his films for them to get truly major distribution? There's are words for what he's feeling, and they're as old as man himself; envy, and jealousy. And, what of his IMPLIED notion that because he's "independant" he has a right for exposure of his films? Sorry, see the Socialist comment above. This is just one more Euro-Leftist angry that the Revolution never came. The fact that this story came from the Gaurdian should have tipped folks off to that right away. There may be plenty of crap from Hollywood in my opinion and yours, but ours is not the only opinion. I may despise "Steel Magnolias", but there are plenty of people that genuinely like it, and will pay money to see it. This model in action is called a Market, and I suspect this is what Cox most despises.
Has there ever been a definitive legal ruling at high levels on this debate? I'm still forming my opinions on this one. If anyone knows of a legal judgement summary on this subject online, I'd be grateful for a link. I'd like to see the pro and con opinions on this one from you guys, too.
Here's where I got the quote on the Naval PostGrad school link to the game....t ml
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-921144.h
Quoting the story;
"Commander Brian Osborne, a Naval Post-Graduate School student who developed the software engine for "Soldiers" as his doctoral thesis..."
So it seems at least part of the game was independantly developed, unless this story is in error. Most academic theses are available to the public; I would think that's also true of the NPS, although I could be wrong. If the public COULD get the source, that would certainly be very interesting to have a look at....
I just wish the Navy would do a Harpoon type game....
There may be a chance that the military can be convinced to release the source. Didn't they say the rendering engine was developed for a PhD thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School? It might be available in and of itself, in that case. Someone should look into this.
No consistant humor or sex on TNG? Riker was almost as big a horndog as Kirk. TNG not as loved as the TOS? You're welcome to your opinion, but I wonder what series you've been watching? Doesn't sound like the TNG I remember. As for the bashing of Episode 1, I have to agree with Lucas. A lot of it was coming from "37 year old men that didn't like Jar Jar Binks". He correctly pointed out that these same guys also though C3P0 was lame. It was overhyped, but let's face it, a lot of it kicked ass (the Qui Gon/ObiWan/Maul fight alone was worth the price of admission). Also, I think you'll get a bit of an arguement that ESB is the best of the first trilogy. Sorry, it was really good, but Star Wars (IV, New Hope) was Revolutionary. There is a difference.