> You can always install the "vanilla sources" > kernel, but come on - don't you want to experience > the latest experimental performance patches to the > kernel?
If you're not a beginner patching and compiling your own custom kernel will be trivial regardless of the distribution.
> The user can then decide for themselves if they > choose to trust AOL's ranking system and simply > auto-delete anything flagged, or if they want to > inspect it themselves.
The user can decide for himself whether or not to use AOL at all. By choosing to use AOL he chooses to accept AOL's filters. There's no censorship here.
> For that matter, would you trust a network made > entirely of network devices that everyone and > their brother contributed, with those devices able > to come and go like thieves in the night?
Would you trust a network controlled by the likes of Worldcom, Verizon, and SBC?
> There is fundamentally only so much bandwidth in > the air, and it is not enough to support > ubiquitous wireless use.
Even with current technology the technical limit on bandwidth is orders of magnitude larger than the the political one. UWB will make even more bandwidth available. Scarcity of bandwidth is a political artifact.
However, they have violated the DMCA by failing to verify that the file they are demanding be taken down is in fact an unauthorized copy of a work owned by one of their customers. They will never be prosecuted, though, no matter how many times they do this.
> The financial year in the US starts on April 1, right?
No. A corporation's fiscal year starts whenever the corporation says it does (though it's hard to change once established). An individual's fiscal year starts on Jan 1. The Federal government's fiscal year starts on Oct 1.
> No. Copyright trumps the First Amendment every time.
Wrong, and there is massive case law in support. The Amendments are _amendments_: changes to what preceded them. When an Amendment contradicts something in the body of the Constitution the Amandment rules. That's the whole point.
> That's the reason why the framers of the > Constitution were careful to add copyright to > the main body of the Constitution and not to the > less authoritative Amendments.
They added the more authoritative Amendments for the purpose of altering the effect of the body.
Correct. I use no closed-source software on my computers (except the BIOS, which will get replaced with a LinuxBIOS ASAP).
> You ever install RPMs or any binaries without > reading the source?
I regularly install Debian binary packages. However, I do so in the knowledge that someone else almost certainly _has_ read the source and that I could do so if I wished.
> Are you qualified to find any security problems > with it?
I am qualified to find some security problems, yes. More importantly, however, I benefit from the efforts of others to do so.
> To imply you don't want to run it soley because > you can't see the source that you admit you > wouldn't understand, qualifies you as a bonified > troll.
No. It implies that he realizes that a major benefit of Free Software is that it allows those who do not have the skills to read the source to benefit from the efforts of those who do.
Not that easy. With Debian, at least, you will be asked for the root password. If the machine is set to boot from HD and a BIOS password is set you will have to open the case.
Or, in other words, just drop all the high-tech crap and go back to paper ballots. _Seriously_. It is not only necessary that the voting system be secure, it is necessary that it be seen to be so by ordinary citizens.
> With any spam list, there's a certain percentage > of "bad" or outdated email addresses.
Most of the spam I receive is addressed to users that never have and never will exist. It appears that the spammers simply make up long lists of usernames and then bombard domains with spams addressed to those users in the hope that some of the names will coincide with those of real people.
To add to the insult, most of these spams say "You are receiving this because you subscribed" or words to that effect.
> Now say no one realizes this for 18 months and > then the door is suddenly blow open and the execs > of the small company are totally against this > violation, and fire the employees in question and > remove the code in question from the OS.
It's the execs job to know what is going on and take responsibility. If they didn't they were negligent.
> Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed?
Anything they shipped that was a derivative of GPLd material should either be GPLd or all copies recalled and destroyed (unless they can purchase a license from the copyright owners).
> I would hope not!
What do you think would happen if the code in question belonged to Sun or Microsoft?
> Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted > material.
This is not true. Without a license you cannot copy or create derivatives of copyrighted material.
> With the GPL permission is granted to anyone to > use the software with those restrictions spelled > out in the agreement.
The GPL clearly states that use is outside it's scope. It applies only to distribution. As long as you do not distribute you can use GPL software without accepting the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
> You can always install the "vanilla sources"
> kernel, but come on - don't you want to experience
> the latest experimental performance patches to the
> kernel?
If you're not a beginner patching and compiling your own custom kernel will be trivial regardless of the distribution.
It's too late for you now, but you could have given them a false number.
> The user can then decide for themselves if they
> choose to trust AOL's ranking system and simply
> auto-delete anything flagged, or if they want to
> inspect it themselves.
The user can decide for himself whether or not to use AOL at all. By choosing to use AOL he chooses to accept AOL's filters. There's no censorship here.
Spamassassin stops about 99% of my spam. I've yet to see a false positive.
Use Debian, where man pages are required by policy.
Looks to me as if most of the money will go for hardware.
Of course, most software that is funded by government grants ends up as proprietary closed source...
> For that matter, would you trust a network made
> entirely of network devices that everyone and
> their brother contributed, with those devices able
> to come and go like thieves in the night?
Would you trust a network controlled by the likes of Worldcom, Verizon, and SBC?
> There is fundamentally only so much bandwidth in
> the air, and it is not enough to support
> ubiquitous wireless use.
Even with current technology the technical limit on bandwidth is orders of magnitude larger than the the political one. UWB will make even more bandwidth available. Scarcity of bandwidth is a political artifact.
However, they have violated the DMCA by failing to verify that the file they are demanding be taken down is in fact an unauthorized copy of a work owned by one of their customers. They will never be prosecuted, though, no matter how many times they do this.
You can't sue someone for perjury. You'd have to convince the US Justice Dept. to prosecute them for it. What do you think the chances are of that?
> The financial year in the US starts on April 1, right?
No. A corporation's fiscal year starts whenever the corporation says it does (though it's hard to change once established). An individual's fiscal year starts on Jan 1. The Federal government's fiscal year starts on Oct 1.
> We'll its easy enough to put that DRM in current
> BIOS'. In fact right now bios' can block/permit
> writting to the boot sector of a hard disk.
Care to explain how?
> No. Copyright trumps the First Amendment every time.
Wrong, and there is massive case law in support. The Amendments are _amendments_: changes to what preceded them. When an Amendment contradicts something in the body of the Constitution the Amandment rules. That's the whole point.
> That's the reason why the framers of the
> Constitution were careful to add copyright to
> the main body of the Constitution and not to the
> less authoritative Amendments.
They added the more authoritative Amendments for the purpose of altering the effect of the body.
> On Saturday, when you're a hung-over pile, go
> gandi.net and register a new domain.
But don't let them handle your DNS.
> It is software that is stored on a "protected"
> portion of the hard drive.
A _really_, _really_ bad idea.
You've not heard of the LinuxBIOS?
http://www.linuxbios.org/index.html
They are legal for one reason: journalistic interest in illustrating what the bootlegs look like. The First Amendment trumps copyright.
> So you don't use Windows then? Ever?
Correct. I use no closed-source software on my computers (except the BIOS, which will get replaced with a LinuxBIOS ASAP).
> You ever install RPMs or any binaries without
> reading the source?
I regularly install Debian binary packages. However, I do so in the knowledge that someone else almost certainly _has_ read the source and that I could do so if I wished.
> Are you qualified to find any security problems
> with it?
I am qualified to find some security problems, yes. More importantly, however, I benefit from the efforts of others to do so.
> To imply you don't want to run it soley because
> you can't see the source that you admit you
> wouldn't understand, qualifies you as a bonified
> troll.
No. It implies that he realizes that a major benefit of Free Software is that it allows those who do not have the skills to read the source to benefit from the efforts of those who do.
Not that easy. With Debian, at least, you will be asked for the root password. If the machine is set to boot from HD and a BIOS password is set you will have to open the case.
Or, in other words, just drop all the high-tech crap and go back to paper ballots. _Seriously_. It is not only necessary that the voting system be secure, it is necessary that it be seen to be so by ordinary citizens.
> So these guys found a way to produce the hydrogen
> IN the fuel cell,
They are not the first to do that.
> thus effectively eliminating the problems in
> producing, storing and transporting the hydrogen.
Except that it appears that the garbage must first be processed into glucose and purified.
> With any spam list, there's a certain percentage
> of "bad" or outdated email addresses.
Most of the spam I receive is addressed to users that never have and never will exist. It appears that the spammers simply make up long lists of usernames and then bombard domains with spams addressed to those users in the hope that some of the names will coincide with those of real people.
To add to the insult, most of these spams say "You are receiving this because you subscribed" or words to that effect.
> Now say no one realizes this for 18 months and
> then the door is suddenly blow open and the execs
> of the small company are totally against this
> violation, and fire the employees in question and
> remove the code in question from the OS.
It's the execs job to know what is going on and take responsibility. If they didn't they were negligent.
> Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed?
Anything they shipped that was a derivative of GPLd material should either be GPLd or all copies recalled and destroyed (unless they can purchase a license from the copyright owners).
> I would hope not!
What do you think would happen if the code in question belonged to Sun or Microsoft?
> Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted
> material.
This is not true. Without a license you cannot copy or create derivatives of copyrighted material.
> With the GPL permission is granted to anyone to
> use the software with those restrictions spelled
> out in the agreement.
The GPL clearly states that use is outside it's scope. It applies only to distribution. As long as you do not distribute you can use GPL software without accepting the GPL.