This is Slashdot; I don't click on questionable links, even if they're on the main page. I can think of one very good reason why I don't blindly click links;)
I'm not sure if anyone notice the link to "a certain domain" but why would Ford take issue with a disparaging site about one of its competitors (General Motors)?
In the inevitable event that thousands of simultaneous requests for an 870k+ file Slashdots the site, I'm going to post the entire image here in ASCII format.
Your analogy is flawed. This has nothing to do with any implied contract between the publisher of the content and the viewer of that content. In fact, it has nothing to do with the viewer at all.
The publisher of the content is in a contract with the supplier of the ads, probably something that sounds like "ad-supplier-X will give $Y to Publisher_Z per each hundred ads displayed on their site." When something (in this case, Gator) interferes with that contract, a lawsuit is most appropriate.
Re:network of radios, sounds like a ...
on
Field Day 2002
·
· Score: 1
"...small, relatively cheap, devices..."
I used to do yard work for a HAM, and believe you me, that stuff was anything BUT "small" and "relatively cheap", like that 50ft. tower in his back yard, for one.
"1. In the US, "Free speech" is a RIGHT, not a privilege."
We're not talking about a site in the US. We're talking about a Dutch judge, making a decision about a Dutch site, which has links to a German site. In no way shape or form do US rights apply here.
I think the point here, though (If I read correctly) is that the links in question were not linking directly to the offending articles.
I wouldn't have any problem with banning links to those specific articles, but to censor links to Indymedia in general (dislike them as I do) doesn't sound right to me.
A side note to consider on this might be whether or not there is a "free speech" right in the Netherlands.
It sounds like you're not a programmer, because if you were, you'd know there are many other factors that can contribute to security vulnerabilities than programming bugs.
Included in this are design flaws, development platform limitations, and a host of other factors that I'm not going to bore you with. To say the problem is limited to just programming bugs oversimplifies it, and potentially doesn't address the real problem.
That's not to say that bugs don't contribute to security vulnerabilities, but this article, I believe, was written to take many factors, not just bugs, into consideration.
I hate to nitpick, but for a post modded as Insightful, it may be relevant to note that this story is about SECURITY in open vs. closed source software, not BUGS. A totally different kind of discussion.
All great points, but you have to recognize that in the majority of cases, it isn't the "obscure" music that people are downloading with these tools. I hate to start this argument again, but we all know that most of the music traded using these programs is mainstream, copyrighted material that users download because they don't want to pay for it.
I'm all about freely trading music by artists without ties to the RIAA, because in most cases, that works to the advantage of the artists. However it's when you cross over to the material owned by the RIAA that you ask for trouble.
Perhaps artists would be better off without these labels (a discussion for another day) but if they want to give up their rights (and their material) to the labels who don't care for anything but the bottom line and restrict the exposure of their music, ultimately it's their choice to do so.
Call me what you will (a troll, probably), but am I the only one here noticing how people are equating the legitimacy of AudioGalaxy with the end of its usefulness?
I'm not saying that getting pushed around by the xxAA's is a good thing, and sure, AG will now probably go the way of Napster. But really, folks, if the OSS community is going to gain standing (and a measure of its own legetimacy, I suppose) in the public eye, it really should stop blindly backing causes rooted primarily in software and music piracy, and start working on projects that are legally bullet-proof. That way, we can have software that is both useful And legal!
If you consider these terms to be mutually exclusive, your efforts will be an exercise in futility.
I modded this down because I take exception to the assertion that anyone who does not "work without pay" isn't a "Good American." I'm sorry, but there is far more to being a "Good American" than buying into the socialist Utopian ideal that everything can and should be given away. I guess I'm not "selfless" enough, nor do I have enough "goodwill" but neither of those put food on the table, pal.
Mod me down if you like. I'm not using my +1 bonus because this isn't intended to further this absurdity of a discussion. But I did not post as AC, because I'm man enough to face those I find incorrect.
"To think of the legions of rednecks who could now possibly be running Lindows instead of Windows..."
It sounds funny, but just wait till they buy and try to install something made for Windows. Much to their surprise, it won't work, and they'll be calling up Wal-Mart asking them what kind of shinanigans they were trying to pull.
Now I haven't seen the packaging for these Lindows PCs, but I'd be willing to bet that some people COULD be confused into believing they're in fact buying a Windows PC. When they do discover their error, they'll think they were suckered into buying some kind of like a cheap knock-off (don't have the exact appropriate Simpsons quote).
If that happens, it's probably not the kind of PR that Lindows is looking for. Both Lindows and Wal-Mart have to be very careful to make sure the differences between Windows and Lindows are clearly explained.
In today's idealistic, PC, don't-offend-at-all-costs world, people have forgotten that business runs on its employees' performance, not on their principles. Not always the most honest or honorable approach, granted (Enron, anyone?), but that's just how business is.
If I'm going to worry about my boss because being offended because I feel that my value is not reflected in my salary, I probably don't want to work for a person like that to begin with.
Most of my point is in the subject line. If an employer is willing to pay me more to stay with the company, it tells me that I'm not currently being paid what I'm worth to the company. It does not mean that I have unreasonable expectations; if that were the case, the company simply wouldn't make a counter-offer, and let me go work for the other company.
" To suggest that the Intranet Strike Force (the groups of contractors lead by EDS) is going to make a profit in selling off old 386s, 486s, and P90s while replacing them with P800s is ridiculous."
Very correct, but in my office, the standard machine is a Pentium III 500. And it's not like EDS is GIVING the Navy anything; they are renting their hardware and services out, with just about zero overhead.
What about for the Linux-handicapped (Windows users)? I'd love to save the Navy a few bux if I can get something for free that can make.PDFs on a Win2k machine.
Yeah, seems kind of silly now that I think about how I worded that. I knew who EDS was, but in all honesty I didn't know about the Ross Perot part. The funny thing is, I bet the majority of my co-workers are unaware of that connection as well:)
I would be interested in some of these (apparent) 3rd party tools for creating.PDF files. Pardon my ignorance, but I figured that if Adobe was charging as much as they do (whatever it is) for Acrobat, then the likelihood of a free product that does the same thing seemed rather remote.
As I have mentioned before, I work for the Department of the Navy, and I have seen some deals in progress around here that perhaps is worthy of some scrutiny.
Recently the DoN signed a contract with a company called EDS to essentially transfer all ownership of the Navy and Marine Corps intranet over to this private-sector company. When this transition occurs, all but a few servers, and all DoN workstations and networking hardware will become EDS property. EDS will be replacing it with their own, and sell the old equipment, surely at a profit.
Aside from the several million dollars EDS stands to get from the government contract, they stand to make a pretty penny on some absurd service contracts, let alone what they are getting for selling off our old equipment.
I suspect this is another instance of back-scratching (you know, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours) that makes no business sense at all. Perhaps this warrants some closer attention as well.
I don't think you represent the majority of Napster users, who used it to download songs they otherwise didn't want to pay for. It had nothing to do with inaccessibility.
That said, I agree with your stance on distributors vs. entertainers (I refuse to call them artists). All it is is a legalized form of prostitution.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Slashdot; I don't click on questionable links, even if they're on the main page. I can think of one very good reason why I don't blindly click links ;)
Editors, you might want to check that link.
...or I'm not.
The publisher of the content is in a contract with the supplier of the ads, probably something that sounds like "ad-supplier-X will give $Y to Publisher_Z per each hundred ads displayed on their site." When something (in this case, Gator) interferes with that contract, a lawsuit is most appropriate.
"...small, relatively cheap, devices..."
I used to do yard work for a HAM, and believe you me, that stuff was anything BUT "small" and "relatively cheap", like that 50ft. tower in his back yard, for one.
One thing:
"1. In the US, "Free speech" is a RIGHT, not a privilege."
We're not talking about a site in the US. We're talking about a Dutch judge, making a decision about a Dutch site, which has links to a German site. In no way shape or form do US rights apply here.
I think the point here, though (If I read correctly) is that the links in question were not linking directly to the offending articles.
I wouldn't have any problem with banning links to those specific articles, but to censor links to Indymedia in general (dislike them as I do) doesn't sound right to me.
A side note to consider on this might be whether or not there is a "free speech" right in the Netherlands.
It sounds like you're not a programmer, because if you were, you'd know there are many other factors that can contribute to security vulnerabilities than programming bugs.
Included in this are design flaws, development platform limitations, and a host of other factors that I'm not going to bore you with. To say the problem is limited to just programming bugs oversimplifies it, and potentially doesn't address the real problem.
That's not to say that bugs don't contribute to security vulnerabilities, but this article, I believe, was written to take many factors, not just bugs, into consideration.
I hate to nitpick, but for a post modded as Insightful, it may be relevant to note that this story is about SECURITY in open vs. closed source software, not BUGS. A totally different kind of discussion.
All great points, but you have to recognize that in the majority of cases, it isn't the "obscure" music that people are downloading with these tools. I hate to start this argument again, but we all know that most of the music traded using these programs is mainstream, copyrighted material that users download because they don't want to pay for it.
I'm all about freely trading music by artists without ties to the RIAA, because in most cases, that works to the advantage of the artists. However it's when you cross over to the material owned by the RIAA that you ask for trouble.
Perhaps artists would be better off without these labels (a discussion for another day) but if they want to give up their rights (and their material) to the labels who don't care for anything but the bottom line and restrict the exposure of their music, ultimately it's their choice to do so.
Call me what you will (a troll, probably), but am I the only one here noticing how people are equating the legitimacy of AudioGalaxy with the end of its usefulness?
I'm not saying that getting pushed around by the xxAA's is a good thing, and sure, AG will now probably go the way of Napster. But really, folks, if the OSS community is going to gain standing (and a measure of its own legetimacy, I suppose) in the public eye, it really should stop blindly backing causes rooted primarily in software and music piracy, and start working on projects that are legally bullet-proof. That way, we can have software that is both useful And legal!
If you consider these terms to be mutually exclusive, your efforts will be an exercise in futility.
I modded this down because I take exception to the assertion that anyone who does not "work without pay" isn't a "Good American." I'm sorry, but there is far more to being a "Good American" than buying into the socialist Utopian ideal that everything can and should be given away. I guess I'm not "selfless" enough, nor do I have enough "goodwill" but neither of those put food on the table, pal.
Mod me down if you like. I'm not using my +1 bonus because this isn't intended to further this absurdity of a discussion. But I did not post as AC, because I'm man enough to face those I find incorrect.
They must have realized how well it's worked for McAfee and Symantec and decided to give it a go themselves :)
"To think of the legions of rednecks who could now possibly be running Lindows instead of Windows..."
It sounds funny, but just wait till they buy and try to install something made for Windows. Much to their surprise, it won't work, and they'll be calling up Wal-Mart asking them what kind of shinanigans they were trying to pull.
Now I haven't seen the packaging for these Lindows PCs, but I'd be willing to bet that some people COULD be confused into believing they're in fact buying a Windows PC. When they do discover their error, they'll think they were suckered into buying some kind of like a cheap knock-off (don't have the exact appropriate Simpsons quote).
If that happens, it's probably not the kind of PR that Lindows is looking for. Both Lindows and Wal-Mart have to be very careful to make sure the differences between Windows and Lindows are clearly explained.
In today's idealistic, PC, don't-offend-at-all-costs world, people have forgotten that business runs on its employees' performance, not on their principles. Not always the most honest or honorable approach, granted (Enron, anyone?), but that's just how business is.
If I'm going to worry about my boss because being offended because I feel that my value is not reflected in my salary, I probably don't want to work for a person like that to begin with.
Most of my point is in the subject line. If an employer is willing to pay me more to stay with the company, it tells me that I'm not currently being paid what I'm worth to the company. It does not mean that I have unreasonable expectations; if that were the case, the company simply wouldn't make a counter-offer, and let me go work for the other company.
Nope, went to mozilla.org, hit refresh, and the top story is still "Moving Towards 1.0 - 30 May"
:) Or I could just go to the link published in the story :)
Oh well, I've waited this long, what's a few more hours
...then why do they still have RC3 listed as the latest build on their site?
" To suggest that the Intranet Strike Force (the groups of contractors lead by EDS) is going to make a profit in selling off old 386s, 486s, and P90s while replacing them with P800s is ridiculous."
Very correct, but in my office, the standard machine is a Pentium III 500. And it's not like EDS is GIVING the Navy anything; they are renting their hardware and services out, with just about zero overhead.
What about for the Linux-handicapped (Windows users)? I'd love to save the Navy a few bux if I can get something for free that can make .PDFs on a Win2k machine.
Yeah, seems kind of silly now that I think about how I worded that. I knew who EDS was, but in all honesty I didn't know about the Ross Perot part. The funny thing is, I bet the majority of my co-workers are unaware of that connection as well :)
I would be interested in some of these (apparent) 3rd party tools for creating .PDF files. Pardon my ignorance, but I figured that if Adobe was charging as much as they do (whatever it is) for Acrobat, then the likelihood of a free product that does the same thing seemed rather remote.
If you think that's bad, you should know that the government is moving more and more towards storing documents in Adobe .PDF format.
It's not the same as MS, but certainly every bit as proprietary.
As I have mentioned before, I work for the Department of the Navy, and I have seen some deals in progress around here that perhaps is worthy of some scrutiny.
Recently the DoN signed a contract with a company called EDS to essentially transfer all ownership of the Navy and Marine Corps intranet over to this private-sector company. When this transition occurs, all but a few servers, and all DoN workstations and networking hardware will become EDS property. EDS will be replacing it with their own, and sell the old equipment, surely at a profit.
Aside from the several million dollars EDS stands to get from the government contract, they stand to make a pretty penny on some absurd service contracts, let alone what they are getting for selling off our old equipment.
I suspect this is another instance of back-scratching (you know, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours) that makes no business sense at all. Perhaps this warrants some closer attention as well.
I don't think you represent the majority of Napster users, who used it to download songs they otherwise didn't want to pay for. It had nothing to do with inaccessibility.
That said, I agree with your stance on distributors vs. entertainers (I refuse to call them artists). All it is is a legalized form of prostitution.