Napster says its filters are now as good as technically possible, while the recording industry believes there are still identifiable holes that Napster is simply refusing to plug.
No they don't. The recording industry can hire programmers and consultants just like anybody else. They know full well there are no more holes. This is just an excuse to keep Napster shut down.
Slashdot did. Actually they were quoting some guy on MSNBC, I think. That's what I thought they meant when they said, "the estimate made a few months ago."
How could the number of genes in a human have any relation to religion?
You tell me.:)
What "fact" are you talking about?
By "fact" I meant the older, now purportedly inaccurate estimate. The post I was responding to said nothing was firm yet, so we shouldn't necessarily accept either estimate. My thought was, I wonder how many textbooks were printed during the time between the first estimate and the second.
Or are you disputing the whole theory of how genetic makeup relates to biology?
No. I think perhaps I wasn't clear, or you read a little too much into what I was saying, or you didn't quite have all the context available that I had in my mind (thinking of the slashdot story a few months ago).
You see, that's just the thing. A few months ago we were told there is no God because we didn't have many more genes than most animals. What does this finding signify?
So, yes, nothing is remotely firm, yet. How many textbooks has this "fact" made its way into while the truth awaited to be discovered?
In the meantime, it looks like a good PR person at Ohio State managed to make their findings seem more revolutionary than they are. Many discoveries supporting evolution have been that way, I've noticed.
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
If you can't abridge it, that means you can't shorten it, or make it smaller. That means you can't take away the right to free speech in the way the speaker chooses, anonymous, or whatever.
Nothing personal, sharkey, but that's really typical American thinking. Nobody can buy their own batteries anymore, they all expect the government to do it.
That was settled during the term of the fifth president of the United States when the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not tax the United States Bank for printing money.
Yeah, it would have felt good, but in retrospect, realize that Citron1313 existed for one day and has now either lost interest or gone on to a different nickname. I'm going to keep my eyes open for similar-sounding posts in the future, though. All those posts sort of followed a "formula."
The message we need to get to them is that intellectual property deserves to be respected.
When the educational establishment promotes a message that a significant minority disagrees with, that is indoctrination, not education. Not everyone feels that intellectual property deserves to be respected, like the BSA. The school system ought to teach good citizenship, but it doesn't have to assert that every law and philosophy is just.
I'd rather they send the same message Jack Webb did in Dragnet years ago: "We live in a democracy, a nation of laws. And when you don't like the laws, you don't break the laws. You work within the system to change the laws.
This post does not deserve Karma, since I didn't create anything myself.
Aha! Caught you. Thought you could slip that by, huh? Well, hey, buddy; you've been modded up at least 2 points so far. You can't get away with posting interesting content early in a thread without gaining karma, so don't even try.:)
My post is just a me, too message. Please don't mod it up for being funny or anything.
Linus may be from a Scandanavian country, but free software started at MIT.
You are at least as confused about this as you are what your employer does. (See the highly ranked comment about the stock brokerage firm and the hardware company.)
You're not by any chance sharing an Internet connection, are you? Just because you're limited to a single IP address doesn't mean you have to share userid's, too.
I read somewhere that Tom Christiansen (Perl author and trainer) only looks at the Internet through a carefully written Perl proxy, and only with images, applets, etc. turned off. That's they ideal way to block ads: have Perl rewrite the webpages before your browser ever sees them to completely remove the links to the ads.
prefs.js contains a comment at the top saying it is a generated file. What causes the file to be generated? Am I going to have to add this line again each time I change preferences from the edit menu? (I presume there is a user interface coming soon.)
My prefs.js file is in a subdirectory under my ~/.mozilla/ directory that seems to have no meaningful name. (It is apparently a random 8.3 filename.) Did I edit the right file? What gives with this directory?
Any info anyone could provide would be great.
I'm glad to find out 0.9.2 (which I just downloaded; guess what site I went to first.:) ) provides this functionality. This feature definitely belongs in the browser on my machine, not on the advertiser's server. If they want to make money advertising, they'll just have to find a more effective means of making sure I see it. Sucking up my 33.6 dialup bandwidth is not it.
Are there really people out there who refuse to use non-GPL's software or something?
No, it's not that. GPL-compatible doesn't mean "feature compatible." This doesn't mean Python is now under the GPL.
"GPL compatible" means software may be legally combined with software that is licensed under the GNU GPL. So, for example, a GPL'ed library can be included with Python with bindings to make a Python module. This is a good thing!
"GPL compatible" is about as confusing as "free software." (We all know the speech/beer analogy.) "GPL compatible" makes us think "license identical to the GPL." That's not actually the case.
No, UNIX has been around longer. Since ca. 1970, in fact. (Was Gates even born then? I wasn't.)
You do know Linux is basically UNIX, don't you?
UNIX was about as near to open source as possible when it first came out. You bought the source code on tape and figured out how to port it to your hardware yourself.
if incompatible libraries are found, the installation process should wrap its binaries in scripts which set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the necessary compatibility libraries (/usr/lib/compat) -- and they should be linked to _specifically by version_, so that different versions of compability libraries don't fight with each other.
Excellent plan. Just so everyone knows, though, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is rarely needed. In this case, it is only needed because the binaries are precompiled. If you ever have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, the software should be recompiled correctly!
I don't think we're going to see anything analogous to the DLL problem because most shared libraries use explicit versions. But I would love to get rid of the madness of being told to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to run software I just compiled! All you have to do is set LD_RUN_PATH during compilation. (See that link!) One notes that Perl's MakeMaker system always sets LD_RUN_PATH appropriately when compiling an extension module.
I found
this article on progress toward HAL interesting.
(The magazine looks pretty good, too. Incidentally,
the editors got a threatening letter from the velcro
corporation for not using the velcro trademark
properly.:) )
2600 broke the law, but the law is invalid if it breaks a higher law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the DMCA violates the constitution, then the court's job is to overturn that law. If that is the case, then 2600 did not break a law that they can be held liable for.
I'm unfamiliar with ipf specifically, but the GPL, modified BSD licenses and most other open source licenses cannot be revoked. So why does a change in license mean the software must be removed? Just consider the version existing in OpenBSD's CVS tree to be a forked version.
At least two people have posted the link to GNU's instructions for violations of the GPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html) However, the page explicitly states, "Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we do offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same.
But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation."
I'm unfamiliar with POSE, but I don't think it's part of the GNU project. So, the FSF might help the POSE copyright owner, but there's no help for us to go talking to FSF; go talk to the person(s) who wrote POSE!
Also, some have stated that Sony isn't violating the GPL because no one has asked for the source code. The GPL doesn't say, "Wait for someone to ask and then make it available"; it says, "Include with your distribution an offer to provide the source." Sony's not off the hook just because no one asked! Releasing binaries a couple of weeks before source code doesn't cut it, either.
Of course, all this is moot if this isn't really Sony's policy, but just someone making noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster says its filters are now as good as technically possible, while the recording industry believes there are still identifiable holes that Napster is simply refusing to plug.
No they don't. The recording industry can hire programmers and consultants just like anybody else. They know full well there are no more holes. This is just an excuse to keep Napster shut down.
Who the hell said that?
Slashdot did. Actually they were quoting some guy on MSNBC, I think. That's what I thought they meant when they said, "the estimate made a few months ago."
How could the number of genes in a human have any relation to religion?
You tell me. :)
What "fact" are you talking about?
By "fact" I meant the older, now purportedly inaccurate estimate. The post I was responding to said nothing was firm yet, so we shouldn't necessarily accept either estimate. My thought was, I wonder how many textbooks were printed during the time between the first estimate and the second.
Or are you disputing the whole theory of how genetic makeup relates to biology?
No. I think perhaps I wasn't clear, or you read a little too much into what I was saying, or you didn't quite have all the context available that I had in my mind (thinking of the slashdot story a few months ago).
You see, that's just the thing. A few months ago we were told there is no God because we didn't have many more genes than most animals. What does this finding signify?
So, yes, nothing is remotely firm, yet. How many textbooks has this "fact" made its way into while the truth awaited to be discovered?
In the meantime, it looks like a good PR person at Ohio State managed to make their findings seem more revolutionary than they are. Many discoveries supporting evolution have been that way, I've noticed.
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
If you can't abridge it, that means you can't shorten it, or make it smaller. That means you can't take away the right to free speech in the way the speaker chooses, anonymous, or whatever.
Nothing personal, sharkey, but that's really typical American thinking. Nobody can buy their own batteries anymore, they all expect the government to do it.
That was settled during the term of the fifth president of the United States when the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not tax the United States Bank for printing money.
Yeah, it would have felt good, but in retrospect, realize that Citron1313 existed for one day and has now either lost interest or gone on to a different nickname. I'm going to keep my eyes open for similar-sounding posts in the future, though. All those posts sort of followed a "formula."
Stallman's strategy was to use to copyright law, even though the law was causing him problems.
The message we need to get to them is that intellectual property deserves to be respected.
When the educational establishment promotes a message that a significant minority disagrees with, that is indoctrination, not education. Not everyone feels that intellectual property deserves to be respected, like the BSA. The school system ought to teach good citizenship, but it doesn't have to assert that every law and philosophy is just.
I'd rather they send the same message Jack Webb did in Dragnet years ago: "We live in a democracy, a nation of laws. And when you don't like the laws, you don't break the laws. You work within the system to change the laws.
How do they get the script viruses to run on Macs?
I dunno but I wouldn't be surprised. Many office document macros are cross-platform.
Shucks, now I gotta quit bragging to people about how they needn't bother me with the latest virus warnings, since my machine's not affected.
This post does not deserve Karma, since I didn't create anything myself.
Aha! Caught you. Thought you could slip that by, huh? Well, hey, buddy; you've been modded up at least 2 points so far. You can't get away with posting interesting content early in a thread without gaining karma, so don't even try. :)
My post is just a me, too message. Please don't mod it up for being funny or anything.
Linus may be from a Scandanavian country, but free software started at MIT.
You are at least as confused about this as you are what your employer does. (See the highly ranked comment about the stock brokerage firm and the hardware company.)
Reminder kids, anybody can make up numbers! :)
Is he in prison, or working for your stockbroker firm? (Or the hardware company?) (Or the University of Illinois?)
For a good time, click here
You're not by any chance sharing an Internet connection, are you? Just because you're limited to a single IP address doesn't mean you have to share userid's, too.
I read somewhere that Tom Christiansen (Perl author and trainer) only looks at the Internet through a carefully written Perl proxy, and only with images, applets, etc. turned off. That's they ideal way to block ads: have Perl rewrite the webpages before your browser ever sees them to completely remove the links to the ads.
I tried this, but I have two questions:
Any info anyone could provide would be great.
I'm glad to find out 0.9.2 (which I just downloaded; guess what site I went to first. :) ) provides this functionality. This feature definitely belongs in the browser on my machine, not on the advertiser's server. If they want to make money advertising, they'll just have to find a more effective means of making sure I see it. Sucking up my 33.6 dialup bandwidth is not it.
Are there really people out there who refuse to use non-GPL's software or something?
No, it's not that. GPL-compatible doesn't mean "feature compatible." This doesn't mean Python is now under the GPL.
"GPL compatible" means software may be legally combined with software that is licensed under the GNU GPL. So, for example, a GPL'ed library can be included with Python with bindings to make a Python module. This is a good thing!
"GPL compatible" is about as confusing as "free software." (We all know the speech/beer analogy.) "GPL compatible" makes us think "license identical to the GPL." That's not actually the case.
Now, when you say, "sell," do you mean I get the intellectual property rights?
Oh, yeah, this is software. Never mind. Selling means the seller still owns it and the buyer gets a warranty for the physical media.
No, UNIX has been around longer. Since ca. 1970, in fact. (Was Gates even born then? I wasn't.)
You do know Linux is basically UNIX, don't you?
UNIX was about as near to open source as possible when it first came out. You bought the source code on tape and figured out how to port it to your hardware yourself.
if incompatible libraries are found, the installation process should wrap its binaries in scripts which set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the necessary compatibility libraries (/usr/lib/compat) -- and they should be linked to _specifically by version_, so that different versions of compability libraries don't fight with each other.
Excellent plan. Just so everyone knows, though, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is rarely needed. In this case, it is only needed because the binaries are precompiled. If you ever have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, the software should be recompiled correctly!
Neat eye-opening information about LD_LIBRARY_PATH can be found at Why LD_LIBRARY_PATH is Bad
I don't think we're going to see anything analogous to the DLL problem because most shared libraries use explicit versions. But I would love to get rid of the madness of being told to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to run software I just compiled! All you have to do is set LD_RUN_PATH during compilation. (See that link!) One notes that Perl's MakeMaker system always sets LD_RUN_PATH appropriately when compiling an extension module.
I found this article on progress toward HAL interesting.
(The magazine looks pretty good, too. Incidentally, the editors got a threatening letter from the velcro corporation for not using the velcro trademark properly. :) )
http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2001/0101/0101a /0101a.htm
Fine, that's their right, isn't it?
If you don't like it, start your own media company.
Or exercise your freedom of speech about it on the Internet. (like we're doing. :) )
Or post something to freenet.
2600 broke the law, but the law is invalid if it breaks a higher law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the DMCA violates the constitution, then the court's job is to overturn that law. If that is the case, then 2600 did not break a law that they can be held liable for.
I'm unfamiliar with ipf specifically, but the GPL, modified BSD licenses and most other open source licenses cannot be revoked. So why does a change in license mean the software must be removed? Just consider the version existing in OpenBSD's CVS tree to be a forked version.
At least two people have posted the link to GNU's instructions for violations of the GPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html) However, the page explicitly states, "Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we do offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same. But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation." I'm unfamiliar with POSE, but I don't think it's part of the GNU project. So, the FSF might help the POSE copyright owner, but there's no help for us to go talking to FSF; go talk to the person(s) who wrote POSE! Also, some have stated that Sony isn't violating the GPL because no one has asked for the source code. The GPL doesn't say, "Wait for someone to ask and then make it available"; it says, "Include with your distribution an offer to provide the source." Sony's not off the hook just because no one asked! Releasing binaries a couple of weeks before source code doesn't cut it, either. Of course, all this is moot if this isn't really Sony's policy, but just someone making noise.