I'm having trouble seeing how this is "role" vs "user", unless IE7 is going to be changing its security on the fly based on what you are trying to do with it. Can you specify a list of directories where a file can be downloaded to, from noon to 5pm, and another list from 5pm to 8pm, and deny downloads after 8pm? Is there anything that can be done with "role" that can not also be done via "user" and "file"? Perhaps this is just a more convienent way to express the very same restrictions?
Historically, HR departments were very small and unimportant until the Civil Rights movement. It is exactly because of federal laws that HR has attained the status they have today. I think that in the end, it really comes down to the people you hire, and so HR *should* be important. I don't think we've reached a point where HR, yet, is up to the task of recruiting the best talent (or even recognizing it, if my bosses over the years are even half right). Still, in terms of protecting a company from shooting themselves in the foot, they are both useful and necessary.
Well then, uh, maybe they need to change their website?
Re:The web site the article is on could be in trou
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
2600 did get in trouble, yes. "Most notably, charges were brought 2600 Magazine for both publishing DeCSS code and links to the code elsewhere, under the auspices of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." But no one got in trouble for linking to 2600. The bittorrent link is actually to a Guide to Bittorrent, which does have links to, for instance, Pirate Bay. You can't get a torrent from them, however, just directions...
This is offtopic, but interesting. Are there legal ramifications to not declaring war? We seem to have stopped having wars, now we just kill. Why? There must be some sort of advantage, but I can't see it.
Well if you want to accuse them of "holding a gun", do so. Don't hold them without accusing them. Currently, there is no way to ascertain anything about these people. Where they holding a gun? Are they the niece or nephew of someone Bush distains? Is it just because we had to hurt someone because we were hurt? If we went to trial the rule of law would establish facts and outcomes. Without the rule of law, God alone knows who these detainees are, what they've done, or what they could be accused of...
They've no real problem with Canada, and note that Canada kicks our ass when it comes to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide.
Norway
Iceland
Australia
Luxembourg
Canada
Sweden
Switzerland
Ireland
Belgium
United States
If it was really about "jealousy and spite", then Canada would be hated more than the USA.
It wasn't so much that MS won my heart, as it was that they popped up a scary window that my system was broken, and requested that I please phone this number. When I did, the gentle person probed, asking questions, until I admitted I was running windows on top of DR DOS instead of MS DOS. This was a scam, but I didn't know that until long after the superior DR DOS was put out of business, and the company who bought the remains was put out of business, and the company who bought next (Novell) succesfully sued MS for the scam. They didn't so much "win my heart" as steal from me. Likewise, how much can you say is "winning mindshare" and how much was forcing OEMs to pay for Windows whether it was installed on a shipped PC or not? Or worse, raising the price to put an OEM out of business if they didn't actually physically install MS Windows on everything they shipped? Won the hearts and minds. Yeah. The bastards. They *stole* mindshare for inferior products using deceptive and illegal practices.
Ethics is big right now in MBA programs everywhere (that wish to keep their accreditation). Otherwise, the easiest way to profit is just kill the person next to you and take what he has. Oh wait. That is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Every company has a culture, and within this culture are norms of behavior that define what is "OK" to do. Ignore your companies cultural norms at your own risk. These norms make up an ethical system for that company. Sometimes this works, other times you get Enron or Microsoft.
Agreed, it is obvious that you don't know what is meant by "Freedom".
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users....
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
If we gain (the use of functionality of a graphics card) by accepting a binary, we lose incentive to develop the code. Short term gain in the functionality of the machine, long term loss. If you really don't get this, I'm not sure how to make it make sense, accept perhaps as an analogy. Binaries are like welfare payments that let a person buy food enough to survive, but aren't improving their chances of getting a job. Sharing code (or at least documentation) is like sending someone to college rather than giving them welfare. You eat in both circumstances, but only the latter case is actually leading anywhere. If all you care about is getting food (or finishing that term paper on time, or getting the quarterly report done) then it doesn't matter.
Users won't be to use their hardware to the full capacity because you want the manufacturers to develop driver according to your rules.
No. Not even close. Please try again. Consider this: I don't want manufacturers to be developing drivers at all for Linux. Rather I would like to see the information made available so that anyone who so chooses, and who is capable, can develop drivers. Whether the hardware is able to be used to its full capacity depends on how good those drivers are. Note the similarity to the analogy: if given the choice between welfare or a job, I'll take the job.
Being force to use Windows and being subject to Microsoft abusive monopolistic practices because your job requires a functioning computer and Linux takes too much time and effort to get it to work.
No. Not even close. Also offtopic. Still, for fun, you are saying that you will be forced to use Windows? Solaris & OS X & BSD don't exist? And this is because Linux is "to hard to get to work"? Are we still talking about drivers? Linux certainly appears to be as easy to install, and once installed updates are easier and software installation is easier. Not as easy, easier. Where else can you pick from a list and have 1000s of applications suddenly downloaded and runable? This is easier than driving to walmart.
GPL is the only reason Linux is on map and not another BeOS or OS/2. Fine, I concede that, but, the open-source community should not look to cut out proprietary vendors.
Two excellent products that were better and it just didn't matter. However, the open-source community doesn't want to cut out proprietary vendors. Rather, they want to cooperate with them. It is the Free Software community who thinks that locking code up today will result in a tomorrow, eventually, where everything is locked up. Thus, the insistence on behavior that will avoid this loss of freedom. You might not have all the functionality of your graphics card this decade, as part of a struggle to make sure you have access to a codebase of Free software forever.
Good useul software is sometimes closed. Leave it to the end user to decide if that is a problem.
Sure, no problem. Just don't link it staticly or dynamicly with GPLed software. It isn't a problem unless you want to have your cake and eat it too. Then it *is* a problem. I'll even admit I own a fairly current license for Mathematica for Linux(,though it isn't installed.) However, I used Octave when I was paid to do research and could choose my own tools. This makes sense to me.
DRM is fact of life and entities have a legitimate copyright to protect their right. It is a fundamental foundation of our societ
You mean to say that menus and toolbars are replaced with tabs of toolbars, yes? This seems possibly non-determental, but I don't see it "vastly" lowering the learning curve. Perhaps it will help MS's international effort by reducing the word count of its menus, but replacing a word with an icon only works if you already know what the icon represents.
My big problem with MS Office is that the help system seems to be less and less helpful with each iteration. It is faster to google queries than to look around hoping to bump into an answer.
I think you mean IE5, which was the big major improvement that got IE into the same category as netscape. IE4 was an improvement, yes, but not nearly enough, technically.
The conflict is this: should we take what we are given (today), or say, "that isn't good enough, I want something better", and mean it. This is the time frame issue. The best system, technically, one could use *today* if one could ignore license issues would probably involve a mixture of Free and Closed, but is this the best thing to do? By giving in to immediate gratification, are you not insuring that you are stuck in that mode forever? The idea is that if people gave a damn, and if they could see past the immediate future, then instead of buying a new graphics card with closed drivers, they would rather buy and use whatever was the best technical solution today, that didn't also preclude a better future tomorrow.
But this means giving up immediate gratification. This means not playing the newest games.
It is true that if you don't value Freedom, it makes no sense to increase value by increasing Freedom. However, I don't see how allowing proprietary drivers is going to work towards freeing said drivers. Rather, it seems that using proprietary drivers means that proprietary drivers are "good enough", so we get to use them forever.
And yet, in terms of clarity, it would seem that rather than not doing ANYTHING [sic] to justify the claim presented, it has become a matter of scale. FOSS developers out performed OEM developers in one specific area, so it is possible. Does the level of complication make it more likely or less likely that a dedicated group of distributed geniuses could out compete a commercial firm? Seems to me, if we want to find a place where academics could be useful, the more math necessary the better. Raise the bar to the point that commercial developers need help to even understand the optimizations. Why not?
Actually you are suggesting that what defines Free Software is a "crippling" thing. If you believe this, truely, please don't use GNU/Linux. "The gpl purpose is to foster cooperation not to force it." No. That is the purpose of the OSI, to foster cooperation between Open Source and Closed. The gpl purpose is to foster freedom. If that means nothing to you, fine. If most people are truely OK with DRM and broadcast flags and being tied to a tool, that too is fine. "The end is the function! The end is the user!" The end is when you can't control updates on "your" machine, and can only run the software your lease allows. Think: playing a DVD you bought, on a computer you bought, in your home, for private viewing...can't be done unless you buy an approved OS. Your advocacy to "give the user what they want", today, at any cost, precludes affecting the evolution of the industry. If this is what people want, fine, let them have what they want. People are pretty stupid.
"Who is going to back a piece of electronics on which they have no IP and which ANYONE, even say nVidia or ATI or some bloke on eBay, could copy and sell?"
Actually I hope that an nVidia or an ATI or perhaps even SGI or Apple or IBM would make these things. Let them turn a profit on the HW, just give me open (as in Free) drivers. Who is going to provide the VC to make the first? Are there no passionate players who would do this for the sake of making it happen? Well consider that shaking a money tree usually means some ripe fruit drops in your lap. Disruptive change means oppurtunity for heretics to eat the orthodox for lunch.
They are bound by law to preserve whatever parts they licensed. This doesn't mean they can not relicense the parts they do own, and provide decent documentation so that others can code around the empty slots. It isn't so much that they can't, but that they don't want to do these things. What is needed is leverage to move them to wanting to...
Actually the GPL meets the OSI definition of "open", and so it appears to be true that all GPL code is Open, but not all Open code is GPL compatiable. The GPL came (way) first, and OSI "embraced and extended" the "Free" out for strategic reasons.
"There is nothing preventing you from loading binary driver modules."
Actually a point of conflict is that the GPL is modified by the kernel team to allow the loading of binary-only modules. The FSF's legal team's position has always been that either static or dynamic linking is enough to trigger "derrivative" works. This is the crux of the issue, in fact, as to whether Linux was short sighted to stray (as he was with bitkeeper). Build it, and they will come. Meet them halfway, and they will want you to follow them home.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm having trouble seeing how this is "role" vs "user", unless IE7 is going to be changing its security on the fly based on what you are trying to do with it. Can you specify a list of directories where a file can be downloaded to, from noon to 5pm, and another list from 5pm to 8pm, and deny downloads after 8pm? Is there anything that can be done with "role" that can not also be done via "user" and "file"? Perhaps this is just a more convienent way to express the very same restrictions?
"It went down hill from there."
Well yeah, you didn't get the job. Who really knows how it would have turned out, otherwise, but shooting the man for asking you about your mother?
Historically, HR departments were very small and unimportant until the Civil Rights movement. It is exactly because of federal laws that HR has attained the status they have today. I think that in the end, it really comes down to the people you hire, and so HR *should* be important. I don't think we've reached a point where HR, yet, is up to the task of recruiting the best talent (or even recognizing it, if my bosses over the years are even half right). Still, in terms of protecting a company from shooting themselves in the foot, they are both useful and necessary.
You can't jail a company, but you can jail the CEO, CFO, CIO, etc...
Well then, uh, maybe they need to change their website?
2600 did get in trouble, yes. "Most notably, charges were brought 2600 Magazine for both publishing DeCSS code and links to the code elsewhere, under the auspices of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." But no one got in trouble for linking to 2600. The bittorrent link is actually to a Guide to Bittorrent, which does have links to, for instance, Pirate Bay. You can't get a torrent from them, however, just directions...
This is offtopic, but interesting. Are there legal ramifications to not declaring war? We seem to have stopped having wars, now we just kill. Why? There must be some sort of advantage, but I can't see it.
Well if you want to accuse them of "holding a gun", do so. Don't hold them without accusing them. Currently, there is no way to ascertain anything about these people. Where they holding a gun? Are they the niece or nephew of someone Bush distains? Is it just because we had to hurt someone because we were hurt? If we went to trial the rule of law would establish facts and outcomes. Without the rule of law, God alone knows who these detainees are, what they've done, or what they could be accused of...
If it was really about "jealousy and spite", then Canada would be hated more than the USA.
Why? Why not just escalate the fines until MS notices? Or jail a few people for (the EU version of) contempt of court?
It wasn't so much that MS won my heart, as it was that they popped up a scary window that my system was broken, and requested that I please phone this number. When I did, the gentle person probed, asking questions, until I admitted I was running windows on top of DR DOS instead of MS DOS. This was a scam, but I didn't know that until long after the superior DR DOS was put out of business, and the company who bought the remains was put out of business, and the company who bought next (Novell) succesfully sued MS for the scam. They didn't so much "win my heart" as steal from me. Likewise, how much can you say is "winning mindshare" and how much was forcing OEMs to pay for Windows whether it was installed on a shipped PC or not? Or worse, raising the price to put an OEM out of business if they didn't actually physically install MS Windows on everything they shipped? Won the hearts and minds. Yeah. The bastards. They *stole* mindshare for inferior products using deceptive and illegal practices.
Ethics is big right now in MBA programs everywhere (that wish to keep their accreditation). Otherwise, the easiest way to profit is just kill the person next to you and take what he has. Oh wait. That is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Every company has a culture, and within this culture are norms of behavior that define what is "OK" to do. Ignore your companies cultural norms at your own risk. These norms make up an ethical system for that company. Sometimes this works, other times you get Enron or Microsoft.
If we gain (the use of functionality of a graphics card) by accepting a binary, we lose incentive to develop the code. Short term gain in the functionality of the machine, long term loss. If you really don't get this, I'm not sure how to make it make sense, accept perhaps as an analogy. Binaries are like welfare payments that let a person buy food enough to survive, but aren't improving their chances of getting a job. Sharing code (or at least documentation) is like sending someone to college rather than giving them welfare. You eat in both circumstances, but only the latter case is actually leading anywhere. If all you care about is getting food (or finishing that term paper on time, or getting the quarterly report done) then it doesn't matter.
Users won't be to use their hardware to the full capacity because you want the manufacturers to develop driver according to your rules.
No. Not even close. Please try again. Consider this: I don't want manufacturers to be developing drivers at all for Linux. Rather I would like to see the information made available so that anyone who so chooses, and who is capable, can develop drivers. Whether the hardware is able to be used to its full capacity depends on how good those drivers are. Note the similarity to the analogy: if given the choice between welfare or a job, I'll take the job.
Being force to use Windows and being subject to Microsoft abusive monopolistic practices because your job requires a functioning computer and Linux takes too much time and effort to get it to work.
No. Not even close. Also offtopic. Still, for fun, you are saying that you will be forced to use Windows? Solaris & OS X & BSD don't exist? And this is because Linux is "to hard to get to work"? Are we still talking about drivers? Linux certainly appears to be as easy to install, and once installed updates are easier and software installation is easier. Not as easy, easier. Where else can you pick from a list and have 1000s of applications suddenly downloaded and runable? This is easier than driving to walmart.
GPL is the only reason Linux is on map and not another BeOS or OS/2. Fine, I concede that, but, the open-source community should not look to cut out proprietary vendors.
Two excellent products that were better and it just didn't matter. However, the open-source community doesn't want to cut out proprietary vendors. Rather, they want to cooperate with them. It is the Free Software community who thinks that locking code up today will result in a tomorrow, eventually, where everything is locked up. Thus, the insistence on behavior that will avoid this loss of freedom. You might not have all the functionality of your graphics card this decade, as part of a struggle to make sure you have access to a codebase of Free software forever.
Good useul software is sometimes closed. Leave it to the end user to decide if that is a problem.
Sure, no problem. Just don't link it staticly or dynamicly with GPLed software. It isn't a problem unless you want to have your cake and eat it too. Then it *is* a problem. I'll even admit I own a fairly current license for Mathematica for Linux(,though it isn't installed.) However, I used Octave when I was paid to do research and could choose my own tools. This makes sense to me.
DRM is fact of life and entities have a legitimate copyright to protect their right. It is a fundamental foundation of our societ
You mean to say that menus and toolbars are replaced with tabs of toolbars, yes? This seems possibly non-determental, but I don't see it "vastly" lowering the learning curve. Perhaps it will help MS's international effort by reducing the word count of its menus, but replacing a word with an icon only works if you already know what the icon represents.
My big problem with MS Office is that the help system seems to be less and less helpful with each iteration. It is faster to google queries than to look around hoping to bump into an answer.
Actually Linux also attacks via Governments, and HPC. Cheap powerful clusters run linux.
The interface has continued to degrade. Why should this next itteration be different? Does anyone think Office 2003 isn't a worse interface than 2k?
If they keep trying, eventually MS will break thru into enterprise computing. Right now they own the desktop. Big difference. Think: CORBA
I think you mean IE5, which was the big major improvement that got IE into the same category as netscape. IE4 was an improvement, yes, but not nearly enough, technically.
The conflict is this: should we take what we are given (today), or say, "that isn't good enough, I want something better", and mean it. This is the time frame issue. The best system, technically, one could use *today* if one could ignore license issues would probably involve a mixture of Free and Closed, but is this the best thing to do? By giving in to immediate gratification, are you not insuring that you are stuck in that mode forever? The idea is that if people gave a damn, and if they could see past the immediate future, then instead of buying a new graphics card with closed drivers, they would rather buy and use whatever was the best technical solution today, that didn't also preclude a better future tomorrow.
But this means giving up immediate gratification. This means not playing the newest games.
It is true that if you don't value Freedom, it makes no sense to increase value by increasing Freedom. However, I don't see how allowing proprietary drivers is going to work towards freeing said drivers. Rather, it seems that using proprietary drivers means that proprietary drivers are "good enough", so we get to use them forever.
And yet, in terms of clarity, it would seem that rather than not doing ANYTHING [sic] to justify the claim presented, it has become a matter of scale. FOSS developers out performed OEM developers in one specific area, so it is possible. Does the level of complication make it more likely or less likely that a dedicated group of distributed geniuses could out compete a commercial firm? Seems to me, if we want to find a place where academics could be useful, the more math necessary the better. Raise the bar to the point that commercial developers need help to even understand the optimizations. Why not?
Actually you are suggesting that what defines Free Software is a "crippling" thing. If you believe this, truely, please don't use GNU/Linux. "The gpl purpose is to foster cooperation not to force it." No. That is the purpose of the OSI, to foster cooperation between Open Source and Closed. The gpl purpose is to foster freedom. If that means nothing to you, fine. If most people are truely OK with DRM and broadcast flags and being tied to a tool, that too is fine. "The end is the function! The end is the user!" The end is when you can't control updates on "your" machine, and can only run the software your lease allows. Think: playing a DVD you bought, on a computer you bought, in your home, for private viewing...can't be done unless you buy an approved OS. Your advocacy to "give the user what they want", today, at any cost, precludes affecting the evolution of the industry. If this is what people want, fine, let them have what they want. People are pretty stupid.
"Who is going to back a piece of electronics on which they have no IP and which ANYONE, even say nVidia or ATI or some bloke on eBay, could copy and sell?"
Actually I hope that an nVidia or an ATI or perhaps even SGI or Apple or IBM would make these things. Let them turn a profit on the HW, just give me open (as in Free) drivers. Who is going to provide the VC to make the first? Are there no passionate players who would do this for the sake of making it happen? Well consider that shaking a money tree usually means some ripe fruit drops in your lap. Disruptive change means oppurtunity for heretics to eat the orthodox for lunch.
They are bound by law to preserve whatever parts they licensed. This doesn't mean they can not relicense the parts they do own, and provide decent documentation so that others can code around the empty slots. It isn't so much that they can't, but that they don't want to do these things. What is needed is leverage to move them to wanting to...
Actually the GPL meets the OSI definition of "open", and so it appears to be true that all GPL code is Open, but not all Open code is GPL compatiable. The GPL came (way) first, and OSI "embraced and extended" the "Free" out for strategic reasons.
"There is nothing preventing you from loading binary driver modules."
Actually a point of conflict is that the GPL is modified by the kernel team to allow the loading of binary-only modules. The FSF's legal team's position has always been that either static or dynamic linking is enough to trigger "derrivative" works. This is the crux of the issue, in fact, as to whether Linux was short sighted to stray (as he was with bitkeeper). Build it, and they will come. Meet them halfway, and they will want you to follow them home.