That may be the case, but I still don't see any justifiable complaints about requiring licensing on the service.
It's not like anyone is going out of their way to create a new IM protocol (or functionality) - we've got Jabber, and AFAIK, that's the big three (AOL/ICQ, MSN, Jabber). If we had a plenitude of IM protocols, there might be more incentive to keep the networks open, but there's not.
Let's face it - the free ride is over and I don't see any valid argument for keeping the network free and open for other developers.
The[sic] make it free and allow 3rd party clients so they can get the user base.
I would question whether Microsoft made the service completely free OR just didn't object when programmers reverse-engineered their protocols.
Now they're objecting. I don't think it's so much a matter of security so much as liability and cost of maintaining the network. Still and all, it's well within their rights to terminate outside clients that aren't licensed.
Actually, I don't give two shits about the Iranians. It's up to them to settle their own problems. When the social pressure to remove those in power becomes great enough, the people will do so.
If they want our help and friendship after that, fine. If not, fine. We should stay out of it altogether.
I was actually referring to the "all or nothing" mentality of the blacklisters. I'm strongly not in favor of spam, but I'm even more strongly opposed to the idea that "collateral damage" is OK. Sure, it's acceptable in war (well, to some, anyway) but in a war situation, you're talking about high explosives and bullets and there's only a certain amount of control that one can exercise of the effects once it's in it's final phases.
But, and this is a big one, it is possible to specifically target IP numbers as opposed to ranges or perhaps narrower ranges, rather than entire blocks. The blacklisters choose not to, though, instead using a scattergun effect and intentionally (in my opinion) trying to cause as much collateral damage as possible.
There has got to be a better solution. Unfortunately, and I freely admit this, I don't have it.
(Actually, I do, but it would violate several state, federal, and international laws and would only give me a fleeting sense of satisfaction since it would only work about once. Plus, I'm sort of a pacifist.)
Actually, you may want to investigate whether or not AOL has gone live with their blog offering ( article here). If so, it may be viewed as an intentional act.
Ah, once again, you run up against the wall of Capitalism. If the market will bear a $400 price point, then then the manufacturer is obligated to sell the product at $400. Remember, the company is obligated not to consumers, but to investors who have dropped a pretty penny and expect a return on their investment.
Without consumers, there's no reason to be in business, but without investors, there's no business to be in.
I can see three things happening if you legislate "moral" price (for lack of a better term): 1. Artificial inflation of the moral price to justify a given ROI 2. Endless argument over whether a given price is moral or not 3. Businesses failing left and right
Kind of the reverse of the/. economic method (1. Invent something 2. ??? 3. Make money).
Sure, and if there's one person dealing drugs in a house, then all occupants of the building should all be killed.
But that doesn't make it right.
I can give you a specific reason why I hate blacklists: they aren't specifically targetted.
If someone wants to fight spam, that's their prerogative. However, dragging me unwillingly into their fight is more likely to cause me to have sympathy for the side they are fighting.
I'm not sure it can be correctly called censorship - that requires a governmental entity. While I certainly do not agree with the ultra-aggressive attitude of SPEW and Osirusoft, to call what they did censorship nominates them to a category of governorship to which they were not elected.
It was a private list, maintained by a private entity who released this information to the world. Nowhere does the government enter into it.
I really hate starting this debate up again, but we need to be clear on what is censorship and what is not. If I restrict people from voicing their opinion on my network, that is not censorship. It is only censorship when the government does. I think the theory is that a government is supposed to represent all of the people, so therefore all of the people are supposed to have an equal voice (yeah, there's theory and reality and never the twain, yada yada). But a private entity is allowed to restrict content whenever and wherever they choose within that entity.
I cannot understand how parent post got moderated to +4 Informative when the story is about OpenOffice.org for Mac.
Because Canada is funnier than OpenOffice.org.
"Quebec, we love you"
And what did Quebec say in return?
big gap between Ontario and New-Brunswick
Who'd notice?
Quebecers where the most opposed to the invasion of Irak
I can categorically state that there was at least one American who was more opposed than Quebec was. It wasn't your country bound and determined to show their ass to the rest of the world. I gotta live here, dude. It's embarassing.
As a matter of fact, I would really appreciate knowing why people dislike Quebec
That was the brand I tried. Sorry, man, it just does not Taste Right. This woman even tried to explain that it helps if you don't think of it as a milk or a milk replacement, but nope. Just couldn't do it.
1) Thanks to that sumbitch George "Government do take a bite, don't she?" Bush, I can no longer afford to move (anywhere).
2) It get's COLD up there. I don't mean just cold, I mean cut-through-the-bone painful cold. At least I won't have to worry about a cooling system on my PC, I guess.
3) Quebec.
4) I secretly suspect that the US is just waiting for an excuse to invade Canada. OK, that one might be a little off in left field.
5) Did I mention Quebec?
6) No Tex-Mex food that I know of. I suspect that it's all Southwestern (too much cilantro).
7) High tax rates.
8) Quebec. Again. I really don't like Quebec. Nor does the rest of Canada, I suspect. I could be wrong, but every time Quebec wants to secede, I bet the rest of Canada is muttering under their breath: "Go ahead. Please. Do it. For the luvva Bobby Hull, just do it. Now!"
On the plus side -
1) Real snow. In Texas, snow is something that happens to other people.
2) Politeness. Canada may be full of assholes for all I know - but you never hear about them. Maybe they all live in Quebec. That would explain a lot, really.
3) Vancouver - never been there, but I hear it rocks.
4) Quebec - all the pleasures of France right next door. It's hard to type with a straight face.
5) Hockey - when that sumbitch Jones bought the Cowboys and fired Tom Landry, football ceased to be worth watching. The Packers make up for it some, but they're not from here.
6) Newfoundland - when you want solitude, I hear they got it by the bushel.
Most food I eat because I like the flavor and texture, some I eat because it's healthy and tolerable otherwise. But it really gets up my nose when someone preaches about eating vegetarian.
I used to live next door to a vegetarian and I can definitely say that soy milk is NOT a suitable replacement for whole milk, which I thoroughly enjoy.
The only good Vegan is a dead Vegan. I remember back in The Big War, this cadre of those blasted three-eyed bastards from Vega was... what? We got Earthians wantin' to be Vegans?
Great Malda's Ghost! What is this world coming to? Don't those poor misguided Earth children know anything about the Vegans at... vegetarians?
Vegetarians?! What? What kinda damn philosophical movement names themselves after three-eyed bastards from space? Damn! Damn!
Actually this is not so big a deal - it didn't work natively under Aqua/Quartz, so we haven't lost out on much.
That being said, there are existing commercial non-Microsoft solutions. Mariner Software has decent word processor and spreadsheet software available for a reasonable price. Redlers has a nice little word processor for a shareware price.
The thing is, Mac users have (or used to have) a tendency to monitor what's available for their platform. It comes from being treated like the bastard stepchild of the neighboring axe-murderer by the rest of the computer community.
OK, granted it may not be theft (I won't completely concede that point, but I'm willing to let it slide for now). So perhaps you can copy the code, however, use of that copied code for your own enrichment by providing a good or service based on that code would deprive me the ability to provide that good or service to others under my own terms.
Now, part of your argument is against oppression. But there are two problems here - one, I am under no obligation to help others; that is dependent on a moral code which can be uniformly applied to both you and myself, and unless I am mistaken, there is no uniform moral code. There are instances in the law where one is forced to provide support for others and so we do at least the minimal amount under threat of legal sanction (more may be done willingly if the individual chooses).
However, software is a different case. No law has arisen which says that I must share my code. We have agreements (GPL, among others) which make those claims, and those are entirely right since they can be entered into freely, or not at all. I may provide software freely to friends or other with whom I have established a relation, and they may in turn do the same. But to say that I should help others (barring legal sanction) with whom I have no existing relationship is ridiculous in my eyes.
(NOTE: My actual feelings on the subject may or may not be represented above - that is not your concern. I frequently take the Devil's Advocate position as an attempt to codify my own feelings on particular subjects).
One thing that I do see happening is creep in the meaning of the word "theft". It originally applied to physical good and services, but this does not seem an appropriate term for something that has no physical manifestation in and of itself. Perhaps we need to establish a new term that will have the appropriate meaning and arouse the same sense of indignation that theft does.
You realize that by suing Microsoft for shipping a "defective product", you also open up RedHat and any other company that does not ship %100 secure code to a lawsuit.
Basically, there is no such thing as a perfectly written program. Most software is written to what is known and capable at the time - programmers are not omniscient and cannot possibly foresee all potential security holes in code. In addition, what may seem like a good idea or feature at the time, may later turn out to be a mistake, but there is no way of knowing that.
Secondly, you also open your company up to lawsuit. By the same idea that you can sue Microsoft for not being omniscient, you can also be sued for not foreseeing that there were possible security holes and providing appropriate protection. If your company was harmed, you could open yourself to a lawsuit for failure in due diligence.
Thirdly, there is a difference between a physical product such as a Crown Victoria and a software program. A Crown Victoria is the sum of its parts and systems, and as such, when parts or systems fail, it can and has killed people. Unless you can say the the same thing about the software you run, you are making an invalid comparison. Of course, if you can and can prove it, you can be sued for failing to provide physical backups - that is the tack I would take.
Finally, lest you think this is defense of Microsoft, it is not. This is a defense of software programmers everywhere (who are all of varying skill levels and abilities). Your bitter refusal to accept that there is only so much anyone can do will probably bite you in the end.
I agree that it is your responsibility to maintain your own servers. However, it is not your responsibility to go tromping into someone else's system under any circumstances without prior authorization.
I believe you are viewing the internet in the same way that we view a park or other real-world public space, and there is no comparison. The internet is not the real world and never will be.
writing a worm to automatically patch the systems might be rather militant, something has to be done about it.
Yes, and the proper thing to do would be to contact the system administrator and let him/her know that their system is vulnerable. Releasing another worm to patch the first worm is just as morally wrong and illegal, since it is entering the system by unauthorized means.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Frankly, I hope they find both the guys that wrote those damnable things and throw them both in jail.
The moral of this story is: keep your damn hands off something that ain't yours.
I disagree - I don't think the Second Amendment per se has had a whole lot to do with the stability of our democracy. I think it's more along the lines that until recently, we haven't had the population pressures that the rest of the world has suffered, plus we're relatively rich in resources. A contented public is less likely to overthrow the government, in other words.
Geographically, we're surrounded by two benign countries (well, Canada tends to get a bit stroppy now and then). If someone seriously wants to threaten the lower 48 states with an occupation force, they've got a lot of work ahead of them. At best, they'd get one or two states before all hell broke loose.
All things considered, I say the 2nd Amendment has been relatively useless in the survival of our democracy, aside from making a significantly large part of the population useful to the military by being able to shoot straight. Our government has never challenged the populace of the United States in a manner that would require the calling up of militias (Civil War was fought by regular military for the most part).
And so, the 2nd Amendment remains the refuge of paranoid kooks and cranks dreaming of the day when they can "bust a cap in some politician's ass" which, despite however much they may deserve it, is not the act of a civilized person.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be the case, but I still don't see any justifiable complaints about requiring licensing on the service.
It's not like anyone is going out of their way to create a new IM protocol (or functionality) - we've got Jabber, and AFAIK, that's the big three (AOL/ICQ, MSN, Jabber). If we had a plenitude of IM protocols, there might be more incentive to keep the networks open, but there's not.
Let's face it - the free ride is over and I don't see any valid argument for keeping the network free and open for other developers.
The[sic] make it free and allow 3rd party clients so they can get the user base.
I would question whether Microsoft made the service completely free OR just didn't object when programmers reverse-engineered their protocols.
Now they're objecting. I don't think it's so much a matter of security so much as liability and cost of maintaining the network. Still and all, it's well within their rights to terminate outside clients that aren't licensed.
Not saying it's a good thing, it's just what is.
Actually, I don't give two shits about the Iranians. It's up to them to settle their own problems. When the social pressure to remove those in power becomes great enough, the people will do so.
If they want our help and friendship after that, fine. If not, fine. We should stay out of it altogether.
I was actually referring to the "all or nothing" mentality of the blacklisters. I'm strongly not in favor of spam, but I'm even more strongly opposed to the idea that "collateral damage" is OK. Sure, it's acceptable in war (well, to some, anyway) but in a war situation, you're talking about high explosives and bullets and there's only a certain amount of control that one can exercise of the effects once it's in it's final phases.
But, and this is a big one, it is possible to specifically target IP numbers as opposed to ranges or perhaps narrower ranges, rather than entire blocks. The blacklisters choose not to, though, instead using a scattergun effect and intentionally (in my opinion) trying to cause as much collateral damage as possible.
There has got to be a better solution. Unfortunately, and I freely admit this, I don't have it.
(Actually, I do, but it would violate several state, federal, and international laws and would only give me a fleeting sense of satisfaction since it would only work about once. Plus, I'm sort of a pacifist.)
Actually, you may want to investigate whether or not AOL has gone live with their blog offering ( article here). If so, it may be viewed as an intentional act.
This is /. If there's any laundry, it WILL be aired, regardless of merit, circumstance or anything else.
I ain't sayin' it's right, I'm just sayin' it's what happens.
Ah, once again, you run up against the wall of Capitalism. If the market will bear a $400 price point, then then the manufacturer is obligated to sell the product at $400. Remember, the company is obligated not to consumers, but to investors who have dropped a pretty penny and expect a return on their investment.
/. economic method (1. Invent something 2. ??? 3. Make money).
Without consumers, there's no reason to be in business, but without investors, there's no business to be in.
I can see three things happening if you legislate "moral" price (for lack of a better term):
1. Artificial inflation of the moral price to justify a given ROI
2. Endless argument over whether a given price is moral or not
3. Businesses failing left and right
Kind of the reverse of the
Sure, and if there's one person dealing drugs in a house, then all occupants of the building should all be killed.
But that doesn't make it right.
I can give you a specific reason why I hate blacklists: they aren't specifically targetted.
If someone wants to fight spam, that's their prerogative. However, dragging me unwillingly into their fight is more likely to cause me to have sympathy for the side they are fighting.
By blocking mail to my inbox, which I've paid for, you could possibly even be considered in breach of contract.
Depending on the TOS, of course.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
I'm not sure it can be correctly called censorship - that requires a governmental entity. While I certainly do not agree with the ultra-aggressive attitude of SPEW and Osirusoft, to call what they did censorship nominates them to a category of governorship to which they were not elected.
It was a private list, maintained by a private entity who released this information to the world. Nowhere does the government enter into it.
I really hate starting this debate up again, but we need to be clear on what is censorship and what is not. If I restrict people from voicing their opinion on my network, that is not censorship. It is only censorship when the government does. I think the theory is that a government is supposed to represent all of the people, so therefore all of the people are supposed to have an equal voice (yeah, there's theory and reality and never the twain, yada yada). But a private entity is allowed to restrict content whenever and wherever they choose within that entity.
Those idiots! They do not realize the true power of tcsh! AARRGGHHH! DIE DIE! Hulk smash!
I cannot understand how parent post got moderated to +4 Informative when the story is about OpenOffice.org for Mac.
Because Canada is funnier than OpenOffice.org.
"Quebec, we love you"
And what did Quebec say in return?
big gap between Ontario and New-Brunswick
Who'd notice?
Quebecers where the most opposed to the invasion of Irak
I can categorically state that there was at least one American who was more opposed than Quebec was. It wasn't your country bound and determined to show their ass to the rest of the world. I gotta live here, dude. It's embarassing.
As a matter of fact, I would really appreciate knowing why people dislike Quebec
It's Saturday?
That was the brand I tried. Sorry, man, it just does not Taste Right. This woman even tried to explain that it helps if you don't think of it as a milk or a milk replacement, but nope. Just couldn't do it.
I gots ta have ma cheese and meat.
I would gladly move to Canada except
1) Thanks to that sumbitch George "Government do take a bite, don't she?" Bush, I can no longer afford to move (anywhere).
2) It get's COLD up there. I don't mean just cold, I mean cut-through-the-bone painful cold. At least I won't have to worry about a cooling system on my PC, I guess.
3) Quebec.
4) I secretly suspect that the US is just waiting for an excuse to invade Canada. OK, that one might be a little off in left field.
5) Did I mention Quebec?
6) No Tex-Mex food that I know of. I suspect that it's all Southwestern (too much cilantro).
7) High tax rates.
8) Quebec. Again. I really don't like Quebec. Nor does the rest of Canada, I suspect. I could be wrong, but every time Quebec wants to secede, I bet the rest of Canada is muttering under their breath: "Go ahead. Please. Do it. For the luvva Bobby Hull, just do it. Now!"
On the plus side -
1) Real snow. In Texas, snow is something that happens to other people.
2) Politeness. Canada may be full of assholes for all I know - but you never hear about them. Maybe they all live in Quebec. That would explain a lot, really.
3) Vancouver - never been there, but I hear it rocks.
4) Quebec - all the pleasures of France right next door. It's hard to type with a straight face.
5) Hockey - when that sumbitch Jones bought the Cowboys and fired Tom Landry, football ceased to be worth watching. The Packers make up for it some, but they're not from here.
6) Newfoundland - when you want solitude, I hear they got it by the bushel.
That's all I can think of for now.
Most food I eat because I like the flavor and texture, some I eat because it's healthy and tolerable otherwise. But it really gets up my nose when someone preaches about eating vegetarian.
I used to live next door to a vegetarian and I can definitely say that soy milk is NOT a suitable replacement for whole milk, which I thoroughly enjoy.
The only good Vegan is a dead Vegan. I remember back in The Big War, this cadre of those blasted three-eyed bastards from Vega was ... what? We got Earthians wantin' to be Vegans?
... vegetarians?
Great Malda's Ghost! What is this world coming to? Don't those poor misguided Earth children know anything about the Vegans at
Vegetarians?! What? What kinda damn philosophical movement names themselves after three-eyed bastards from space? Damn! Damn!
Actually this is not so big a deal - it didn't work natively under Aqua/Quartz, so we haven't lost out on much.
That being said, there are existing commercial non-Microsoft solutions. Mariner Software has decent word processor and spreadsheet software available for a reasonable price. Redlers has a nice little word processor for a shareware price.
The thing is, Mac users have (or used to have) a tendency to monitor what's available for their platform. It comes from being treated like the bastard stepchild of the neighboring axe-murderer by the rest of the computer community.
Speeding up a complex model from .5 FPS to 10 (or 100) FPS can result in big productivity gains.
Not to mention huge productivity losses the moment someone comes up with a game that really pushes these cards to the limit!
this MS license might require the program developer's firstborn child or it might be a token $1 payment, we don't know
/.
Then why bitch about it if you don't know what the terms are?
Oh, wait. I forgot - this is
I am guilty of copyright infringement, not theft.
OK, granted it may not be theft (I won't completely concede that point, but I'm willing to let it slide for now). So perhaps you can copy the code, however, use of that copied code for your own enrichment by providing a good or service based on that code would deprive me the ability to provide that good or service to others under my own terms.
Now, part of your argument is against oppression. But there are two problems here - one, I am under no obligation to help others; that is dependent on a moral code which can be uniformly applied to both you and myself, and unless I am mistaken, there is no uniform moral code. There are instances in the law where one is forced to provide support for others and so we do at least the minimal amount under threat of legal sanction (more may be done willingly if the individual chooses).
However, software is a different case. No law has arisen which says that I must share my code. We have agreements (GPL, among others) which make those claims, and those are entirely right since they can be entered into freely, or not at all. I may provide software freely to friends or other with whom I have established a relation, and they may in turn do the same. But to say that I should help others (barring legal sanction) with whom I have no existing relationship is ridiculous in my eyes.
(NOTE: My actual feelings on the subject may or may not be represented above - that is not your concern. I frequently take the Devil's Advocate position as an attempt to codify my own feelings on particular subjects).
One thing that I do see happening is creep in the meaning of the word "theft". It originally applied to physical good and services, but this does not seem an appropriate term for something that has no physical manifestation in and of itself. Perhaps we need to establish a new term that will have the appropriate meaning and arouse the same sense of indignation that theft does.
You realize that by suing Microsoft for shipping a "defective product", you also open up RedHat and any other company that does not ship %100 secure code to a lawsuit.
Basically, there is no such thing as a perfectly written program. Most software is written to what is known and capable at the time - programmers are not omniscient and cannot possibly foresee all potential security holes in code. In addition, what may seem like a good idea or feature at the time, may later turn out to be a mistake, but there is no way of knowing that.
Secondly, you also open your company up to lawsuit. By the same idea that you can sue Microsoft for not being omniscient, you can also be sued for not foreseeing that there were possible security holes and providing appropriate protection. If your company was harmed, you could open yourself to a lawsuit for failure in due diligence.
Thirdly, there is a difference between a physical product such as a Crown Victoria and a software program. A Crown Victoria is the sum of its parts and systems, and as such, when parts or systems fail, it can and has killed people. Unless you can say the the same thing about the software you run, you are making an invalid comparison. Of course, if you can and can prove it, you can be sued for failing to provide physical backups - that is the tack I would take.
Finally, lest you think this is defense of Microsoft, it is not. This is a defense of software programmers everywhere (who are all of varying skill levels and abilities). Your bitter refusal to accept that there is only so much anyone can do will probably bite you in the end.
Enjoy your day, if it is possible.
The old rules do not apply.
Oh, I'm sorry, how silly of me. The new rule is apparently "The ends justify the means".
How very Democrat of me to assume otherwise.
I agree that it is your responsibility to maintain your own servers. However, it is not your responsibility to go tromping into someone else's system under any circumstances without prior authorization.
I believe you are viewing the internet in the same way that we view a park or other real-world public space, and there is no comparison. The internet is not the real world and never will be.
writing a worm to automatically patch the systems might be rather militant, something has to be done about it.
Yes, and the proper thing to do would be to contact the system administrator and let him/her know that their system is vulnerable. Releasing another worm to patch the first worm is just as morally wrong and illegal, since it is entering the system by unauthorized means.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Frankly, I hope they find both the guys that wrote those damnable things and throw them both in jail.
The moral of this story is: keep your damn hands off something that ain't yours.
I disagree - I don't think the Second Amendment per se has had a whole lot to do with the stability of our democracy. I think it's more along the lines that until recently, we haven't had the population pressures that the rest of the world has suffered, plus we're relatively rich in resources. A contented public is less likely to overthrow the government, in other words.
Geographically, we're surrounded by two benign countries (well, Canada tends to get a bit stroppy now and then). If someone seriously wants to threaten the lower 48 states with an occupation force, they've got a lot of work ahead of them. At best, they'd get one or two states before all hell broke loose.
All things considered, I say the 2nd Amendment has been relatively useless in the survival of our democracy, aside from making a significantly large part of the population useful to the military by being able to shoot straight. Our government has never challenged the populace of the United States in a manner that would require the calling up of militias (Civil War was fought by regular military for the most part).
And so, the 2nd Amendment remains the refuge of paranoid kooks and cranks dreaming of the day when they can "bust a cap in some politician's ass" which, despite however much they may deserve it, is not the act of a civilized person.