"Why would a company with the smartest people in the world make life more difficult on themselves by making their own formats hard to read?"
Why do you think Microsoft has the smartest people in the world? There is no convincing evidence of that. In fact they have spent many years and have not been able to produce a stable operating system.
They have, however, marketed the hell out of what they have managed.
Compared to places like IBM's Thomas J. Whatson Labs or Lucent. Microsoft has done not significant research or produced anything original. They have been very good at seeing computing trends and buying companies that have products that do what they want.
Really, I suspect you know nothing of recent computing history.
The reason is simple. It is expensive to file for a patent. You must do a patent search and other such things. I suspect it cost minimally $5000.00 per patent. Whether the patent is awarded or not.
I am not in favor of banner ads, but this is rediculous. Companies are patenting things and then extorting fees. They get away with it, because individual people/companies do not want to pay the legal bills to fight a bad patent.
I think we need to start a legal union to fight bad patents. I would donate. We may even find businesses willing to donate to such an organization.
I am not suggesting fighting all patents, just the ones that obviously bad like: patenting the downloading of music, patenting one click shopping,.....
Freedom of speech allows you to say the truth, not lies. Now of course if you stated that it is your opinion, you could say almost anything.
Slander and Libel to be successfully persued in court must include intentions of malice. An intent to harm the person/organizations reputation/credability. These of course are all civil violations.
Threats of course are completely different thing and are criminal.
The thing most disturbing here, is that if there were no threats on the site, why was he arrested.
Niether Lenin or Stalin were socialist; they were communist. Socalism is an economic system. Communism is a polital and economic system. To see the diffence, check out Sweden. They are a socialist democracy.
To suggest that the golden rule is a christian idea is competely false. Long before Jesus the idea existed in many religions. Examples can be found in almost every culture to the dawn of the written word. I suspect you have insulted many Christians too. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings. These teachings my contain some elements of philosophy found other places (socialism) but that does not make socialism watered down Christianity.
Please take a few moments to review the ACLU's stance on seperation of church and state as it relates to schools. The ACLU would have no arguement with a validictorian quoting from the Bible, unless it is required/corced/encouraged by the school.
Your interpretation of the ACLUs actions implies that you are personally offended, because of some position they have taken. Did you take the time to understand their position? I suspect not. Would you have felt the same if the relilgion involved was Hindu, Islam, Jewish, or Taoist. Honestly, answer that question.
Stallman does not suggest anywhere that copyright law should be ignored. If he made such an arguement, it would be hard for him to then use copyright law to protect GPLed code. The GPL relies on copyright law. It may be the case that the US copyright law is not best suited for the protection of freedoms that the GPL is meant to protect. This is no reason to argue lawlessness. The best solution is to actively support the Free Software Movement and increase public awareness. These type of activities may help change the laws to better support our freedoms.
Protection of freedoms may only be achieved through appropiate laws. Anarchy protects nothing .
I think the probation department is on very thin ice. It is one thing to prevent him from using the tools of his crime. It is another to remove his freedom of speech.
I do not believe that people should profit greatly from criminal activity, but they are talking about $20,000. Hardly an extreme sum of money. Plus Kevin was lecturing to help prevent electronic intrusion. Educating people about the dangers and how to avoid them. This seems a very rehabilitated thing to do.
I feel the probation department are just being unreasonable in this case. I hope Kevin gets a good lawyer and is able to correct this injustice. He has paid for his crime and should be allowed to continue with his life.
It could be argued that the open source movement is based on the GPL. The GPL is based upon copyrights. To suggest that the Open Source ethic is to allow free trade of materials against the authors will, is just a failure to understand the GPL and how open source works.
The major idea behind open source is the freedom to control the software that is on your computer. You should have the right to examine and change to code for your needs. The GPL is designed to protect this right. Furthermore, Many believe by contributing their efforts to Open Source they are contrubuting to the community for the benefits they recieved from the open source community. This "giving back" plus the ego strokes are what make the open source community trive.
Stealing copy righted material has little to nothing to do with open source. Defense of such activity will only put the GPL at risk. If copy right law was scrapped, there would be no protection of the GPL and thus no protection from a comercial concern creating works based on open source and not distributing them without source. So, to argue against basic copy right law is to argue against the GPL and thus open source.
Open source is based on volentary participation, not theft. It thrives because contributors enjoy the benefits (freedom, good software, and ego strokes).
You have missed the point completely. He was arguing that he has rights to anyone elses intellectual property. He is saying that by attempting to protect the intellectual property in this manner, there will be collateral damage (i.e. Some perfectly legal packets will be blocked). He gave an example of a young artist giving away his music to gain an audiance.
Truely, I do not see how you managed to get a score of 3, since I believe you are just trolling. Did you read the article? Or are you just spewing crap to spew? Get a life, you hide behind AC, so you do not have to take responsibility for your words.
"The laws--European and American--clearly state that the copyright holder has the right to dictate the means of playback."
Truely, I challenge you to find a law that says anything of the sort. Copyright protects the form/expression of an idea and it's distribution. Copyright does not protect an algorithm. DeCSS is clearly an algorithm. The content of a DVD is clearly licensed to an individual who legally obtained the DVD.
Your postion is unsupportable. You should learn a little about the law before posting completely erroneous crap.
They are not runnig a signal on a line they own to a TV they own. They are re-broadcasting (with IP) a signal produced by a local TV station. The TV station payed royalties on the content to the copyright owners. If iCraveTV wants to do the same thing they must pay the royalties also.
If they would redistribute a movie by recording it on a VCR tape and the sell copies that would be illegal redistribution also.
This is so obvilouly illegal it is hard to believe that they thought they would be allowed to continue for any length of time.
I am sure this is just flame bait, but I will responded anyway.
If you would take a look at the history of the Y2K problem, you would understand much more. In the 50's and early 60's the cost of storage was very high compared to today's mulit-gigabyte drives. Companies made decision (as today) and went for the cheapest cost when building systems. This was often decided by groups of people including managers at the time, it has always been very expensive to build enterprise wide computing. After these systems were in place and creating large databases, they became difficult to update and change. The people makeing the decisions could not have forseen software and data layouts surviving for 30 or 40 years. I suspect you can point to nothing in your life that you have predicted 30 years in advance. Learn a little, before you open your mouth.
If the test it to determine relative stregths of the two OS's, then why not run the same software on both OS's? I think to accurately benchmark Linux against NT, one needs to use Apache on both.
TPF was developed by IBM, AA, and TWA and was originally called ACP (Airline control program). SABRE is the RES, FRT, and Operations software that AA developed to run their airline business. They have contractual agreements with other airlines to provide RES and FRT services as well as contracts with travel agencies. The source to SABRE is now the property of SABRE, Inc. Which is a spin off of AMR, Inc.
There has been no anti-truss suit against AMR or any of it's subsideries nor SABRE, Inc.
I worked for American Airlines for five years and know a great deal about SABRE. SABRE is a set of packages (RES, FRT, and OPR) that's Reservations, feight, and operations (flight planning and glide down). These system run on an OS called TPF (Transaction Processing Facility), which was originally developed by IBM, American Airlines, and TWA in the early 60's. The packages that run and support American Airlines, travel agents, and freight operation (AA and other airlines) are arcane, character based, written in 509 byte, 1K, or 4K blocks called segments in either assembly or SABRE TALK. None of which is open. They have adopted some EDI standards from IATA (International Air Transport Association) and X.25 (edifact) formats for EDI, but nothing about SABRE itself is open or free.
Well, I am not sure about everyone else, but I am unsure of the relation between friends and enemas:-) I have never involved a friend with an enema and have no such plans.
Your comments lack an understanding of business. Redhat is a small company. It seems big because it is one of largest companies in the Linux community.
Redhat is not attempting any kind of monopoly. To gain monopoly status you can not give away your product (i.e. OpenSource precludes monopolies). Redhats concern for business partener show that they have an understanding of the business environment. Businesses want support. Neat software in fine, but without support it is useless to a business. This is why MicroSoft can sell software. They provide support or at least have convinced other corporations that they do. So the point is that for Redhat to remain viable over the long haul they must connect with business. Individuals do not represent the bulk of the money for OS and support.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why would a company with the smartest people in the world make life more difficult on themselves by making their own formats hard to read?"
Why do you think Microsoft has the smartest people in the world? There is no convincing evidence of that. In fact they have spent many years and have not been able to produce a stable operating system.
They have, however, marketed the hell out of what they have managed.
Compared to places like IBM's Thomas J. Whatson Labs or Lucent. Microsoft has done not significant research or produced anything original. They have been very good at seeing computing trends and buying companies that have products that do what they want.
Really, I suspect you know nothing of recent computing history.
The reason is simple. It is expensive to file for a patent. You must do a patent search and other such things. I suspect it cost minimally $5000.00 per patent. Whether the patent is awarded or not.
I am not in favor of banner ads, but this is rediculous. Companies are patenting things and then extorting fees. They get away with it, because individual people/companies do not want to pay the legal bills to fight a bad patent.
.....
I think we need to start a legal union to fight bad patents. I would donate. We may even find businesses willing to donate to such an organization.
I am not suggesting fighting all patents, just the ones that obviously bad like: patenting the downloading of music, patenting one click shopping,
Troy Roberts
Freedom of speech allows you to say the truth, not lies. Now of course if you stated that it is your opinion, you could say almost anything.
Slander and Libel to be successfully persued in court must include intentions of malice. An intent to harm the person/organizations reputation/credability. These of course are all civil violations.
Threats of course are completely different thing and are criminal.
The thing most disturbing here, is that if there were no threats on the site, why was he arrested.
Troy
Moderate this the "dumbass" guy down! What the hell? How did he get moderated up to a 2/
Jerk.
Niether Lenin or Stalin were socialist; they were communist. Socalism is an economic system. Communism is a polital and economic system. To see the diffence, check out Sweden. They are a socialist democracy.
To suggest that the golden rule is a christian idea is competely false. Long before Jesus the idea existed in many religions. Examples can be found in almost every culture to the dawn of the written word. I suspect you have insulted many Christians too. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings. These teachings my contain some elements of philosophy found other places (socialism) but that does not make socialism watered down Christianity.
Troy Roberts
Please take a few moments to review the ACLU's stance on seperation of church and state as it relates to schools. The ACLU would have no arguement with a validictorian quoting from the Bible, unless it is required/corced/encouraged by the school.
Your interpretation of the ACLUs actions implies that you are personally offended, because of some position they have taken. Did you take the time to understand their position? I suspect not. Would you have felt the same if the relilgion involved was Hindu, Islam, Jewish, or Taoist. Honestly, answer that question.
Troy Roberts
You chose to consider yourself as an "easily-angered reader" and then took offense. This is rediculous. You evidently identified your self correctly.
I believe his point was if you don't like Stallman, don't read this. No particularly offensive. Quite living in highschool, grow up.
Troy Roberts
Stallman does not suggest anywhere that copyright law should be ignored. If he made such an arguement, it would be hard for him to then use copyright law to protect GPLed code. The GPL relies on copyright law. It may be the case that the US copyright law is not best suited for the protection of freedoms that the GPL is meant to protect. This is no reason to argue lawlessness. The best solution is to actively support the Free Software Movement and increase public awareness. These type of activities may help change the laws to better support our freedoms.
Protection of freedoms may only be achieved through appropiate laws. Anarchy protects nothing .
Troy Roberts
Not for August, but through August. That is about $5000.00 a month. Only about $60,000 a year, not likely to make him wealthy.
Please read the article.
Troy Roberts
I think the probation department is on very thin ice. It is one thing to prevent him from using the tools of his crime. It is another to remove his freedom of speech.
I do not believe that people should profit greatly from criminal activity, but they are talking about $20,000. Hardly an extreme sum of money. Plus Kevin was lecturing to help prevent electronic intrusion. Educating people about the dangers and how to avoid them. This seems a very rehabilitated thing to do.
I feel the probation department are just being unreasonable in this case. I hope Kevin gets a good lawyer and is able to correct this injustice. He has paid for his crime and should be allowed to continue with his life.
Troy Roberts
It could be argued that the open source movement is based on the GPL. The GPL is based upon copyrights. To suggest that the Open Source ethic is to allow free trade of materials against the authors will, is just a failure to understand the GPL and how open source works.
The major idea behind open source is the freedom to control the software that is on your computer. You should have the right to examine and change to code for your needs. The GPL is designed to protect this right. Furthermore, Many believe by contributing their efforts to Open Source they are contrubuting to the community for the benefits they recieved from the open source community. This "giving back" plus the ego strokes are what make the open source community trive.
Stealing copy righted material has little to nothing to do with open source. Defense of such activity will only put the GPL at risk. If copy right law was scrapped, there would be no protection of the GPL and thus no protection from a comercial concern creating works based on open source and not distributing them without source. So, to argue against basic copy right law is to argue against the GPL and thus open source.
Open source is based on volentary participation, not theft. It thrives because contributors enjoy the benefits (freedom, good software, and ego strokes).
Troy Roberts
I suspect the answer is NO. The law in the US treats Corporations much like individuals. So, what they do at home, does not count as distribution.
You have missed the point completely. He was arguing that he has rights to anyone elses intellectual property. He is saying that by attempting to protect the intellectual property in this manner, there will be collateral damage (i.e. Some perfectly legal packets will be blocked). He gave an example of a young artist giving away his music to gain an audiance.
Truely, I do not see how you managed to get a score of 3, since I believe you are just trolling. Did you read the article? Or are you just spewing crap to spew? Get a life, you hide behind AC, so you do not have to take responsibility for your words.
It's pathetic.
Troy Roberts
"The laws--European and American--clearly state that the copyright holder has the right to dictate the means of playback."
/expression of an idea and it's distribution. Copyright does not protect an algorithm. DeCSS is clearly an algorithm. The content of a DVD is clearly licensed to an individual who legally obtained the DVD.
Truely, I challenge you to find a law that says anything of the sort. Copyright protects the form
Your postion is unsupportable. You should learn a little about the law before posting completely erroneous crap.
They are not runnig a signal on a line they own to a TV they own. They are re-broadcasting (with IP) a signal produced by a local TV station. The TV station payed royalties on the content to the copyright owners. If iCraveTV wants to do the same thing they must pay the royalties also.
If they would redistribute a movie by recording it on a VCR tape and the sell copies that would be illegal redistribution also.
This is so obvilouly illegal it is hard to believe that they thought they would be allowed to continue for any length of time.
BSD, Linux and other UNIX like OSes have very simular security models. A box is secure or insecure depending on its configuration.
You have never heard of Uruguay? Where did you go to school??? Probably, didn't which explains your confusion.
I am sure this is just flame bait, but I will responded anyway.
If you would take a look at the history of the Y2K problem, you would understand much more. In the 50's and early 60's the cost of storage was very high compared to today's mulit-gigabyte drives. Companies made decision (as today) and went for the cheapest cost when building systems. This was often decided by groups of people including managers at the time, it has always been very expensive to build enterprise wide computing. After these systems were in place and creating large databases, they became difficult to update and change. The people makeing the decisions could not have forseen software and data layouts surviving for 30 or 40 years. I suspect you can point to nothing in your life that you have predicted 30 years in advance. Learn a little, before you open your mouth.
If the test it to determine relative stregths of the two OS's, then why not run the same software on both OS's? I think to accurately benchmark Linux against NT, one needs to use Apache on both.
This worthless comment should not have received a 2. Thanks, for wasting my time.
TPF was developed by IBM, AA, and TWA and was originally called ACP (Airline control program). SABRE is the RES, FRT, and Operations software that AA developed to run their airline business. They have contractual agreements with other airlines to provide RES and FRT services as well as contracts with travel agencies. The source to SABRE is now the property of SABRE, Inc. Which is a spin off of AMR, Inc.
There has been no anti-truss suit against AMR or any of it's subsideries nor SABRE, Inc.
Troy
I worked for American Airlines for five years and know a great deal about SABRE. SABRE is a set of packages (RES, FRT, and OPR) that's Reservations, feight, and operations (flight planning and glide down). These system run on an OS called TPF (Transaction Processing Facility), which was originally developed by IBM, American Airlines, and TWA in the early 60's. The packages that run and support American Airlines, travel agents, and freight operation (AA and other airlines) are arcane, character based, written in 509 byte, 1K, or 4K blocks called segments in either assembly or SABRE TALK. None of which is open. They have adopted some EDI standards from IATA (International Air Transport Association) and X.25 (edifact) formats for EDI, but nothing about SABRE itself is open or free.
Troy
Well, I am not sure about everyone else, but I am unsure of the relation between friends and enemas :-) I have never involved a friend with an enema and have no such plans.
:-)
Sorry, couldn't help myself
Troy
Your comments lack an understanding of business.
Redhat is a small company. It seems big because
it is one of largest companies in the Linux community.
Redhat is not attempting any kind of monopoly. To gain monopoly status you can not give away your product (i.e. OpenSource precludes monopolies). Redhats concern for business partener show that they have an understanding of the business environment. Businesses want support. Neat software in fine, but without support it is useless to a business. This is why MicroSoft can sell software. They provide support or at least have convinced other corporations that they do. So the point is that for Redhat to remain viable over the long haul they must connect with business. Individuals do not represent the bulk of the money for OS and support.
Troy Roberts