When I say "Macs cost more than PCs" what I actually mean to say is that "Apple isn't in the low end market". Of course, everyone I say the former to understands that I mean the later, except the Apple advocates.
If we lived in that universe where "Director of Linux Interoperability" actually meant what you think it means. Unfortunately, out in the REAL WORLD, that title actually means "Director of increasing the perception of interoperability with Linux system while actually making them less compatible."
here's an InternetNews.com interview with him from December 2004. Couldn't get a quote huh? Gee, I wonder why. I bet if you did get a quote out of him it would be all about his best intentions and how he's going to change things at Microsoft, etc. Give him 6 months, the optimism and naivety will fade away and he'll say repeating the company line.
The underlying economic theory for this appears to be that the US and UK can lose their industrial manufacturing base, outsourcing it to India or China, and still maintain their primary positions in the world by controlling the information used to design the products manufactured by this cheap labor, or by selling digital content to the newly affluent consumers in these countries. This is deep and profound. It reminds me of the later stages of Civilization, where you're trading "Hit Records" and "Hit Movies" for iron, gold, oil and food to keep your society going. It doesn't make any sense in the game, and it sure as hell doesn't make any sense in the real world either.
And yet, that is exactly what is happening.
Eben Moglen said once that the wealth of nations in the 21st century will not be measured by how much steel they make or how well they make it, they will be measured by how much software they make and how well they make it. Presumably he was talking about software which had some purpose, not Quake.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a country in the world that won't imprison you for deliberately spreading viruses. In the UK they arrest you just for writing them.
The person that writes an in the wild virus for OSX will get a lot of notoriety. Probably enough to get funding for their own anti-virus for the Mac company; Which they can run from prison? Put down the crack pipe.
1) Viruses - I no longer worry and I no longer need to check my PC - that's a relief. You can pick nits here about security but the bottom line is Ubuntu is orders of magnitude better.
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next. Wow, I wonder where I've heard this before. Sheesh. Yes, Linux has a better security model than the typical "make everyone administrator" model used on Windows systems, but this does not make Linux magically bullet proof. As for not needing anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Linux.. you don't need them for Mac either. Why is that? Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market.
But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.
This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
Yes. The key point of my post was that people like you are speculating and this is completely useless for figuring out how to convince NVIDIA to open source their drivers. We need a statement from NVIDIA on why they choose not to open source their drivers so we can address that statement and work with them to do the right thing here. Addressing stuff they didn't say is just pointless.
More speculation, just what we need. Hopefully the next guy who interviews an NVIDIA dude will ask the question and we'll get something other than bullshit back.
Every interview with the NVIDIA "developers" they repeat the company line (see summary) but fail to state WHY this is the company line. Speculation abounds as to why this strategy was chosen, but I've yet to see an official comment from NVIDIA.
Meh. That's for a court to decide.. which I'm pretty sure they have, and ruled in favor of the tabers, but I can't really back that up with the exact case, etc. Maybe someone can help me out. That's really not the point. The point is that it will cost these people a whole lot of money to stop you if you fight them.. and so long as you're not, oh, say, Google or Microsoft or someone, then it simply isn't in their interest.
I was under the impression that one of the key points of fair use was for criticism and parody.. both forms of "republishing" as you describe it. Fair use doctrine does look favorably on uses which are "personal" and "private" but that is hardly the whole story.
I have long been of the understanding that an original, by-ear transcription of a song, which is a duplicate of no copyrighted work and which generally deviates substantially from the work on which it is based is the property of its transcriber, and not the original composer of the song. The NMPA and MPA clearly disagree, and are threatening to send a DMCA letter to my host, as well as pursue other undisclosed legal actions in the event that I were to fall short of full cooperation with their demands.
I have not yet decided what response is appropriate. Ummmm.. the appropriate response is to forward their communications to your ISP and wait until they send the DMCA takedown. When they do, file the appropriate DMCA response outlining why the material isn't infringing. Your ISP simply cannot remove your material if you follow the procedure. Then, if they were doing anything more than bluffing, they will send you a proper cease and desist, which you can then choose to ignore, and, very unlikely now, wait until they file suit. All of this will take YEARS and cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees which I'm sure they'll quickly realize they can't recover from you, and, as such, they won't bother.
Don't give in to bullies.. the law is on your side.
Hey, stop that! This is Slashdot, where every Space Elevator story must rehash the same old questions over and over again because everyone thinks they're a genius and don't need to do any basic research (like reading the wikipedia article before commenting).
Slashdot Mirror
Awww, that's beautiful man.
See? Told ya Mac users were gay.
[rimshot]
Yeah, no. Laptop sales outstripped desktops about 3 years ago.
Sorry.
Hello? We're talking about laptops...
When I say "Macs cost more than PCs" what I actually mean to say is that "Apple isn't in the low end market". Of course, everyone I say the former to understands that I mean the later, except the Apple advocates.
It would be good news.
If we lived in that universe where "Director of Linux Interoperability" actually meant what you think it means. Unfortunately, out in the REAL WORLD, that title actually means "Director of increasing the perception of interoperability with Linux system while actually making them less compatible."
So yeah, keep living in your dream world.
No gold handcuffs on that one I guess.
No-one ever gets out.
Evil is insidious.
The future of security issues.
And yet, that is exactly what is happening.
Eben Moglen said once that the wealth of nations in the 21st century will not be measured by how much steel they make or how well they make it, they will be measured by how much software they make and how well they make it. Presumably he was talking about software which had some purpose, not Quake.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a country in the world that won't imprison you for deliberately spreading viruses. In the UK they arrest you just for writing them.
Yep. I have no idea about writing viruses.
None at all.
2) Vulnerabilities - Windows is like Swiss cheese with so many vulnerabilities that it's sick - you can't connect XP to a public Internet connection (i.e., behind a router is OK but direct to the net isn't). Ubuntu? It's Linux - no worries.
3) Thanks to #1 and #2, I'm free from products like Symantec and Norton and the dollar expense, the complexity of administering them (those pop-ups are annoying and a productivity hit), and wondering when they expire next. Wow, I wonder where I've heard this before. Sheesh. Yes, Linux has a better security model than the typical "make everyone administrator" model used on Windows systems, but this does not make Linux magically bullet proof. As for not needing anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Linux.. you don't need them for Mac either. Why is that? Cause no-one could be bothered writing a virus or some spyware for such a minuscule amount of the market.
But look at what happened with Firefox. Initially, just like Linux or Mac, no-one bothered trying to break the security. There was no hacks to get around popup blockers, etc. Now Firefox is just a little more popular and the threat landscape has changed.
This isn't to say that Linux can't be made more resilient to viruses if and when they finally show up. It can, and, more importantly, it probably will. Just don't go around saying that Linux is immune to viruses and spyware. Especially, don't go around claiming that this stuff is impossible, because that's exactly the kind of challenge that blackhats go for.
How the hell do you know? Is this anything other than more speculation?
Until NVIDIA tells us why they cant or wont open source their drivers, we simply don't know.
Stop speculating, it's not productive.
Yes. The key point of my post was that people like you are speculating and this is completely useless for figuring out how to convince NVIDIA to open source their drivers. We need a statement from NVIDIA on why they choose not to open source their drivers so we can address that statement and work with them to do the right thing here. Addressing stuff they didn't say is just pointless.
Or maybe the secret of excelsior is in the code and they don't want to dethrone the new king. Speculation == pointless.
More speculation, just what we need. Hopefully the next guy who interviews an NVIDIA dude will ask the question and we'll get something other than bullshit back.
Every interview with the NVIDIA "developers" they repeat the company line (see summary) but fail to state WHY this is the company line. Speculation abounds as to why this strategy was chosen, but I've yet to see an official comment from NVIDIA.
Anyone?
Meh. That's for a court to decide.. which I'm pretty sure they have, and ruled in favor of the tabers, but I can't really back that up with the exact case, etc. Maybe someone can help me out. That's really not the point. The point is that it will cost these people a whole lot of money to stop you if you fight them.. and so long as you're not, oh, say, Google or Microsoft or someone, then it simply isn't in their interest.
I was under the impression that one of the key points of fair use was for criticism and parody.. both forms of "republishing" as you describe it. Fair use doctrine does look favorably on uses which are "personal" and "private" but that is hardly the whole story.
For some people, it should be.. at least with the windows open.
Well, it's usually more the composer's copyright that is claimed to be violated.
I have not yet decided what response is appropriate. Ummmm.. the appropriate response is to forward their communications to your ISP and wait until they send the DMCA takedown. When they do, file the appropriate DMCA response outlining why the material isn't infringing. Your ISP simply cannot remove your material if you follow the procedure. Then, if they were doing anything more than bluffing, they will send you a proper cease and desist, which you can then choose to ignore, and, very unlikely now, wait until they file suit. All of this will take YEARS and cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees which I'm sure they'll quickly realize they can't recover from you, and, as such, they won't bother.
Don't give in to bullies.. the law is on your side.
Hey, stop that! This is Slashdot, where every Space Elevator story must rehash the same old questions over and over again because everyone thinks they're a genius and don't need to do any basic research (like reading the wikipedia article before commenting).