The writer of this FAQ (is it RMS???) seems to make the mistaken assumption that every Linux-kernel-based distribution is merely a modified GNU/Linux distro. While this may be true for Debian, others are created completely from scratch. If I make my own distro and I happen to use GCC to compile things, am I obligated to call it GNU/Linux? Or Linux? Or am I obligated to call it anything at all? Part of the problem with this thing is the writer keeps saying that it's "right" to call it GNU/Linux, and "wrong" to call it Linux. I don't have a clear idea what "it" is. How do you define what a GNU/Linux distro is? Just because it includes GNU components?
Yeah, it's a terrifying thing. But, it's true. Microsoft has the might to force proprietary standards down our necks. Ignorant web designers use these standards assuming that everybody visiting their site will be using IE, or they do not realize that many of their visitors will be using other browsers. And, from the perspective of the visitor, it's easier to just use IE than to try to use Mozilla or Opera and find that half of your sites don't display correctly.
It comes down to this: they can support open technologies and be crushed under Microsoft's muscle. Or they can support Microsoft's technologies, provide a better experience for Opera users, and eventually pull market share away from Microsoft. I'm all for further diversifying this stagnant marketplace.
Someone has to pay for OPN's bandwidth, machines, whatever. I'm sorry, but the internet isn't free like some people assume it is, even your ISP has to pay for the bits when going to backbones.
I absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that the donations to OPN don't go towards bandwidth, machines, whatever. They're the source of the admins' paychecks.
There's nothing wrong about donations. It's just another way YOU could help software and services get BETTER. You don't have to, but it would be nice if you did. Said that, I don't see any reason to donate to OPN.
The reason to not donate to OPN is that your donation doesn't go towards running the network. Your donation goes into the pockets of the admins. I think it's a widespread misconception that these donations are going towards bandwidth and hardware. They're not. The bandwidth and hardware are still donated. Your donation pays for Lilo's rent.
The article is very light on details, but I assume that this robot is of a variety known as "living robots" or BEAM robots. These robots do not use digital computer components like most people would probably assume. They use simple logic circuits to achieve their goal. And they DO learn in a very limited sense. They have a specific goal in mind (some learn to walk, some learn to seek out light to power their solar cell), and through trial and error they achieve that goal.
But still gets free advertising for whatever is being played. So what exactly was the problem?
The problem is that webcasting for the most part advertises less-heard artists. Sure, there's the Top-40 channel, but if you look at the most popular channels on shoutcast, there is a lot of techno, a lot of jazz, a lot of classic rock. Recording companies make more money when 14 million people all buy a Jennifer Lopez CD than when 50,000 people buy a Mirwais CD, and 70,000 buy a Paul Oakenfold CD, and 30,000 buy a Grateful Dead live show, etc. Commercial radio is driven by record sales. Webcast radio is independant. It's driven by listeners. And because of this, the RIAA must do everything in their power to shut it down and preserve their control of the music entertainment market.
wouldn't a 'statute of limitations' type thing apply in this case? Embed was published in 1997. The DMCA passed into law in 1998. Wouldn't any copy-protecion-circumvention program written and published before 1998 still be legal?
I would absolutely support the idea of internet cops. Actual human beings (not bots) who would patrol the web and IRC, looking for people who are breaking the law.
What I would NOT support is a censorship bot or a bot that captures your domain or anything like that. It's like in the real world. 6 or 7 years ago in Salt Lake City, we had "photo cops" briefly. In the back of a van, there would be a camera hooked up to a radar gun. Any car speeding by the van would have a picture of it's license plate taken, and the owner of the car would get a letter in the mail telling them where to show up at court. It was determined that this was illegal, and we don't have photo cops anymore. Similarly, on the internet, a law enforcement agency shouldn't be allowed to enter a #warezchannel on efnet, capture everybody's whois, and prosecute them.
Search warrents would have to be issued before an internet cop could enter a private site without permission (a private site being one where you have to log on to get in). When an internet cop signs up for a username/password for one of these sites, he'd have to let the admin know he's a cop. Undercover cops are allowed under some situations, but if somebody asks the undercover cop if they're a cop, they have to say "yes".
Basically, as long as the checks and balances that keep law enforcement in line in the real world are held in the cyber world, I'd be happy.
It's flamebait because of people like me who become enraged when American history is attributed to events in the Book of Mormon. Well, not enraged. It's all harmless. But, I've been told by missionaries that Native Americans are all descendents of Lehi. I find that offensive. Hence, flamebait. Nobody has proof of what actually went on that long ago, so I can't really make a convincing arguement that the Native Americans are the descendents of people who came over the Berring Strait during the ice age, but personally I find that theory to make more sense than the Lehi-on-a-boat theory. Of course, not being LDS, I'm sure there are readers who know more about the subject and will now inform me of my wrongness. But, living in Utah, I've pretty much grown to enjoy it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
everybody's doing it.
well of course. He has plans for the microsoft car
The writer of this FAQ (is it RMS???) seems to make the mistaken assumption that every Linux-kernel-based distribution is merely a modified GNU/Linux distro. While this may be true for Debian, others are created completely from scratch. If I make my own distro and I happen to use GCC to compile things, am I obligated to call it GNU/Linux? Or Linux? Or am I obligated to call it anything at all? Part of the problem with this thing is the writer keeps saying that it's "right" to call it GNU/Linux, and "wrong" to call it Linux. I don't have a clear idea what "it" is. How do you define what a GNU/Linux distro is? Just because it includes GNU components?
It comes down to this: they can support open technologies and be crushed under Microsoft's muscle. Or they can support Microsoft's technologies, provide a better experience for Opera users, and eventually pull market share away from Microsoft. I'm all for further diversifying this stagnant marketplace.
I absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that the donations to OPN don't go towards bandwidth, machines, whatever. They're the source of the admins' paychecks.
The reason to not donate to OPN is that your donation doesn't go towards running the network. Your donation goes into the pockets of the admins. I think it's a widespread misconception that these donations are going towards bandwidth and hardware. They're not. The bandwidth and hardware are still donated. Your donation pays for Lilo's rent.
The article is very light on details, but I assume that this robot is of a variety known as "living robots" or BEAM robots. These robots do not use digital computer components like most people would probably assume. They use simple logic circuits to achieve their goal. And they DO learn in a very limited sense. They have a specific goal in mind (some learn to walk, some learn to seek out light to power their solar cell), and through trial and error they achieve that goal.
The problem is that webcasting for the most part advertises less-heard artists. Sure, there's the Top-40 channel, but if you look at the most popular channels on shoutcast, there is a lot of techno, a lot of jazz, a lot of classic rock. Recording companies make more money when 14 million people all buy a Jennifer Lopez CD than when 50,000 people buy a Mirwais CD, and 70,000 buy a Paul Oakenfold CD, and 30,000 buy a Grateful Dead live show, etc. Commercial radio is driven by record sales. Webcast radio is independant. It's driven by listeners. And because of this, the RIAA must do everything in their power to shut it down and preserve their control of the music entertainment market.
wouldn't a 'statute of limitations' type thing apply in this case? Embed was published in 1997. The DMCA passed into law in 1998. Wouldn't any copy-protecion-circumvention program written and published before 1998 still be legal?
What I would NOT support is a censorship bot or a bot that captures your domain or anything like that. It's like in the real world. 6 or 7 years ago in Salt Lake City, we had "photo cops" briefly. In the back of a van, there would be a camera hooked up to a radar gun. Any car speeding by the van would have a picture of it's license plate taken, and the owner of the car would get a letter in the mail telling them where to show up at court. It was determined that this was illegal, and we don't have photo cops anymore. Similarly, on the internet, a law enforcement agency shouldn't be allowed to enter a #warezchannel on efnet, capture everybody's whois, and prosecute them.
Search warrents would have to be issued before an internet cop could enter a private site without permission (a private site being one where you have to log on to get in). When an internet cop signs up for a username/password for one of these sites, he'd have to let the admin know he's a cop. Undercover cops are allowed under some situations, but if somebody asks the undercover cop if they're a cop, they have to say "yes".
Basically, as long as the checks and balances that keep law enforcement in line in the real world are held in the cyber world, I'd be happy.
people still kept screwing around in Europe after America was discovered.
nope. 4th. sorry.
It's flamebait because of people like me who become enraged when American history is attributed to events in the Book of Mormon. Well, not enraged. It's all harmless. But, I've been told by missionaries that Native Americans are all descendents of Lehi. I find that offensive. Hence, flamebait. Nobody has proof of what actually went on that long ago, so I can't really make a convincing arguement that the Native Americans are the descendents of people who came over the Berring Strait during the ice age, but personally I find that theory to make more sense than the Lehi-on-a-boat theory. Of course, not being LDS, I'm sure there are readers who know more about the subject and will now inform me of my wrongness. But, living in Utah, I've pretty much grown to enjoy it. :)
Well obviously! As long as you forget that 6000BC was before Lehi & Friends came over on the boat.
Leave it to the mormons to believe that any event that took place on this side of the world before 1492 is proof that their church is true.
Heheheeee!
:)
congratz on getting the geeks riled up