...a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.' How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery.
Not a mystery to me!
By saying that this product that you're willfully installing has a "privacy risk", you're saying you don't mind if the product compromises your privacy.
It's a legal loophole that could allow the RIAA/MPAA to install plugins that will monitor you at your machine. After all - you agreed to it when you installed the software. You said you didn't mind if your privacy was compromised.
This one is very sneaky. I'd never install anything that told me it might compromise my privacy.
This finally lends UFO researchers that much-needed air of respectability they've been missing - to be championed by the same people who brought you John Edwards and Cleopatra 2525.
I don't doubt that fast food is the proximate cause of obesity. Yes - eating Whoppers will make you fat. But nobody says you have to.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you're overweight, go to the damn grocery store, buy some rice and some vegetables. Some fish and lean chicken. Bake the fish. Bake the chicken. Steam the vegetables and boil the rice. When you're starting to get full, stop eating. How hard is that?
It's not as convenient as fast food, true. But if that's your excuse, you're killing yourself for convenience. Living in McDonalds and blaming them for your problems is like blaming the gun in a game of Russian Roulette.
"We need to step back and take a look at the open source business model, which doesn't provide [private enterprises like ours] with inherent protections," SCO chief executive Darl McBride charged in August.
News flash, Darl. You need to spend more time looking at your own business model, and not everyone else's.
I agree completely. How much research is needed to find out that autoplay is a feature which you can disable? And what kind of clusterfuck pile of dumbasses bases a security feature off of something you can disable with a keystroke in the first place???
Research. It only took me 5 seconds to find the above link. Well - thank God I'm still allowed to.
Because it's so much fun not giving him proper credit and then watching him foam at the mouth.
It should be an Olympic event. Tell him you love using Linux to compile code, or using Linux to surf the web. Bonus points if you can get his eyes to roll back into his head or have him gibber in tongues.
So, this is a good improvement it seems, but shaves away 4.5 seconds or so out of maybe 30 sconds or over a minute for many people.
True, but this is still great.
The article says, "less than 200 milliseconds (mS) from power-up to application code startup." The thing that makes this great is that not every device is going to go through the entire *nix init sequence.
How about a device like a Linux embedded router, or something like that? Just a kernel running and that's all. Or how about a dashboard mp3 player that only needs to run one application?
This makes Linux much more like customized firmware, and there are plenty of places to use that.
Granted, this'll be great when it makes it to the desktop, too. =)
I've never seen a picture of The Holy One before and my god he looks like David Hasselhoff
I haven't seen a picture of him in a while, and he has changed a bit. I don't think he looks like Knight Rider, but he does look an awful lot like TreyParker of South Park fame. Same shirt, too.
If you've ever seen Baseketball, just imagine Linus doing the psych-out to BillG and drinking a liposuction at him. Fun!
Ever been in a car accident? Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop?
"It was my fault."
Because if you do, you've just thrown out any hopes of a successful defense. You WILL be reamed to the full extent of the law. NEVER admit to anything if the law is involved. Your fault or not. Illegal or not. Let the prosecuting attorney earn his keep.
RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
Riiiiiight.
Can anyone show me a link to the RIAA's website with the text of their generous offer? All I can find are stories that begin with "Apparently" or "Industry sources state that".
Let's say I'm as strange as the guy who bought a SCO license, and I decide to go for this. How do I do it? Does anyone know, or is it another vapor-offer?
I don't know. I'm afraid that as the ship sinks, freedom of expression is going to go down in the vortex along with it.
Things usually get worse before they get better. Yeah, as soon as the RIAA starts circling the drain they're going to thrash around and spend their last clout lobbying for laws that make the DCMA look like a parking ticket.
But if the RIAA finally tanks, there'll be no lobby group to keep these laws on the books. With no defending interest, these laws would dry up and go away pretty quick. Constant pressure from industry is the only thing that keeps these idiotic thought-crime laws alive.
Imagine a world where the EFF has no opposition from the **AA. Hell, we might even be able to talk about cryptography again. Someday.
Metallica is probably the best example of RIAA un-logic. Imagine...a band that starts off in a garage, doing stuff like Metal up your Ass. Then for some reason nobody knows, begins covering Bob Segar tunes, testifies to the senate against Napster, and then wonders why their sales are down???
I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head if he was on fire.
So, could this be it? The tip of the iceberg peeking out of the water, leering at the RIAA?
Let's hope so. Let's also hope that the record companies represented by the RIAA realize that it has become the albatross around the music industry's neck forcing the value of their product down.
The price cuts are great - but don't let up folks! We'll know we're winning when the RIAA begins doing layoffs. Until that day - continue the boycott! Don't buy even the cheap CD's. The profits still go towards curtailing your rights.
Remember, the RIAA will do anything to push their agenda, but only so long as the record companies can continue to line their pockets. Cut off the cash flow, and the RIAA goes away.
With the RIAA's heavy-handed behavior and random lawsuits, a lot of people who engage in music swapping tend to take on a Robin Hood/Boston Tea Party philosophy about what they're doing. They take from the rich, and give to the poor - and don't feel bad about it either since everyone knows that the artists make about a nickel of that $13 you shell out for a CD, and the RIAA uses the rest to line their pockets, maintain their near-monopoly, hire lawyers and lobby congress.
So as a possible remedy, do you think the RIAA brass would be willing to take pay cuts and fork over a better percentage to the artists/producers in order to beat that image?
If file swappers actually felt like they were bilking the artists they love, it'd be a different matter.
I don't take the 10 commandments any way at all, not being a Christian. It's other people that worry me.
"(meaning you get something without paying for it when you should be paying for it) so I can conclude that copyright infringement is stealing."
What you do is up to you. But to the law, that's another matter. And the law says there is a crime called theft, and a crime called copyright violation - and they're different. I wouldn't care to debate your own personal morality - not my business. If it feels like theft to you, don't do it. But if you do, and your'e caught, you will be punished for copyright violation and not theft.
What worries me is that some Christian judge will see Copyright Violation and think Theft, and punish accordingly. This is what the RIAA wants, and we must fight that.
"There also isn't a commandment against walking up to a random woman on the street and calling her a stupid fat worthless whore. Does that mean it's okay to do so?"
No, that's wrong to do. However, if I choose to do it, it's wrong to say I'm an attempted murderer. Copyright violation is wrong, sure. But it's not theft.
"A) This country is run by laws, not commandments."
True. Don't think I'm a Christian - I'm not. At all. But a lot of people do think this way. Here's a story to illustrate: I was pulled over by a cop once. He heard me say goddammit under my breath as he walked up to the car. And then told me that he wasn't going to give me a ticket until I said that, because it's blasphemy.
Don't think for a minute that Jesus doesn't affect your life, even if you're an athiest.
"B) Not everybody is Christian. Most of the world is not, in fact."
Most of the world doesn't have to answer to the RIAA. We do. And a lot of people in power are Christians. That's why it's important to note that the RIAA is calling this THEFT. There's a commandment for that. And in a city building not far from where I live, a vote passed to keep a monument of the 10 commandments in the city building, separation of church and state be damned.
"C) The Bible was written thousands of years ago. It's safe to assume that, regardless of whether or not you personally believe that it's the Word of God, it might just possibly not cover every situation in the modern world."
File sharing is piracy, and hence, stealing, which does indeed make it illegal.
Ok one more time.
File sharing is not stealing. It's copyright violation. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't need a crime called copyright violation.
Calling it stealing is nothing more than RIAA/MPAA spin doctoring. Stealing sounds a lot worse than copyright violation, doesn't it? A lot of people in the US are Christians - and there isn't a commandment against copyright violation. I wonder how many judges to to church?
Don't let the RIAA/MPAA poision your mind with their nonsense. It's NOT stealing. Stealing is stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a mystery to me!
By saying that this product that you're willfully installing has a "privacy risk", you're saying you don't mind if the product compromises your privacy.
It's a legal loophole that could allow the RIAA/MPAA to install plugins that will monitor you at your machine. After all - you agreed to it when you installed the software. You said you didn't mind if your privacy was compromised.
This one is very sneaky. I'd never install anything that told me it might compromise my privacy.
Weaselmancer
This finally lends UFO researchers that much-needed air of respectability they've been missing - to be championed by the same people who brought you John Edwards and Cleopatra 2525.
Weaselmancer
Hadn't even considered my nick here and the thread I was posting in! Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a while =)
Score -1, Weaselmancer
I don't doubt that fast food is the proximate cause of obesity. Yes - eating Whoppers will make you fat. But nobody says you have to.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you're overweight, go to the damn grocery store, buy some rice and some vegetables. Some fish and lean chicken. Bake the fish. Bake the chicken. Steam the vegetables and boil the rice. When you're starting to get full, stop eating. How hard is that?
It's not as convenient as fast food, true. But if that's your excuse, you're killing yourself for convenience. Living in McDonalds and blaming them for your problems is like blaming the gun in a game of Russian Roulette.
Here's my favorite quote from the article:
"We need to step back and take a look at the open source business model, which doesn't provide [private enterprises like ours] with inherent protections," SCO chief executive Darl McBride charged in August.
News flash, Darl. You need to spend more time looking at your own business model, and not everyone else's.
Weaselmancer
I agree completely. How much research is needed to find out that autoplay is a feature which you can disable? And what kind of clusterfuck pile of dumbasses bases a security feature off of something you can disable with a keystroke in the first place???
Research. It only took me 5 seconds to find the above link. Well - thank God I'm still allowed to.
Weaselmancer
Because it's so much fun not giving him proper credit and then watching him foam at the mouth.
It should be an Olympic event. Tell him you love using Linux to compile code, or using Linux to surf the web. Bonus points if you can get his eyes to roll back into his head or have him gibber in tongues.
Weaselmancer
Currently, you can get more time for hacking your cablemodem than manslaughter. What's the point anymore?
To any lawmakers out there who might read this - We Get It Already. Lay Off.
Weaselmancer
So, this is a good improvement it seems, but shaves away 4.5 seconds or so out of maybe 30 sconds or over a minute for many people.
True, but this is still great.
The article says, "less than 200 milliseconds (mS) from power-up to application code startup." The thing that makes this great is that not every device is going to go through the entire *nix init sequence.
How about a device like a Linux embedded router, or something like that? Just a kernel running and that's all. Or how about a dashboard mp3 player that only needs to run one application?
This makes Linux much more like customized firmware, and there are plenty of places to use that.
Granted, this'll be great when it makes it to the desktop, too. =)
Weaselmancer
I've never seen a picture of The Holy One before and my god he looks like David Hasselhoff
I haven't seen a picture of him in a while, and he has changed a bit. I don't think he looks like Knight Rider, but he does look an awful lot like Trey Parker of South Park fame. Same shirt, too.
If you've ever seen Baseketball, just imagine Linus doing the psych-out to BillG and drinking a liposuction at him. Fun!
I thought Communism was a red herring! Get a Clue, man!
What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?
Plugging the book for free on Slashdot by pretending it's a news item.
Thank you... I was going to write a rebuttal to this guy, but you've summed it up perfectly.
Weaselmancer
It's good advice, period. Illegal or not.
Ever been in a car accident? Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop?
"It was my fault."
Because if you do, you've just thrown out any hopes of a successful defense. You WILL be reamed to the full extent of the law. NEVER admit to anything if the law is involved. Your fault or not. Illegal or not. Let the prosecuting attorney earn his keep.
Weaselmancer
RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
Riiiiiight.
Can anyone show me a link to the RIAA's website with the text of their generous offer? All I can find are stories that begin with "Apparently" or "Industry sources state that".
Let's say I'm as strange as the guy who bought a SCO license, and I decide to go for this. How do I do it? Does anyone know, or is it another vapor-offer?
Weaselmancer
I don't know. I'm afraid that as the ship sinks, freedom of expression is going to go down in the vortex along with it.
Things usually get worse before they get better. Yeah, as soon as the RIAA starts circling the drain they're going to thrash around and spend their last clout lobbying for laws that make the DCMA look like a parking ticket.
But if the RIAA finally tanks, there'll be no lobby group to keep these laws on the books. With no defending interest, these laws would dry up and go away pretty quick. Constant pressure from industry is the only thing that keeps these idiotic thought-crime laws alive.
Imagine a world where the EFF has no opposition from the **AA. Hell, we might even be able to talk about cryptography again. Someday.
Weaselmancer
Ayup.
Metallica is probably the best example of RIAA un-logic. Imagine...a band that starts off in a garage, doing stuff like Metal up your Ass. Then for some reason nobody knows, begins covering Bob Segar tunes, testifies to the senate against Napster, and then wonders why their sales are down???
I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head if he was on fire.
Weaselmancer
So, could this be it? The tip of the iceberg peeking out of the water, leering at the RIAA?
Let's hope so. Let's also hope that the record companies represented by the RIAA realize that it has become the albatross around the music industry's neck forcing the value of their product down.
The price cuts are great - but don't let up folks! We'll know we're winning when the RIAA begins doing layoffs. Until that day - continue the boycott! Don't buy even the cheap CD's. The profits still go towards curtailing your rights.
Remember, the RIAA will do anything to push their agenda, but only so long as the record companies can continue to line their pockets. Cut off the cash flow, and the RIAA goes away.
Continue the boycott!
Weaselmancer
Eerie coincidence? I think not! :)
No no no... Erie is in PA, about a half an hour away. Wifi doesn't go that far. ;^)
Weaselmancer
With the RIAA's heavy-handed behavior and random lawsuits, a lot of people who engage in music swapping tend to take on a Robin Hood/Boston Tea Party philosophy about what they're doing. They take from the rich, and give to the poor - and don't feel bad about it either since everyone knows that the artists make about a nickel of that $13 you shell out for a CD, and the RIAA uses the rest to line their pockets, maintain their near-monopoly, hire lawyers and lobby congress.
So as a possible remedy, do you think the RIAA brass would be willing to take pay cuts and fork over a better percentage to the artists/producers in order to beat that image?
If file swappers actually felt like they were bilking the artists they love, it'd be a different matter.
Weaselmancer
Just because I can't resist, have you seen this?
Weaselmancer
I don't take the 10 commandments any way at all, not being a Christian. It's other people that worry me.
"(meaning you get something without paying for it when you should be paying for it) so I can conclude that copyright infringement is stealing."
What you do is up to you. But to the law, that's another matter. And the law says there is a crime called theft, and a crime called copyright violation - and they're different. I wouldn't care to debate your own personal morality - not my business. If it feels like theft to you, don't do it. But if you do, and your'e caught, you will be punished for copyright violation and not theft.
What worries me is that some Christian judge will see Copyright Violation and think Theft, and punish accordingly. This is what the RIAA wants, and we must fight that.
Weaselmancer
"There also isn't a commandment against walking up to a random woman on the street and calling her a stupid fat worthless whore. Does that mean it's okay to do so?"
No, that's wrong to do. However, if I choose to do it, it's wrong to say I'm an attempted murderer. Copyright violation is wrong, sure. But it's not theft.
"A) This country is run by laws, not commandments."
True. Don't think I'm a Christian - I'm not. At all. But a lot of people do think this way. Here's a story to illustrate: I was pulled over by a cop once. He heard me say goddammit under my breath as he walked up to the car. And then told me that he wasn't going to give me a ticket until I said that, because it's blasphemy.
Don't think for a minute that Jesus doesn't affect your life, even if you're an athiest.
"B) Not everybody is Christian. Most of the world is not, in fact."
Most of the world doesn't have to answer to the RIAA. We do. And a lot of people in power are Christians. That's why it's important to note that the RIAA is calling this THEFT. There's a commandment for that. And in a city building not far from where I live, a vote passed to keep a monument of the 10 commandments in the city building, separation of church and state be damned.
"C) The Bible was written thousands of years ago. It's safe to assume that, regardless of whether or not you personally believe that it's the Word of God, it might just possibly not cover every situation in the modern world."
I agree. But tell it to the judge.
Weaselmancer
"...or else Linux risks becoming proprietary, closed and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."
Apparently, this guy doesn't understand the process he's writing about.
Weaselmancer
File sharing is piracy, and hence, stealing, which does indeed make it illegal.
Ok one more time.
File sharing is not stealing. It's copyright violation. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't need a crime called copyright violation.
Calling it stealing is nothing more than RIAA/MPAA spin doctoring. Stealing sounds a lot worse than copyright violation, doesn't it? A lot of people in the US are Christians - and there isn't a commandment against copyright violation. I wonder how many judges to to church?
Don't let the RIAA/MPAA poision your mind with their nonsense. It's NOT stealing. Stealing is stealing.
Weaselmancer