There are two reasons why I consider charging unethical. First; who is to receive that money why and for what. Second; with the current wave of spam proxies it is not necessaraly the spammer who is paying but the victim. At this moment a victim pays for the online charges and for the nuisance.
Thanks,
Gerard
Yes, you might think that it makes sense. But when a patent is to be granted, there must be no prior art. Therefore a global patent requires a global research for prior art.
Consider the current quality of patents granted, how many are bogus. Consider the cost of researching for the admissability of a patent. Now would you want to reexamine ALL patents world wide or would you prefer the status quo?
Thanks,
Gerard
Spammers want to get your money. At this moment they are the ad-man, they advertise the wares of companies.
When the companies are made accountable for the advertisements of their wares, spamming ad agencies will find less business.
Simmilar, when accountants have to sign for money transfers and are personally responsible for the legality of their work, money laundering would not be such a problem.
There is this server client model here; there is this administrator who decides what to backup, when and for how long. Now the next step would be to have the administrator set it up to save the data from the backup storage to tape; the data is "fixed" so you do it when it is convenient (think office hours).
IBM has a product called Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM). Great product, it evens provide you with a list of data telling you what is on the tapes and which tapes are going to the off site storage and what tapes are at the off site storage, it tells you what tapes to bring back next time from off site storage.
The problem with back-ups is not that it cannot be done; the problem is that many organisations do not do it properly or do not do it at all. Properly means that you figure out what to back-up, and how to use the back-up when required. Back-up can be done with as little as a 128 MB memory stick or a CD. Testing a back-up can be as simple as using a computer at home or a laptop that can double as the emergency system.
Hell, if I could spend a day for each organisation that does not have a back-up procedure in place, I would be employed for the rest of my years.
Palladium whatever does not mean that the concept of using "software" on only one platform and you have to pay for on another platform is an open and shut case.
The CD's that I have I can play in my stereo, in my car, wherever. With media that is locked to one machine, I CANNOT use said media as I am used to.
Technlology like Palladium should be used EXCLUSIVELY to trusted computing (you know me and i know you..) I am master of my identity, media I buy should work on all my machines. Preventing this is an infringement of my rights and a denial of me as being my own master.
To put it in an scenario; I download (payed for) music, I burn a CD and I will be able to use it in my computer(s), stereo and car.
I am not my computer and my computer is not a customer.
The premisse here is that everybody that uses the internet downloads music. THEY DO NOT.
I do not listen to music on my computer. My speakers are almost always turned off. I resent the idea to have me pay for things I do not use. When I buy empty CD's I pay to the music special intrest while I use my cd's for backup.
I use my internet to download data/software. I use it to browse websites.
The solution is similar to me having to pay for sports tv. When it is part of a channel that I do watch it is ok-ish. If I have to pay for sports because I want to watch another channel as well it is a rip-off.
The morality of the RIAA or from the MP3 entheausiast is not the issue here. Here it is about having everybody pay to appease an organisation that does not necessaraly benefit the community it is said to protect.
The same argument would have me pay money to software companies because so many people use have no license for their software. Another good idea ?
Thanks,
I am happy that you do not only deal with the "traditional" way of looking at things. With OSS covered, I am sure you deal with source escrow as well. There have been many companies burned because the company that delivered software went out of business...
Gerard
I have read the comments so far. Yes, Red Hat is a supplier, so is Zope, MySQL name them. The issue that I raise is that you select a PRODUCT and you may choose to select a vendor.
You may and do not have to. This makes all the difference. When OSS is chosen, a company may have programmers look at the source. They may be able to contribute to the community involved, they may ask a community for support, for features.
The issue here is that the book is a "how to, what is what". Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask if OSS is mentioned and if there are pointers how a company can benefit from OSS and its communities. It is important to mention that companies can contribute and that it is in their best intrest to do so.
There is a chapter on how to select your Vendor. This implies that proprietary software is to be selected (hence the word vendor)
Does this imply that OSS is not on the map? If OSS is not dealt with, I would rate this book as not of this time. The challenge of IT is to make do and do well on a limitid budget. OSS does play a role in this. So does the choise for open standards; this allows for unhindered communication with the rest of the world.
The GPL does allow it. But given a CUSTOMER who has working software/hardware form its supplier, do you really think that he checks if his supplier provided sources back to the community?
Providing feedback to a community is work. The programmers who did the change are likely to get the attention of a community. Just saying: "This is different and works for me, have fun" will hardly get a software change accepted or noticed.
Thanks,
Gerard
One of the interesting things about this is that Microsoft will allow itself to use the source that it is given AFTER a grace period.
Two things, Microsoft will have the right to use your code; so a commercial advantage is time limited. When an organisation finds a security issue in Windows CE, Microsoft will NOT have the right to include the patch as there is this period of a few months that a company has as a competitive edge.
Consider what it means for a company coding in Windows/CE; your additions are NOT guaranteed to provide a commercial advantage; Microsoft allows itself to your code. So the advantage of coding in Windows/CE has to ofset coding in Linux. With the GPL you do not NEED to contribute back to the community; you only have to provide the source and objects to customers! When you contribute to the community, there is no grace period for nobody.
I wonder when somebody writes a Windows/CE security patch and insists on the grace period would Microsoft be liable under the existing laws?
Well, when you post as text, you do not get automagic text generation. With HTML the tags I am used to are different from the ones I know;. For example
is
.. So I do not guess and use plain old text. Thanks,
Gerard
Consider the cost involved. Compare it to some military hardware. Given how and where it can be used given its license, it will be used all over and will save lives as much as a pantzer does.
The brilliant thing here is that this move recognises the importance of communities; the OpenBSD community IS all over the world, with Mr de Raadt a Canadian the work can be done in Canada, in the USA, in India, wherever the TALENT is.
As the grant is intended to help "testing the security of commercial software systems against the security of open source software projects", it will point to the truth in this old dispute what makes better secure software AND it will help to point to the relative merits of "security by obscurity".
However to assess this, I expect DARPA not to select Microsoft Windows as the champion of the proprietary world, I would choose OS/400. Given the smaller size of the OpenBSD community, the effect of methodology can be better assessed.
As DARPA throws bread on the water, I hope they will land a big fish!
There are three types of Software; Proprietary, Open Source and custom.
When proprietary software's labour gets taxed because of its country of origin, think what would happen to the "Microsoft tax". Countries would be justified to tax Windows/Office out of existence.
Open Source, the work is done all over the world and it is next to impossible where this work is done. As there is money exchanged for getting all this work, it can hardly be taxed and is impossible to value.
Custom software, when companies are to be taxed for work done outside one country, consider that the work is done for the WHOLE company. Would that mean that a French company has to have different software made for its US subsidiary? Or would you accept that a US company is to write different software for a French subsidiary?
All is all a bad idea.
PS I work in IT and lost my job too. The recession, the war they said..
There ain't no such thing as common sense as common sense ain't common.
Your standards of "common sense" are not necessaraly common. Given what you say, should you pay taxes when you consider the government doing things that are detrimental to the common good ?
It is a pluriform world out there.
Porn is basically nude for money. Leaving the monetary aspects aside, you get into morality and doublestandards quickly. To me it it is a fact that functional sex and nudity in a film (not rape) is good for kids; it provides a rolemodel in that it is an important bit of life. When kids learn about it and value it for it being common, there will be less need for abortions.
The more angst there is for nudity and sex, the more screwed up perverts there will be. Consider that it is pope John Paul II who removed the figleaves from classical statues in the Vatican. He is not one to want kids to get into bed asap. He is the one to be paranoid about some dangly bits.
So get real. Porn is not nude, porn is not sex. Porn is big as it is forbidden fruit. Unforbid and porn loses a lot of its attraction.
When it is legitimate, what problem can the RIAA have. It may only be different from the way they view the world.
They are an recording industry organisation, which is not to say that everyone that records is represented by this organisation. This is one aspect that they do not mention; there point is that they represent ALL of the recording industry and consequently speak for all the industry and artists.
This is not about socialism
on
Corporate KDE
·
· Score: 1
Like with proprietary software, there is a quid pro quo. The German software uses essentially free software, it requires some improvements, it pays contractors (programmers by any other name) to do that. It therefore does what is also the idea with proprietary software; you pay a company to stay in business and to produce next years goods.
An essential benefit is that unlike with proprietary software you do not rely on the longevity of one software company. Therefore if the previous company went bust, you find yourself another company willing to do your work.
As the starting point was essentially free, you pass on the baton to the next who has additional requirements.
As American governmental organisations seem not to be allowed to be open, upfront about contributing to a greater good. How do you call them that only profit? Parasites ??
Rights should go with responsibilities
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To me the worst thing of the copyright question is, that companies acrue title to the rights to copy and THEN decide not to as it is economically not "prudent" to do so. As a consequence a lot of important material never sees a reprint even though there is a need for it.
When material is "available" the cost of getting things that are rare like classical music is such that it cannot only be described as in money terms but also in effort. I live in a 200.000 person town and my personal collection is bigger that what can be found in the record shops. The function of a recordshop is to allow me a listen befor a sale. Without an infrastructure for the sale of material how can the punters be held responsible for not buying or for copying copyrighted material?
When I need a book for study and I cannot have it because of it being out of print, is it not criminal that I cannot get it? That I cannot have a digital copy and print it myself because of this "copyright" joke ?
When the Economist argues for a short period where an artist is to be protected, where does the publishing company come into play when they DO NOT provide the service that they ARE named for; publishing?
In my opinion, any period I can live with as long as there is an equal weight on the other side of the balance. That weight must be service.
A Californian court decided that KAZAA can be brought before a Californian judge as so many Californians use KAZAA.
Therefore 95% of a network says every jurisdiction in the world. And I am sure that the RIAA breaks the law somewhere if it is true.
Arguments used are like a doubleedged sword, if it is can be used by you it can be used against you.
Slashdot Mirror
A standard AS/400 terminal is using the 5250 protocol. It CAN do 3270 but best used with AS/400 is 5250.
There are two reasons why I consider charging unethical. First; who is to receive that money why and for what. Second; with the current wave of spam proxies it is not necessaraly the spammer who is paying but the victim. At this moment a victim pays for the online charges and for the nuisance. Thanks, Gerard
Yes, you might think that it makes sense. But when a patent is to be granted, there must be no prior art. Therefore a global patent requires a global research for prior art. Consider the current quality of patents granted, how many are bogus. Consider the cost of researching for the admissability of a patent. Now would you want to reexamine ALL patents world wide or would you prefer the status quo? Thanks, Gerard
Spammers want to get your money. At this moment they are the ad-man, they advertise the wares of companies.
When the companies are made accountable for the advertisements of their wares, spamming ad agencies will find less business.
Simmilar, when accountants have to sign for money transfers and are personally responsible for the legality of their work, money laundering would not be such a problem.
There is this server client model here; there is this administrator who decides what to backup, when and for how long. Now the next step would be to have the administrator set it up to save the data from the backup storage to tape; the data is "fixed" so you do it when it is convenient (think office hours).
IBM has a product called Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM). Great product, it evens provide you with a list of data telling you what is on the tapes and which tapes are going to the off site storage and what tapes are at the off site storage, it tells you what tapes to bring back next time from off site storage.
The problem with back-ups is not that it cannot be done; the problem is that many organisations do not do it properly or do not do it at all. Properly means that you figure out what to back-up, and how to use the back-up when required. Back-up can be done with as little as a 128 MB memory stick or a CD. Testing a back-up can be as simple as using a computer at home or a laptop that can double as the emergency system.
Hell, if I could spend a day for each organisation that does not have a back-up procedure in place, I would be employed for the rest of my years.
Thanks,
Gerard
Palladium whatever does not mean that the concept of using "software" on only one platform and you have to pay for on another platform is an open and shut case.
The CD's that I have I can play in my stereo, in my car, wherever. With media that is locked to one machine, I CANNOT use said media as I am used to.
Technlology like Palladium should be used EXCLUSIVELY to trusted computing (you know me and i know you..) I am master of my identity, media I buy should work on all my machines. Preventing this is an infringement of my rights and a denial of me as being my own master.
To put it in an scenario; I download (payed for) music, I burn a CD and I will be able to use it in my computer(s), stereo and car.
I am not my computer and my computer is not a customer.
Thanks,
Gerard
The premisse here is that everybody that uses the internet downloads music. THEY DO NOT.
I do not listen to music on my computer. My speakers are almost always turned off. I resent the idea to have me pay for things I do not use. When I buy empty CD's I pay to the music special intrest while I use my cd's for backup.
I use my internet to download data/software. I use it to browse websites.
The solution is similar to me having to pay for sports tv. When it is part of a channel that I do watch it is ok-ish. If I have to pay for sports because I want to watch another channel as well it is a rip-off.
The morality of the RIAA or from the MP3 entheausiast is not the issue here. Here it is about having everybody pay to appease an organisation that does not necessaraly benefit the community it is said to protect.
The same argument would have me pay money to software companies because so many people use have no license for their software. Another good idea ?
bah,
Gerard
Thanks, I am happy that you do not only deal with the "traditional" way of looking at things. With OSS covered, I am sure you deal with source escrow as well. There have been many companies burned because the company that delivered software went out of business... Gerard
I have read the comments so far. Yes, Red Hat is a supplier, so is Zope, MySQL name them. The issue that I raise is that you select a PRODUCT and you may choose to select a vendor.
You may and do not have to. This makes all the difference. When OSS is chosen, a company may have programmers look at the source. They may be able to contribute to the community involved, they may ask a community for support, for features.
The issue here is that the book is a "how to, what is what". Therefore it is a legitimate question to ask if OSS is mentioned and if there are pointers how a company can benefit from OSS and its communities. It is important to mention that companies can contribute and that it is in their best intrest to do so.
Thanks,
Gerard
There is a chapter on how to select your Vendor. This implies that proprietary software is to be selected (hence the word vendor)
Does this imply that OSS is not on the map? If OSS is not dealt with, I would rate this book as not of this time. The challenge of IT is to make do and do well on a limitid budget. OSS does play a role in this. So does the choise for open standards; this allows for unhindered communication with the rest of the world.
Thanks,
Gerard
The GPL does allow it. But given a CUSTOMER who has working software/hardware form its supplier, do you really think that he checks if his supplier provided sources back to the community? Providing feedback to a community is work. The programmers who did the change are likely to get the attention of a community. Just saying: "This is different and works for me, have fun" will hardly get a software change accepted or noticed. Thanks, Gerard
Two things, Microsoft will have the right to use your code; so a commercial advantage is time limited. When an organisation finds a security issue in Windows CE, Microsoft will NOT have the right to include the patch as there is this period of a few months that a company has as a competitive edge.
Consider what it means for a company coding in Windows/CE; your additions are NOT guaranteed to provide a commercial advantage; Microsoft allows itself to your code. So the advantage of coding in Windows/CE has to ofset coding in Linux. With the GPL you do not NEED to contribute back to the community; you only have to provide the source and objects to customers! When you contribute to the community, there is no grace period for nobody.
I wonder when somebody writes a Windows/CE security patch and insists on the grace period would Microsoft be liable under the existing laws?
Thanks, Gerard
is
..So I do not guess and use plain old text.
Thanks,
Gerard
Tim O'Reilly had an interesting discussion with Adam Turoff on why Open Source communities do work so well.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3017
Thanks,
Gerard
The brilliant thing here is that this move recognises the importance of communities; the OpenBSD community IS all over the world, with Mr de Raadt a Canadian the work can be done in Canada, in the USA, in India, wherever the TALENT is.
As the grant is intended to help "testing the security of commercial software systems against the security of open source software projects", it will point to the truth in this old dispute what makes better secure software AND it will help to point to the relative merits of "security by obscurity".
However to assess this, I expect DARPA not to select Microsoft Windows as the champion of the proprietary world, I would choose OS/400. Given the smaller size of the OpenBSD community, the effect of methodology can be better assessed.
As DARPA throws bread on the water, I hope they will land a big fish!
Thanks, Gerard
There are three types of Software; Proprietary, Open Source and custom. When proprietary software's labour gets taxed because of its country of origin, think what would happen to the "Microsoft tax". Countries would be justified to tax Windows/Office out of existence. Open Source, the work is done all over the world and it is next to impossible where this work is done. As there is money exchanged for getting all this work, it can hardly be taxed and is impossible to value. Custom software, when companies are to be taxed for work done outside one country, consider that the work is done for the WHOLE company. Would that mean that a French company has to have different software made for its US subsidiary? Or would you accept that a US company is to write different software for a French subsidiary? All is all a bad idea. PS I work in IT and lost my job too. The recession, the war they said..
..if I had a daughter I wouldn't want to date her. In some countries you might go to jail for that.
There ain't no such thing as common sense as common sense ain't common. Your standards of "common sense" are not necessaraly common. Given what you say, should you pay taxes when you consider the government doing things that are detrimental to the common good ? It is a pluriform world out there.
Porn is basically nude for money. Leaving the monetary aspects aside, you get into morality and doublestandards quickly. To me it it is a fact that functional sex and nudity in a film (not rape) is good for kids; it provides a rolemodel in that it is an important bit of life. When kids learn about it and value it for it being common, there will be less need for abortions. The more angst there is for nudity and sex, the more screwed up perverts there will be. Consider that it is pope John Paul II who removed the figleaves from classical statues in the Vatican. He is not one to want kids to get into bed asap. He is the one to be paranoid about some dangly bits. So get real. Porn is not nude, porn is not sex. Porn is big as it is forbidden fruit. Unforbid and porn loses a lot of its attraction.
When it is legitimate, what problem can the RIAA have. It may only be different from the way they view the world. They are an recording industry organisation, which is not to say that everyone that records is represented by this organisation. This is one aspect that they do not mention; there point is that they represent ALL of the recording industry and consequently speak for all the industry and artists.
Like with proprietary software, there is a quid pro quo. The German software uses essentially free software, it requires some improvements, it pays contractors (programmers by any other name) to do that. It therefore does what is also the idea with proprietary software; you pay a company to stay in business and to produce next years goods. An essential benefit is that unlike with proprietary software you do not rely on the longevity of one software company. Therefore if the previous company went bust, you find yourself another company willing to do your work. As the starting point was essentially free, you pass on the baton to the next who has additional requirements. As American governmental organisations seem not to be allowed to be open, upfront about contributing to a greater good. How do you call them that only profit? Parasites ??
To me the worst thing of the copyright question is, that companies acrue title to the rights to copy and THEN decide not to as it is economically not "prudent" to do so. As a consequence a lot of important material never sees a reprint even though there is a need for it.
When material is "available" the cost of getting things that are rare like classical music is such that it cannot only be described as in money terms but also in effort. I live in a 200.000 person town and my personal collection is bigger that what can be found in the record shops. The function of a recordshop is to allow me a listen befor a sale. Without an infrastructure for the sale of material how can the punters be held responsible for not buying or for copying copyrighted material?
When I need a book for study and I cannot have it because of it being out of print, is it not criminal that I cannot get it? That I cannot have a digital copy and print it myself because of this "copyright" joke ?
When the Economist argues for a short period where an artist is to be protected, where does the publishing company come into play when they DO NOT provide the service that they ARE named for; publishing?
In my opinion, any period I can live with as long as there is an equal weight on the other side of the balance. That weight must be service.
Thanks,
Gerard
Tivoli already runs on Linux for quit some time. The importance of the news is in the widening of the support.
1
Notes client will be introduced by IBM. This is really important news as it makes it not mandatory anymore to have Windows on the desktop.
http://www.internetwk.com/story/INW20030119S000
Thanks,
Gerard Meijssen
A Californian court decided that KAZAA can be brought before a Californian judge as so many Californians use KAZAA. Therefore 95% of a network says every jurisdiction in the world. And I am sure that the RIAA breaks the law somewhere if it is true. Arguments used are like a doubleedged sword, if it is can be used by you it can be used against you.
Yeah it is Herbert who wrote it not Dune :) Sorry