>no new distributions look like appearing out of the fog. No experimentation = stagnation The second part doesn't follow from the first; No new distributions does not indicates no experimentation.
>You could fit all the BSD distributions on one CD and still have room to spare. This is patently untrue; OpenBSD alone takes up 2 CDs and has for several releases.
confusion over the difference between FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Maybe it would server BSD better (marketing-wise) to have a single name for their OS, and varying distributions?
Two problems:
BSD types don't have take-over-the-world aspirations, they just want to write useful code. Thus, anything justified as better for marketing tends to be scorned.
The three *BSDs are not just different distributions, there are fundamental technical differences among them. To the extent that they're interoperable at all, it's from emulation & conforming to a standard API.
> why has no one released a "mainstream" GPL'ed BSD
Because the people who appreciate *BSD and know it well enough to maintain it tend to be the developers -- and they have bad associations with GPL'd code. Associations like the spaghetti mess that is gnu-tar, the overladen info/emacs help system, or not being able to exchange freely with the Linux kernel like they can amongst themselves.
Anonymity is always a choice. Sending, "I am Peter Abeln, SSN 2039991415" inside of a multiply enveloped cypherpunk e-mail message doesn't make me anonymous.
So, just don't conduct business deals with people who refuse to let their net identity be attached to a real-world one (in a manner that allows for authentication, not just assertions as above).
I am not evil, and neither are you. While I haven't personally seen the tragedies you have, they are not a reflection on my morality. Only my life is.
You are laboring under a sadistic moral system which condemns you for situations which your actions did not cause, and which treats mankind as a communal protoplasmic morass. But we're not; we're all individually responsible thinking beings.
My life is not to be a sacrificial lamb, waiting to be called to the altar when the other lambs decide they're hungry. And if all people ever did was focus on solving the immediate problems of their fellows, we'd still be trying to master the arts of flint-knapping and leather-working. No, correction, no one would be trying. They'd all be helping each other, in a great big circle of brotherly love. Perfectly disgusting.
At least the thirld-world people you saw were only suffering physically. You (and you're not alone, which I suppose should comfort you) are suffering in the spirit. Unearned guilt is the vilest form of self-abuse.
Believe it or not, this isn't personal. I hope that someday you understand what I'm trying to communicate. If you have any curiousity, I suggest you take a look at "Anthem" by Ayn Rand.
The clause will be laughed out of court because a band doesn't own the rights to related URLs, and so couldn't sign them away. The labels aren't in a price war because people don't choose their music based on price. The labels compete by bringing "better" music -- and especially better promoted music -- to the market than their competitors. And they believe, right or wrong, that their business model is threatened by mp3s. Very few people with the vision to re-think their way of doing business would rise to an influential position in record companies. Thus, there is an opportunity for someone with the intelligence and the resources. Lastly, about the fantasy thing. Would you rather that those with power were at the mercy of every nitwit with a dream, every beggar with a burning desire? Now, not all dreamers are nitwits -- but those that aren't will be able to attract the interest of someone who can help them realize their wishes. Having power gives you the right to exercise it as you please. Within limits of morality, of course. Respect other people as they respect you, et. al.
I would take exception to the idea of "artificial limitations", as you say. That you can conceive of an option doesn't mean you have a right to exercise it. If you can't bring it about yourself, and you can't find a willing partner (company, individual, union, whatever) to help you bring it about, then it was never an option in the first place: it was a fantasy. Government involvement is a different story, however, and I don't know the details in this case. Wouldn't be surprised to find that recording companies had some or even quite a few privileges sprinkled throughout the Congressional Regiester. The free market, when it's allowed to work, gives people what they want -- to the great consternation of those who would rather dictate other's desires. I personally think this clause will be laughed out of court, but even if it were cast-iron, Sony would only hurt itself in the end, because of the direct, active nature of the medium, as pointed out elsewhere here.
Slashdot Mirror
Capability-based security is what you need.
See Eros. It's GPL'd.
>no new distributions look like appearing out of the fog. No experimentation = stagnation
The second part doesn't follow from the first; No new distributions does not indicates no experimentation.
>You could fit all the BSD distributions on one CD and still have room to spare.
This is patently untrue; OpenBSD alone takes up 2 CDs and has for several releases.
Two problems:
> why has no one released a "mainstream" GPL'ed BSD
Because the people who appreciate *BSD and know it well enough to maintain it tend to be the developers -- and they have bad associations with GPL'd code. Associations like the spaghetti mess that is gnu-tar, the overladen info/emacs help system, or not being able to exchange freely with the Linux kernel like they can amongst themselves.
Not at all:
Anonymity is always a choice. Sending, "I am Peter Abeln, SSN 2039991415" inside of a multiply enveloped cypherpunk e-mail message doesn't make me anonymous.
So, just don't conduct business deals with people who refuse to let their net identity be attached to a real-world one (in a manner that allows for authentication, not just assertions as above).
I am not evil, and neither are you. While I haven't personally seen the tragedies you have, they are not a reflection on my morality. Only my life is.
You are laboring under a sadistic moral system which condemns you for situations which your actions did not cause, and which treats mankind as a communal protoplasmic morass. But we're not; we're all individually responsible thinking beings.
My life is not to be a sacrificial lamb, waiting to be called to the altar when the other lambs decide they're hungry. And if all people ever did was focus on solving the immediate problems of their fellows, we'd still be trying to master the arts of flint-knapping and leather-working. No, correction, no one would be trying. They'd all be helping each other, in a great big circle of brotherly love. Perfectly disgusting.
At least the thirld-world people you saw were only suffering physically. You (and you're not alone, which I suppose should comfort you) are suffering in the spirit. Unearned guilt is the vilest form of self-abuse.
Believe it or not, this isn't personal. I hope that someday you understand what I'm trying to communicate. If you have any curiousity, I suggest you take a look at "Anthem" by Ayn Rand.
Why not RSA?
Patent fees. RSA Data Security only allows free use for non-commercial products, as I understand it.
But maybe the poster isn't in the US and doesn't have to worry about American patent law.
The clause will be laughed out of court because a band doesn't own the rights to related URLs, and so couldn't sign them away.
The labels aren't in a price war because people don't choose their music based on price. The labels compete by bringing "better" music -- and especially better promoted music -- to the market than their competitors. And they believe, right or wrong, that their business model is threatened by mp3s. Very few people with the vision to re-think their way of doing business would rise to an influential position in record companies. Thus, there is an opportunity for someone with the intelligence and the resources.
Lastly, about the fantasy thing. Would you rather that those with power were at the mercy of every nitwit with a dream, every beggar with a burning desire? Now, not all dreamers are nitwits -- but those that aren't will be able to attract the interest of someone who can help them realize their wishes. Having power gives you the right to exercise it as you please. Within limits of morality, of course. Respect other people as they respect you, et. al.
I would take exception to the idea of "artificial limitations", as you say.
That you can conceive of an option doesn't mean you have a right to exercise it. If you can't bring it about yourself, and you can't find a willing partner (company, individual, union, whatever) to help you bring it about, then it was never an option in the first place: it was a fantasy.
Government involvement is a different story, however, and I don't know the details in this case. Wouldn't be surprised to find that recording companies had some or even quite a few privileges sprinkled throughout the Congressional Regiester.
The free market, when it's allowed to work, gives people what they want -- to the great consternation of those who would rather dictate other's desires. I personally think this clause will be laughed out of court, but even if it were cast-iron, Sony would only hurt itself in the end, because of the direct, active nature of the medium, as pointed out elsewhere here.