as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law
I would question that assertion - there seem to be a lot of "nobodies" here on/. doing exactly that.
The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA)
I have to wonder if the DMCA would stand up to judicial review, if some of its more draconian measures were actually brought to trial. I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks? Getting a precedent on the books that establishes a more reasonable penalty would be an important step, in my opinion.
machine-gun patents
Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
I can't argue with that. I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders. But in any case, Hatch is a horrible choice to chair this committee. Destroying the possessions of someone without the giving them the benefit of due process is ridiculous. You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.
With respect, I think you're missing the point of my question. You've listed a number of *excellent* reasons to avoid using proprietary software whenever possible. I won't argue that point, because I agree with it.
I'm the author of a GPL'd (well, LGPL'd - it's a library) work myself. I firmly believe in my right to copyright my work and license it as I see fit. And even though I disagree with the terms that Metallica (for example) have chosen, I respect their right to choose their own terms. It's a question of fair play - how could I possibly demand protection for my own rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that same protection to others?
Why? Keep in mind that copyright protection is what gives the GPL its teeth. So any legislation from Hatch & Co. will cut both ways - if it can be used as a basis to sue Metallica downloaders, it can also be used as a basis to sue GPL violators.
Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?
It would seem to me that anyone who demands strict adherence to the GPL should, out of a sense of fairness if nothing else, follow their own strict guidelines. IMNSHO, respect for the licensing terms of copyright holders should cut both ways, however much that may hurt. *Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy.
You can't cross-compile assembly because it is designed for the target platform from the start.
Nonsense. Cross-compiling is when the host machine - i.e. the one running the compiler - is of a different architecture than the target. That's all. Whether or not the source language is portable to a different target is completely irrelevant.
If you're trying to install a game, and the install bombs out with a "can't write to/foo" error, then you might well have a permission-related problem that running the repair app might fix. Running it in that situation is the sensible thing to do, and no one has suggested otherwise.
Haven't you heard the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Same thing here. If you're having problems that the utility will fix, run it and fix 'em. If you're not, don't bother.
As far as nerves go... well, you're the one who's reacting like Linus when someone tries to take his blanket, not me.
Let me paste a line, even this single line verifies guys post:
Permissions differ on./private/etc/slpsa.conf, should be -rwxr-xr-x , they are -rw-r--r--
Oh, it verifies something, all right - that you guys are talking about pure cargo-cult nonsense. Let's have a look at the file and see what's in there, shall we?
# This is the config file for slp sa, empty for now.
Oh, boy, I sure am glad "repair permissions" made that executable. That looks like an important script to me...
Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That was pretty much Moofie's point - all of the things you mentioned were done after Jobs was fired, and before he was re-hired.
Bleh - did some googling, and it seems I had my timeline mixed up.:-( Dr. Porsche the elder was big on the racing circuit around the turn of the century, and had an engineering/consulting firm with his name. His firm was hired by the German government in the late '30s to design the VW - the name of the model at the time, not the name of a company. There was no company, actually - the factory and everything else was owned by the government.
After the war, the factory was privatized and the name of the only model was adopted as the name of the new company. Porsche's son, also named Ferdinand, was heavily involved with starting and managing the new company. Porsche's firm was hired in '49 by VW as design consultants, and received a royalty on every car VW built.
The two companies are still closely related. The VW-Porsche 914 was a collaboration in the late '60s, and the 924 in the '70s. The present-day Cayenne and VW Touareg share a lot of engineering. Until he retired in 2003, Ferdinand Piech, grandson of Ferdinand Porsche, was both the principal shareholder of Porsche and CEO of VW.
Dr. Porsche only saw the bare beginning of the original Beetle's rise in popularity - he last visited the Stuttgart factory in '50, and died in '52. His son died in '98. He probably saw the new Beetle, but I doubt he had a hand in designing it - he was 88 when he died, so he would have been 80 or so when the idea was first proposed.
Bugs are nice, as are Macs, but they're no Porsches.
Well, in a way Bugs *are* Porsches. They were designed by Ferdinand Porsche before he left VW and founded the company that's named after him. Take a look at the really old Porsche Speedsters from the '50s - they share a *lot* of design elements with Bugs.
Apple (and other companies) should adopt a linear pricing strategy.
Apple just posted the best quarterly numbers in the history of the company... so they should change their pricing strategy? I fail to see the logic. You change your strategy when it isn't working; when it's a spectacular success you leave it alone.
It's hard enough getting cats into a pen, it's that much harder to get countries known for 'cutting corners' (like Russia) to do their job correctly.
Um, you do realize, don't you, that the effects you're talking about here were documented by Soviet cosmonauts after long-term missions aboard Mir? Sounds to me like they did their jobs pretty damn well.
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Russians aren't coming up short when it comes to ISS flights - NASA is. The Russians are stepping up to the plate and getting both US and Russian crew into orbit.
Exercising like mad. They have to - if they don't they lose muscle mass because of the lack of gravity. The Soviets learned this the hard way. When the cosmonauts who went on the first long-term missions returned to earth, they were practically crippled and had to go through months of rehab.
It's a new kind of math - you have to stay up all night without coffee and post when you're half asleep to comprehend it.:-) (I caught the mistake and posted a correction a few minutes later, by the way.)
I'm not from the UK, so I'm not as familiar with the process on your side of the pond. According to the article, "Apple, on the other hand, only had trademark for "iTunes" published in the Trade Marks Journal on 6 December 2000."
Note that was the date on which the trademark was published - what, if anything, does that say about the date on which it was applied for? How much red tape is involved between application for and approval and/or publication of a trademark?
Given that Apple had a way to block this (trademark)
How is that a given, when Apple didn't register their trademark until a month after the domain name was registered, and didn't release iTunes 1.0 for another month after *that*?
Slashdot Mirror
as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law
/. doing exactly that.
I would question that assertion - there seem to be a lot of "nobodies" here on
The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA)
I have to wonder if the DMCA would stand up to judicial review, if some of its more draconian measures were actually brought to trial. I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks? Getting a precedent on the books that establishes a more reasonable penalty would be an important step, in my opinion.
machine-gun patents
Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
I can't argue with that. I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders. But in any case, Hatch is a horrible choice to chair this committee. Destroying the possessions of someone without the giving them the benefit of due process is ridiculous. You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.
With respect, I think you're missing the point of my question. You've listed a number of *excellent* reasons to avoid using proprietary software whenever possible. I won't argue that point, because I agree with it.
I'm the author of a GPL'd (well, LGPL'd - it's a library) work myself. I firmly believe in my right to copyright my work and license it as I see fit. And even though I disagree with the terms that Metallica (for example) have chosen, I respect their right to choose their own terms. It's a question of fair play - how could I possibly demand protection for my own rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that same protection to others?
Why? Keep in mind that copyright protection is what gives the GPL its teeth. So any legislation from Hatch & Co. will cut both ways - if it can be used as a basis to sue Metallica downloaders, it can also be used as a basis to sue GPL violators.
Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?
It would seem to me that anyone who demands strict adherence to the GPL should, out of a sense of fairness if nothing else, follow their own strict guidelines. IMNSHO, respect for the licensing terms of copyright holders should cut both ways, however much that may hurt. *Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy.
You can't cross-compile assembly because it is designed for the target platform from the start.
Nonsense. Cross-compiling is when the host machine - i.e. the one running the compiler - is of a different architecture than the target. That's all. Whether or not the source language is portable to a different target is completely irrelevant.
And the first use of Babelfish? Anyone?
As far as I know, it comes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Did Adams borrow it from somewhere else?
It's "babelfish". Appropriately, it's derived from the biblical story of the Tower of Babel.
If you're trying to install a game, and the install bombs out with a "can't write to /foo" error, then you might well have a permission-related problem that running the repair app might fix. Running it in that situation is the sensible thing to do, and no one has suggested otherwise.
Haven't you heard the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Same thing here. If you're having problems that the utility will fix, run it and fix 'em. If you're not, don't bother.
As far as nerves go... well, you're the one who's reacting like Linus when someone tries to take his blanket, not me.
Permissions differ on
Oh, it verifies something, all right - that you guys are talking about pure cargo-cult nonsense. Let's have a look at the file and see what's in there, shall we?
Oh, boy, I sure am glad "repair permissions" made that executable. That looks like an important script to me...
That was pretty much Moofie's point - all of the things you mentioned were done after Jobs was fired, and before he was re-hired.
Bleh - did some googling, and it seems I had my timeline mixed up. :-( Dr. Porsche the elder was big on the racing circuit around the turn of the century, and had an engineering/consulting firm with his name. His firm was hired by the German government in the late '30s to design the VW - the name of the model at the time, not the name of a company. There was no company, actually - the factory and everything else was owned by the government.
After the war, the factory was privatized and the name of the only model was adopted as the name of the new company. Porsche's son, also named Ferdinand, was heavily involved with starting and managing the new company. Porsche's firm was hired in '49 by VW as design consultants, and received a royalty on every car VW built.
The two companies are still closely related. The VW-Porsche 914 was a collaboration in the late '60s, and the 924 in the '70s. The present-day Cayenne and VW Touareg share a lot of engineering. Until he retired in 2003, Ferdinand Piech, grandson of Ferdinand Porsche, was both the principal shareholder of Porsche and CEO of VW.
Dr. Porsche only saw the bare beginning of the original Beetle's rise in popularity - he last visited the Stuttgart factory in '50, and died in '52. His son died in '98. He probably saw the new Beetle, but I doubt he had a hand in designing it - he was 88 when he died, so he would have been 80 or so when the idea was first proposed.
Links:
http://www.autohistory.org/feature_6.html
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-piefer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche
Bugs are nice, as are Macs, but they're no Porsches.
Well, in a way Bugs *are* Porsches. They were designed by Ferdinand Porsche before he left VW and founded the company that's named after him. Take a look at the really old Porsche Speedsters from the '50s - they share a *lot* of design elements with Bugs.
Apple (and other companies) should adopt a linear pricing strategy.
Apple just posted the best quarterly numbers in the history of the company... so they should change their pricing strategy? I fail to see the logic. You change your strategy when it isn't working; when it's a spectacular success you leave it alone.
Hey, now, who's a monkey? (Correct answer: All of us!)
:-)
Actually, no... We're apes. Monkeys have tails.
since vector/geometry based imaging wasn't really feasible in the 70's and 80's.
Uh... what? Red Baron, Battlezone, Tempest... Need I go on?
these companies will look at games like Katamari Damacy and Gish that will be taking over the market, and there will be a switch.
I highly doubt it. They won't change their basic tactics, they'll just start cloning whatever the new trend is.
College is a time of rebellion
Yeah, it's a time of being a non-conformist - just like everyone else around you.
It's hard enough getting cats into a pen, it's that much harder to get countries known for 'cutting corners' (like Russia) to do their job correctly.
Um, you do realize, don't you, that the effects you're talking about here were documented by Soviet cosmonauts after long-term missions aboard Mir? Sounds to me like they did their jobs pretty damn well.
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Russians aren't coming up short when it comes to ISS flights - NASA is. The Russians are stepping up to the plate and getting both US and Russian crew into orbit.
What on earth [sic!] are they doing up there?
Exercising like mad. They have to - if they don't they lose muscle mass because of the lack of gravity. The Soviets learned this the hard way. When the cosmonauts who went on the first long-term missions returned to earth, they were practically crippled and had to go through months of rehab.
That's some interesting math
:-) (I caught the mistake and posted a correction a few minutes later, by the way.)
It's a new kind of math - you have to stay up all night without coffee and post when you're half asleep to comprehend it.
I'm not from the UK, so I'm not as familiar with the process on your side of the pond. According to the article, "Apple, on the other hand, only had trademark for "iTunes" published in the Trade Marks Journal on 6 December 2000."
Note that was the date on which the trademark was published - what, if anything, does that say about the date on which it was applied for? How much red tape is involved between application for and approval and/or publication of a trademark?
he registered it in the year 2000, thats before the ipods inception
That's also before the iTunes 1.0 release, in Jan 2001.
I'll never understand all of this copyright nonsense.
The first thing you need to understand is that this is a question of a trademark, not a copyright.
D'oh! s/more than a year/several months/.
Given that Apple had a way to block this (trademark)
How is that a given, when Apple didn't register their trademark until a month after the domain name was registered, and didn't release iTunes 1.0 for another month after *that*?