Let's not turn this into another NAT vs IPv6 debate... The only problem between large scale NAT and ip-reputation-based ip systems is that the mappings are too transient and too broad to be useful for reputation, also they are talking about sharing ips between subscribers, right now, that's more rarely done and not to that scale(socks4/5 let people share addresses with a process on the natting machine to act as a nat-helper, so it's not a new problem). And that suggests the fix the fix has always been to move the id of the system behind the nat. Aka, you'd need providers using LSN to have reputation based systems already and not letting just anyone connect and relay.
Most providers already hook into systems like sorbs, so telling them they need to run and update something like bld-toolshttp://packages.debian.org/sid/bld-tools should not make it impossible.
We have a fix(ipv6) for not using nat, and there are many hurdles to getting the new design in place. Now I'm sure we will have a long slashdot-classic discussion about the merits of NAT and applications that can't use it, but IMHO, they're all off-topic to the article.
IANAL but what I remember of Canadian laws, it's not only not useful but pointless to sue a court, you're suing the branch of the government that deals with the judicial when you sue to complain about a court's behaviour.
Am I the only one who thinks if they DID take a stance, and make it an opinion piece, they'd have a better case as protected speech? But merely quoting the programs isn't?
If instead of selling it to me unlocked, they sell it to me locked, and want this considered illegal in some places... Can we just agree that they don't want to sell it to me the way I want to buy it?
If anything, you've just proven the real corollary of the research in the article, and not the one in the article.
Math is a hard, specialised tool. Essential for many distinct types of specialists. It's what they call "fundamental".
Nonspecialists don't need it. They don't understand why specialists need so many variants of it. They don't understand how rigorous math can be useful is so many different ways to different specialists.
Is it the fault of the specialists? Is it the fault of the public?
Not really, the public can't seem to grasp the idea that the benefit to mankind is in the details, and wonders why we need something that has no generalists.
Medecine and engineering are doing fine in the public view, because they can be understood, without the details, or so the public thinks.
If you understand math without the details, you're back at a grade school level, precisely because that's the point in the curriculum where they start preparing you for the different math specialties, and you're starting to get the grounding into the differences.
You invest in math education precisely to get the specialists, and to get research done in the specialties. Proving the return of specialties is harder but it still has to be done.
Then the lawyers would use the loopholes in the legal language to make it worthless, or worse, to hurt our cause.
Keep in mind that the gpl is a license to distribute, aka a contract. It's already been slimmed down as much as it can, legal-wise. Other documents can be written to explain the GPL without having this restriction, but the gpl itself has reached pretty-much rock bottom.
You can explain free software to people without using the text of the gpl anyways, by concentrating on the issues it's trying to solve.
The way I see it, the main problem that has yet to be fixed for iOS software is to get a court to order Apple to drop the restriction for developed software by YOU to be limited to 100 copies if you don't use the apple store. Apple has a stake in your success, they offer a store, over which you must choose to hand over a large part of the profit to them... or not distribute it to more than 100 people.
That's broken, you should be able to be your own distributor. That's what caused the most problem with the xxAA. Only large companies could be distributors.
When it benefits the consumer, the consumer is encouraged to buy from them, that's called goodwill.
I'm not saying Apple isn't entitled to treat us like high-security escapees from prison, just that there should be a cost to this.
Right now there is no cost, because any attempt to punish them(by enjoying their device without rewarding their consumer-unpleasant behaviours, fall outside the eula). It would be much simpler if their Eulas got trimmed, their developer licenses got trimmed too, and the fair and free market everyone assumes is in place, actually got a part to play, as opposed to "the free market is in place, but rewards those that will make it less free")
All licenses are restrictive, that's why they're licenses and not gifts aka the public domain.
Could we get a little more on-topic by discussing things like the appstore terms.
In this case the bsd is only more free because as long as anyone who gets the source code sees that it's properly attributed, it's legal.
But if applidium and another company both published vlc, but only one admitted it was bsd and the other didn't, one would be known as "bsd-licensed" and noone would know the other didn't until the discovery of the trial between the two, if ever?
Sure the distributor is more free, in the bsd case, the end user is not, the developer, if not the distributor, is the same. All of those people saying the developer is more free assume the developer is the distributor.
The gpl does not make that assumption, and in the apple store case, the assumption is not safe.
The contract terms for developers of iOS software attempt to make this more restrictive than any other platform. Most of the other platforms wouldn't even dare to try this. A better way to fight it would be to support alternative app stores for iOS devices, where they don't have the problem. Let's not adopt a scorched earth policy here. What we want is freer devices, the problem seems to be freer devices do not even get made. They either do not have the marketshare, or the app stores do not get built. Maybe the fsf needs to build one.
As PART of their trademark. That's the part that's problematic right there. If they had tried to trademark pod, they would have lost(or at least, the other companies wouldn't have tried). Having a trademark apply to partial words is what makes it gaming the system.
Who cares? Relative power between executives and unions is just a way to avoid discussing that the same thing is happening both in corporations and unions.
The executives golden parachutes happen at the expense of the shareholder, while the union's "performance" happens at the expense of the union members.
Normally a template written in that way wouldn't be quite so recognizable. Would you leave highlighted search terms(from the summary) in a template you sell?
This is more on the "we don't care about anyone's right to be copied but ours" area of legal that can get them slapped by a judge, hopefully.
Their problems mostly are that whatever they do, on the OS level, if it's not a "third party developers don't have to do anything", they seem to have to rollback/dilute whatever "Good" was in the offering.
Partly because of the basic multi-user design, partly because of the pre-written unix-based apps, partly because as meaningless as unix 97 and posix are, they do kinda provide enough of a formal api os basis that third parties do not expect to be able to write just anything, has probably more to do with how much each individual unix variant deals with security than the kernel or the basic system.
You'll notice the MacOS X system(arguably the most popular unix system out there for workstations), has the most vulnerabilities, and most of them in the userland space(I'm looking at adobe and quicktime stuff especially)
Just anecdotally it seems to indicate the way to deal with this is to force everyone to work in multi-user mode all the time.
I'll believe microsoft is close to that when you can launch multiple msi installs, one through a remote desktop session, and see them queue themselves and just work.
In the meantime, yes they have a lot of work to do. How much of that is in how they develop software?
Not that much
How they think their OS from the bare metal onwards?
If you expect to be able to sue someone for NOT carrying traffic, you can't really expect them NOT to care if their carrying traffic gets them sued for a bigger amount, by someone else.
What you seem to want is immunity for the carrier, in exchange for not analyzing the traffic. There's very few countries that would consider "opaque" traffic as desirable public policy after 9/11, your feelings on that aside.
The IP likely belongs to Apple, and wouldn't need third party escrow. On the other hand, even with the IP, a lack of supply is what killed the power pc in the first place. The same, but affecting the now higher profile iphone would be a disaster for Apple.
It wouldn't help with patent infringement, especially after the fact. They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software, which(htc comes to mind) they might not want to.
The cost of passengers time in waiting for the next train should be taken care of in the price of the ticket. Otherwise you're just charging people who don't take the train, for the time of people who might take the train.
Just because it's a "common" form of transportation(how many hundreds of people in a single train?) doesn't mean the cost of using it HAS to be sent to someone else. There should be incentive programs for those people not to use their cars(or taking up parking space in urban areas) anyways.
On the other hand, does a grid really make sense? Is inter-metro area traffic enough to justify this, or is this just an attempt to get politicians to subsidize trains because gaz prices went up?
I mean, an inter-city bus(another mode of common transporation) that can take fifty or so people from one area to the next, but isn't tied to tracks, might make more sense.
What would make sense for train is suburb-to-downtown trains, especially in the more densely populated suburbs. Subsidizing that(as a way of getting people to at least remove one car out of their 2.1 cars-per-garage allowance) might make a lot more sense. You get more economies of scale that way.
Let's keep in mind here that the goal isn't to spend subsidy money(as tempting as that may be) to create jobs, but to reduce demand for energy especially produced by fossil fuels, where it's not absolutely necessary, by building infrastructure that allows energy economies of scale.
It's not. Those capacity constraints have nothing to do with content providers though, or very little with types of traffic(some protocols are more aggressive on wireless networks than others).
The net neutrality position google was espousing earlier was meant to protect google's position, in wired land, as a content provider(think youtube google mail and google docs, not necessarily search)
In wireless land, most carriers act as if "we just give you bytes" would sign their own death warrant. Google's new position isn't "It's ok, you're a dinosaur, you can die", the way it was before. Because with android's success(and the failure of the nexus one) they are in business with the carriers, and not(again nexus one) competing with them.
Net neutrality isn't about capacity constraints, it's about per-destination qos policies(and I don't mean the sensible one that says "traffic inside the carrier's network")
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not turn this into another NAT vs IPv6 debate...
The only problem between large scale NAT and ip-reputation-based ip systems is that the mappings are too transient and too broad to be useful for reputation, also they are talking about sharing ips between subscribers, right now, that's more rarely done and not to that scale(socks4/5 let people share addresses with a process on the natting machine to act as a nat-helper, so it's not a new problem). And that suggests the fix the fix has always been to move the id of the system behind the nat. Aka, you'd need providers using LSN to have reputation based systems already and not letting just anyone connect and relay.
Most providers already hook into systems like sorbs, so telling them they need to run and update something like bld-toolshttp://packages.debian.org/sid/bld-tools should not make it impossible.
We have a fix(ipv6) for not using nat, and there are many hurdles to getting the new design in place. Now I'm sure we will have a long slashdot-classic discussion about the merits of NAT and applications that can't use it, but IMHO, they're all off-topic to the article.
IANAL but what I remember of Canadian laws, it's not only not useful but pointless to sue a court, you're suing the branch of the government that deals with the judicial when you sue to complain about a court's behaviour.
If they phone home, where they phone home doesn't have to be open source, next question.
Presumably all of them, starting with Java-EE of course, but and this is the tragedy...
Bye bye JavaME
Am I the only one who thinks if they DID take a stance, and make it an opinion piece, they'd have a better case as protected speech? But merely quoting the programs isn't?
If instead of selling it to me unlocked, they sell it to me locked, and want this considered illegal in some places... Can we just agree that they don't want to sell it to me the way I want to buy it?
If anything, you've just proven the real corollary of the research in the article, and not the one in the article.
Math is a hard, specialised tool. Essential for many distinct types of specialists. It's what they call "fundamental".
Nonspecialists don't need it. They don't understand why specialists need so many variants of it. They don't understand how rigorous math can be useful is so many different ways to different specialists.
Is it the fault of the specialists?
Is it the fault of the public?
Not really, the public can't seem to grasp the idea that the benefit to mankind is in the details, and wonders why we need something that has no generalists.
Medecine and engineering are doing fine in the public view, because they can be understood, without the details, or so the public thinks.
If you understand math without the details, you're back at a grade school level, precisely because that's the point in the curriculum where they start preparing you for the different math specialties, and you're starting to get the grounding into the differences.
You invest in math education precisely to get the specialists, and to get research done in the specialties. Proving the return of specialties is harder but it still has to be done.
Then the lawyers would use the loopholes in the legal language to make it worthless, or worse, to hurt our cause.
Keep in mind that the gpl is a license to distribute, aka a contract. It's already been slimmed down as much as it can, legal-wise. Other documents can be written to explain the GPL without having this restriction, but the gpl itself has reached pretty-much rock bottom.
You can explain free software to people without using the text of the gpl anyways, by concentrating on the issues it's trying to solve.
The way I see it, the main problem that has yet to be fixed for iOS software is to get a court to order Apple to drop the restriction for developed software by YOU to be limited to 100 copies if you don't use the apple store. Apple has a stake in your success, they offer a store, over which you must choose to hand over a large part of the profit to them... or not distribute it to more than 100 people.
That's broken, you should be able to be your own distributor. That's what caused the most problem with the xxAA. Only large companies could be distributors.
When it benefits the consumer, the consumer is encouraged to buy from them, that's called goodwill.
I'm not saying Apple isn't entitled to treat us like high-security escapees from prison, just that there should be a cost to this.
Right now there is no cost, because any attempt to punish them(by enjoying their device without rewarding their consumer-unpleasant behaviours, fall outside the eula). It would be much simpler if their Eulas got trimmed, their developer licenses got trimmed too, and the fair and free market everyone assumes is in place, actually got a part to play, as opposed to "the free market is in place, but rewards those that will make it less free")
All licenses are restrictive, that's why they're licenses and not gifts aka the public domain.
Could we get a little more on-topic by discussing things like the appstore terms.
In this case the bsd is only more free because as long as anyone who gets the source code sees that it's properly attributed, it's legal.
But if applidium and another company both published vlc, but only one admitted it was bsd and the other didn't, one would be known as "bsd-licensed" and noone would know the other didn't until the discovery of the trial between the two, if ever?
Sure the distributor is more free, in the bsd case, the end user is not, the developer, if not the distributor, is the same. All of those people saying the developer is more free assume the developer is the distributor.
The gpl does not make that assumption, and in the apple store case, the assumption is not safe.
The contract terms for developers of iOS software attempt to make this more restrictive than any other platform. Most of the other platforms wouldn't even dare to try this. A better way to fight it would be to support alternative app stores for iOS devices, where they don't have the problem. Let's not adopt a scorched earth policy here. What we want is freer devices, the problem seems to be freer devices do not even get made. They either do not have the marketshare, or the app stores do not get built. Maybe the fsf needs to build one.
Let's not confuse html with http. This is already messy territory as it is
If a random string of bits spells out "trapped in a coat of arms factory" you got a really tasty stream of random bits.
As PART of their trademark. That's the part that's problematic right there. If they had tried to trademark pod, they would have lost(or at least, the other companies wouldn't have tried). Having a trademark apply to partial words is what makes it gaming the system.
Who cares? Relative power between executives and unions is just a way to avoid discussing that the same thing is happening both in corporations and unions.
The executives golden parachutes happen at the expense of the shareholder, while the union's "performance" happens at the expense of the union members.
Normally a template written in that way wouldn't be quite so recognizable. Would you leave highlighted search terms(from the summary) in a template you sell?
This is more on the "we don't care about anyone's right to be copied but ours" area of legal that can get them slapped by a judge, hopefully.
Their problems mostly are that whatever they do, on the OS level, if it's not a "third party developers don't have to do anything", they seem to have to rollback/dilute whatever "Good" was in the offering.
Partly because of the basic multi-user design, partly because of the pre-written unix-based apps, partly because as meaningless as unix 97 and posix are, they do kinda provide enough of a formal api os basis that third parties do not expect to be able to write just anything, has probably more to do with how much each individual unix variant deals with security than the kernel or the basic system.
You'll notice the MacOS X system(arguably the most popular unix system out there for workstations), has the most vulnerabilities, and most of them in the userland space(I'm looking at adobe and quicktime stuff especially)
Just anecdotally it seems to indicate the way to deal with this is to force everyone to work in multi-user mode all the time.
I'll believe microsoft is close to that when you can launch multiple msi installs, one through a remote desktop session, and see them queue themselves and just work.
In the meantime, yes they have a lot of work to do. How much of that is in how they develop software?
Not that much
How they think their OS from the bare metal onwards?
Almost all of it
If you expect to be able to sue someone for NOT carrying traffic, you can't really expect them NOT to care if their carrying traffic gets them sued for a bigger amount, by someone else.
What you seem to want is immunity for the carrier, in exchange for not analyzing the traffic. There's very few countries that would consider "opaque" traffic as desirable public policy after 9/11, your feelings on that aside.
The IP likely belongs to Apple, and wouldn't need third party escrow. On the other hand, even with the IP, a lack of supply is what killed the power pc in the first place. The same, but affecting the now higher profile iphone would be a disaster for Apple.
It wouldn't help with patent infringement, especially after the fact.
They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software, which(htc comes to mind) they might not want to.
The cost of passengers time in waiting for the next train should be taken care of in the price of the ticket.
Otherwise you're just charging people who don't take the train, for the time of people who might take the train.
Just because it's a "common" form of transportation(how many hundreds of people in a single train?) doesn't mean the cost of using it HAS to be sent to someone else. There should be incentive programs for those people not to use their cars(or taking up parking space in urban areas) anyways.
On the other hand, does a grid really make sense? Is inter-metro area traffic enough to justify this, or is this just an attempt to get politicians to subsidize trains because gaz prices went up?
I mean, an inter-city bus(another mode of common transporation) that can take fifty or so people from one area to the next, but isn't tied to tracks, might make more sense.
What would make sense for train is suburb-to-downtown trains, especially in the more densely populated suburbs. Subsidizing that(as a way of getting people to at least remove one car out of their 2.1 cars-per-garage allowance) might make a lot more sense. You get more economies of scale that way.
Let's keep in mind here that the goal isn't to spend subsidy money(as tempting as that may be) to create jobs, but to reduce demand for energy especially produced by fossil fuels, where it's not absolutely necessary, by building infrastructure that allows energy economies of scale.
It's not. Those capacity constraints have nothing to do with content providers though, or very little with types of traffic(some protocols are more aggressive on wireless networks than others).
The net neutrality position google was espousing earlier was meant to protect google's position, in wired land, as a content provider(think youtube google mail and google docs, not necessarily search)
In wireless land, most carriers act as if "we just give you bytes" would sign their own death warrant. Google's new position isn't "It's ok, you're a dinosaur, you can die", the way it was before. Because with android's success(and the failure of the nexus one) they are in business with the carriers, and not(again nexus one) competing with them.
Net neutrality isn't about capacity constraints, it's about per-destination qos policies(and I don't mean the sensible one that says "traffic inside the carrier's network")
They wouldn't have been at risk from the copyrights and trademarks, but just how would they have avoided the patents?
Most of us can't do that without the approval of change control boards, do you really want us to hurt you?
On the other hand, the FCC just sets the very lower bar the companies can't opt out of, nothing says they can't offer more.
This smacks of an attempt to lower net neutratlity's popularity by saying if it's mandated, it'll cost more, to get the same thing.
Which is whatever happens once consumers asks "give me more for the same price and I'll stop whining".