I don't even read the SCO-related posts on Slashdot anymore, they're always something ridiculous and inflammatory like SCO claiming they own the intellectual property rights to make babies inherited from God back in '86. The only thing I'm afraid for, uncertain of, or doubtful of is poor Darl's sanity. Good riddance.
"Distributing a product is not the same as contributing to a product," Stowell said Friday. In other words, the mere act of distributing GPL-covered code isn't sufficient; the copyright holder also has to deliberately release the code as open-source, he said. "The copyright holder has to knowingly contribute this code." --from the first article linked above
So, to summarize, SCO didn't pay attention to the product they were distributing, and accidentally released source code under a license that they should not have. Isn't this exactly what they accuse IBM and Linus of doing, of not paying attention and violating someone's IP rights in the process?
The great thing about it is that IBM and Linus' "victim" is SCO, and SCO's victim is SCO!
If only every other Linux competitor were so self defeating...
1. SCO is going after Linus, really. 2. Linus's kernel code constitutes and extremely small portion of a GNU/Linux operating system. 3. For free software / open source to be seriously derailed (for more than a year or two) they would have to go after Stallman. 4. Stallman will eat them alive.
"These so-called low prices are per seat discounts from already inflated prices. This is not a good thing and you're a moron for buying it."
I'm not saying the prices are now "low" -- or that any penultimate goal for the linux community has been reached. I'm saying that it's an improvement--a small one, perhaps, but an improvement nonetheless--over the higher prices that Microsoft could still charge were Linux not to exist. If you believe that Microsoft charging lower prices is in fact a degradation from the previous state of affairs, than I'd like to know why.
"We're actually providing even lower pricing now for education then we ever have, but it's been unique pricing for us, literally since the company was founded." --Bill Gates
This is great news. My thought has always been that while destroying Microsoft is going to be impossible--even taking half their market share will be a grisly, ugly battle that Linux may not win--forcing them to be competitive is a completely feasible goal. Gates is saying, basically, that Linux is forcing them to set lower prices for schools, which is great. While from the Linux perspective, Microsoft winning a bid is a bad thing, from the school's perspective they just got the best price they've ever gotten on software because Linux exists. And I call that a victory for Linux--and quite possibly my tax dollars.
"If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore."
Yeah, well if a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your asshole, it's not your asshole anymore. That doesn't mean you lube your ass up every morning and pass out condoms and KY to everyone you see.
This is a perfect example of Wired's consistent Mac bias showing up in yet another mostly irrelevant article. I'm sorry, Mac is a marginal hardware and software brand and show no signs of gaining signficant ground over Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't even care about Apple anymore as a competitor; a bunch of disorganized, sociopathic programmers with no leadership to speak of pose a far greater threat to them than an ordinary company with inferior business strategy. And yet Wired sees fit to write article after article about anything Macintosh users/one Mac user/former Macintosh users/future Macintosh users do, say, or think. Maybe they tatoo rainbow apples on their butts. Maybe one named his cat Macintosh. Maybe they eat Macintosh apples. Maybe they eat other apples to encourage competition.
I actually have a hotmail account that I use exclusively when I think that giving an account address out will invite spam.
The account gets a lot of spam.:)
...by not using WMP, or windows.
I know it's redundant, but MP3 is still the standard for audio files, and RealPlayer and Quicktime have good shares of the video content. I don't lose access to much by not having WMP on my system, and I don't have to bend over in front of m$.
My friend had a whole slew of WMA files, and after reformatting and changing his hardware configuration, WMP detected that he was playing those files on a different system, and won't let him listen to that music.
Blech.
A bit of an understatement. Lawyers are PAID to DISAGREE. When you hire a lawyer for a court case, the service you are purchasing can be reduced to "disagree, in an eloquent lawyerly manner, with the lawyer of my opponent."
Thus something is illegal whenever a lawyer is paid to believe it is illegal. It is any wonder we hate them all?
Does no one else smell the strong stench of desperation? I mean, think about it, the RIAA is so desperate they're willing to do cheap, immature hacks to protect their content. The script kiddies that everyone is posting about are going to be HIRED BY THE RIAA to do these attacks!
The creators of the NPR website, that is, those who wrote or WYSIWYGed the HTML and so forth, are probably well aware of the fact that deep linking simply can't be prohibited in a legally binding fashion. The people who decided on the linking policy may not be so well informed. Perhaps these people are outside the scope of their careers at a primarily radio, not internet, organization, or perhaps their lawyers simply aren't up to date with the legal decisions that have established deep linking as legitimate.
I can certainly understand their desire to not be seen as promoting certain groups, and of course having leeches create website that are nothing but deep links to your content is a problem many website owners run into. It's understandable that they would want to solve these problems, even if their method is ignorant of their legal rights (or lack thereof) in the matter.
We'll have to see if they change their policy, but I think that most of the antagonism towards NPR, all of it for a policy that was made out of naivete, not malice, is uncalled for.
Of course, if they don't change their policy, perhaps some antagonism would be in order.
Basically what's happening here is that the RIAA wants it's way, despite the fact that their demands will cripple an industry. Webcasters are basically going to have to change their business model (and with the prospect of ridiculous retroactive back payments, many won't even get that far) to stay in business.
News for you, RIAA. We (the consumers of music, and not just yours) want OUR way. We are willing to cripple your companies and your industry if those are the effects of our demands. If you wish to continue your existence, we suggest you change your business model, because though the FCC may grant you half the exorbitant fee you request, we are no longer willing to pay even that much for the price-fixed crap you manufacture and shovel to us.
Just about ALL games that combat online cheating have to do so through online updates. With these consoles still largely running off their read only media, attacks on them are likely to last longer than with their PC counterparts. I'll stick to my PC games, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
The first sentence of this post is false.
I don't even read the SCO-related posts on Slashdot anymore, they're always something ridiculous and inflammatory like SCO claiming they own the intellectual property rights to make babies inherited from God back in '86. The only thing I'm afraid for, uncertain of, or doubtful of is poor Darl's sanity. Good riddance.
"Distributing a product is not the same as contributing to a product," Stowell said Friday. In other words, the mere act of distributing GPL-covered code isn't sufficient; the copyright holder also has to deliberately release the code as open-source, he said. "The copyright holder has to knowingly contribute this code." --from the first article linked above
So, to summarize, SCO didn't pay attention to the product they were distributing, and accidentally released source code under a license that they should not have. Isn't this exactly what they accuse IBM and Linus of doing, of not paying attention and violating someone's IP rights in the process?
The great thing about it is that IBM and Linus' "victim" is SCO, and SCO's victim is SCO!
If only every other Linux competitor were so self defeating...
1. SCO is going after Linus, really.
2. Linus's kernel code constitutes and extremely small portion of a GNU/Linux operating system.
3. For free software / open source to be seriously derailed (for more than a year or two) they would have to go after Stallman.
4. Stallman will eat them alive.
I don't believe that the answer to the United States of America's crime rates and overcrowded penitentiaries involves balloons at all.
"These so-called low prices are per seat discounts from already inflated prices. This is not a good thing and you're a moron for buying it." I'm not saying the prices are now "low" -- or that any penultimate goal for the linux community has been reached. I'm saying that it's an improvement--a small one, perhaps, but an improvement nonetheless--over the higher prices that Microsoft could still charge were Linux not to exist. If you believe that Microsoft charging lower prices is in fact a degradation from the previous state of affairs, than I'd like to know why.
"We're actually providing even lower pricing now for education then we ever have, but it's been unique pricing for us, literally since the company was founded." --Bill Gates
This is great news. My thought has always been that while destroying Microsoft is going to be impossible--even taking half their market share will be a grisly, ugly battle that Linux may not win--forcing them to be competitive is a completely feasible goal. Gates is saying, basically, that Linux is forcing them to set lower prices for schools, which is great. While from the Linux perspective, Microsoft winning a bid is a bad thing, from the school's perspective they just got the best price they've ever gotten on software because Linux exists. And I call that a victory for Linux--and quite possibly my tax dollars.
"If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore." Yeah, well if a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your asshole, it's not your asshole anymore. That doesn't mean you lube your ass up every morning and pass out condoms and KY to everyone you see.
anyone or anything that can tie Kasparov at all has, er, outstanding quality of play.
(n/t)
This is a perfect example of Wired's consistent Mac bias showing up in yet another mostly irrelevant article. I'm sorry, Mac is a marginal hardware and software brand and show no signs of gaining signficant ground over Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't even care about Apple anymore as a competitor; a bunch of disorganized, sociopathic programmers with no leadership to speak of pose a far greater threat to them than an ordinary company with inferior business strategy. And yet Wired sees fit to write article after article about anything Macintosh users/one Mac user/former Macintosh users/future Macintosh users do, say, or think. Maybe they tatoo rainbow apples on their butts. Maybe one named his cat Macintosh. Maybe they eat Macintosh apples. Maybe they eat other apples to encourage competition.
Who cares?
Isn't that an even better reason to do it?
I actually have a hotmail account that I use exclusively when I think that giving an account address out will invite spam. The account gets a lot of spam. :)
That's where I always say I live to those agencies. C'mon, just say it "Trinidad and Tobago". Is that great or what?
...by not using WMP, or windows. I know it's redundant, but MP3 is still the standard for audio files, and RealPlayer and Quicktime have good shares of the video content. I don't lose access to much by not having WMP on my system, and I don't have to bend over in front of m$. My friend had a whole slew of WMA files, and after reformatting and changing his hardware configuration, WMP detected that he was playing those files on a different system, and won't let him listen to that music. Blech.
Could it be moderated any other way though? Hard to see that modded up as "insightful."
A bit of an understatement. Lawyers are PAID to DISAGREE. When you hire a lawyer for a court case, the service you are purchasing can be reduced to "disagree, in an eloquent lawyerly manner, with the lawyer of my opponent." Thus something is illegal whenever a lawyer is paid to believe it is illegal. It is any wonder we hate them all?
Does no one else smell the strong stench of desperation? I mean, think about it, the RIAA is so desperate they're willing to do cheap, immature hacks to protect their content. The script kiddies that everyone is posting about are going to be HIRED BY THE RIAA to do these attacks!
The creators of the NPR website, that is, those who wrote or WYSIWYGed the HTML and so forth, are probably well aware of the fact that deep linking simply can't be prohibited in a legally binding fashion. The people who decided on the linking policy may not be so well informed. Perhaps these people are outside the scope of their careers at a primarily radio, not internet, organization, or perhaps their lawyers simply aren't up to date with the legal decisions that have established deep linking as legitimate. I can certainly understand their desire to not be seen as promoting certain groups, and of course having leeches create website that are nothing but deep links to your content is a problem many website owners run into. It's understandable that they would want to solve these problems, even if their method is ignorant of their legal rights (or lack thereof) in the matter. We'll have to see if they change their policy, but I think that most of the antagonism towards NPR, all of it for a policy that was made out of naivete, not malice, is uncalled for. Of course, if they don't change their policy, perhaps some antagonism would be in order.
Basically what's happening here is that the RIAA wants it's way, despite the fact that their demands will cripple an industry. Webcasters are basically going to have to change their business model (and with the prospect of ridiculous retroactive back payments, many won't even get that far) to stay in business.
News for you, RIAA. We (the consumers of music, and not just yours) want OUR way. We are willing to cripple your companies and your industry if those are the effects of our demands. If you wish to continue your existence, we suggest you change your business model, because though the FCC may grant you half the exorbitant fee you request, we are no longer willing to pay even that much for the price-fixed crap you manufacture and shovel to us.
You reap what you sow...
Just about ALL games that combat online cheating have to do so through online updates. With these consoles still largely running off their read only media, attacks on them are likely to last longer than with their PC counterparts. I'll stick to my PC games, thank you very much.