Apache got its name because of all the patches and fixes that have been made to the original code (from MIT I think), many to solve security problems. Not a very good example of writing secure code.
Wasn't there a post on slashdot a few months ago saying something like 80% of linux boxes weren't patched and vulnerable. Windows sysadmins have no monopoly on ignorance/laziness/stupidity.
This is insightful? It's factually incorrect and doesn't even make sense. America is a free capitalist society. If the entire world were this way, production and standard of living would eventually be balanced throughout the world. Outsourcing jobs helps bring the world this balance by giving poorer nations a chance to be more productive, at the expense of American jobs. There's no reason to believe, however, that America will become LESS productive than other countries. At some point a balance is reached where it is no longer cheaper to manufacture something abroad and ship it here because their standard of living will eventually increase to equal America's. At that point jobs will come back to America.
If you think it's a good idea to penalize the people who are the most productive in America by taxing them at higher rates, you should consider what happened to the Soviet Union, which took this to an extreme by essentially taxing everyone 100% and giving them money based on their perceived needs. Talk about killing any motivation to be productive and sit around watching tv and surfing the web all day. I don't see how you can claim that taxing a rich person at 30% as opposed to taxing a poor person at 2% is a system that benefits the rich. Death tax is a total joke. That money has already been taxed on receipt, and will be taxed again when spent by heirs, and you want to tax it again. This kills small businesses, BTW, when handed down because the tax on the value of the business is too much to avoid liquidation. Wealthy people earn their money in a free society like the US and provide livelihood for countless others. Sending jobs overseas benefits both companies and foreign workers, who are given the chance to utilize skills that would otherwise be wasted. The only people losing money from jobs going overseas are workers who now need to compete against a greater number of people offering the same set of skills. Governments shouldn't prevent this because it infringes on the freedom of businessmen, who then pass the added costs to consumers. In short, your socialist notions don't make much sense when examined using reason.
The so-called 1% that own everything got there by taking risks on good ideas (or are related to the former). The other 99% should be grateful to these people for providing them a means to be productive so they can live comfortably. These 1% are among the smartest people, and should be rewarded for their achievements. There's a reason why the Soviet Union went bankrupt. When business is run by people who have no self-interest in the product, and the workers don't profit from their labor, there is no incentive to do your job well. You simply do the bare minimum to stay out of trouble. In a capitalist system, when the people running things make bad decisions, there are consequences to their livelihood. It is necessary to reward people at all levels of a company appropriately for the contributions they make. To assume the people running the company are not doing any of the work is naive. These people make the important decisions that make or break the company. When the right decisions are made, everyone in the company benefits in porportion to the percieved value of their work.
Companies win because they can produce products more cheaply, and therefore, sell them at a more competitive rate. Therefore, consumers win because they can buy products more cheaply. The ones who lose are the people who will have to accept a lower salary or lose their jobs because their jobs are being outsourced. After a while, this will balance the standard of living throughout the world by taking advantage of the talent around the world that has been wasted because the local economies couldn't take advantage of these people's skill sets.
It's not a war against fair use. It's a war against piracy. Fair use is merely collateral damage. That is, unless you consider distributing free copies to complete strangers fair use.
I heard from a guy on the inside that the numbering scheme was actually developed to compare with older model Athlons. The Pentium 4 comparison seemed to work out anyway, at least for older p4s.
I've heard that Scientologists believe in the idea of litigating an enemy to death. Whether or not they have a legitimate case, the legal fees often cause oppenents to give in rather than fighting. This is probably the case with eBay
Yes. However, if someone buys a DRM movie and runs it on an open source codec, they could modify the code to give them access to the decrypted data, and then share it in an unencrypted format. So I think DRM and open source don't mix, but it's not as bad as the parent made it out to be.
It is not any more wrong to write an open source codec that supports DRM than it is to write an open source ssh program. In both cases the source is open but some content remains protected from viewing and copying without consent by some party. I wouldn't say that digital content with DRM (particularly harware supported) will be easy to crack any more than satellite tv is easy to crack. It'll eliminate casual piracy, and, therefore, enable new online markets. Of course there will be limitations, but without DRM you will be stuck with the "old business model" that slashdotters love to complain about.
Not that you already do, but don't complain about "old business models" if you refuse to accept new business models in cluding DRM from the movie industry. The same people who complain about the MPAA/RIAA tend to complain about not being able to get content online legally, and at the same time telling people to boycott DRM.
"*If* the act of accepting money to play particular songs is bad for the people, than the people have the right -- as owners of the airwaves -- to change the rules that the radio stations have to play by."
I disagree that it's bad to accept money to play songs. Let artists put their money where their mouths are if they want airplay.
The FCC has overstepped their bounds. Their onl real job is to prevent people from using bandwidth that hasn't been given to them. They shouldn't be censoring, and they shouldn't be regulating content.
"Playing music for compensation" and "telling customers that no compensation took place" are two entirely different issues.
There's a difference between denying you play songs for money and having to disclaim it after every song you play. Anyway, don't complain when the govt. tells you you can't link to DeCSS. Same issue, different victims.
The US is based on individual freedoms, not pandering to the consumer at the expense of the freedom of the producer. Saying a consumer has more rights than a producer is the kind of attitude that schackles productivity. This doesn't benefit either producers or consumers.
If you don't like clearChannel, don't listen to them. But don't take away their rights to free speech and freedom to conduct business just because you don't like them. This bill is more big govt. trampling over people's rights.
So, radio stations must pay copyright holders to broadcast their songs, but in order to charge for the otherwise free advertising they're giving these songs, they need to say "paid for by Warner bros."? What happened to freedom in this country. Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything? If a radio station wants to play unknown stuff from independent artists, let them. If they want to take cash to play stuff from artists with deep pockets, why shouldn't they be able to? Radio station have the right to free speech, not the obligation to play music without compensation.
His point is that Apple searches around for open source that they can use without strings, but then doesn't give back by allowing others to modify their code.
No, the original anaolgy is better. They hold the swap meet on their property with the hope that it'll attract business for their store when people can't find what they're looking for among the junk being traded. I don't know what the laws are regarding an environment conducive to criminal behavior, however.
"How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money?"
That's a terrible analogy. Kazaa has no copyright to the material distributed using its software. Whether the blame is to be put on the end users (my opinion) or Kazaa is the only real issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it available on Kazaa yet?
Apache got its name because of all the patches and fixes that have been made to the original code (from MIT I think), many to solve security problems. Not a very good example of writing secure code.
If a security flaw in an apps gives a normal user super-user access, that's a problem with linux, regardless of who wrote the app.
Wasn't there a post on slashdot a few months ago saying something like 80% of linux boxes weren't patched and vulnerable. Windows sysadmins have no monopoly on ignorance/laziness/stupidity.
This is insightful? It's factually incorrect and doesn't even make sense. America is a free capitalist society. If the entire world were this way, production and standard of living would eventually be balanced throughout the world. Outsourcing jobs helps bring the world this balance by giving poorer nations a chance to be more productive, at the expense of American jobs. There's no reason to believe, however, that America will become LESS productive than other countries. At some point a balance is reached where it is no longer cheaper to manufacture something abroad and ship it here because their standard of living will eventually increase to equal America's. At that point jobs will come back to America.
If you think it's a good idea to penalize the people who are the most productive in America by taxing them at higher rates, you should consider what happened to the Soviet Union, which took this to an extreme by essentially taxing everyone 100% and giving them money based on their perceived needs. Talk about killing any motivation to be productive and sit around watching tv and surfing the web all day. I don't see how you can claim that taxing a rich person at 30% as opposed to taxing a poor person at 2% is a system that benefits the rich. Death tax is a total joke. That money has already been taxed on receipt, and will be taxed again when spent by heirs, and you want to tax it again. This kills small businesses, BTW, when handed down because the tax on the value of the business is too much to avoid liquidation. Wealthy people earn their money in a free society like the US and provide livelihood for countless others. Sending jobs overseas benefits both companies and foreign workers, who are given the chance to utilize skills that would otherwise be wasted. The only people losing money from jobs going overseas are workers who now need to compete against a greater number of people offering the same set of skills. Governments shouldn't prevent this because it infringes on the freedom of businessmen, who then pass the added costs to consumers. In short, your socialist notions don't make much sense when examined using reason.
The so-called 1% that own everything got there by taking risks on good ideas (or are related to the former). The other 99% should be grateful to these people for providing them a means to be productive so they can live comfortably. These 1% are among the smartest people, and should be rewarded for their achievements. There's a reason why the Soviet Union went bankrupt. When business is run by people who have no self-interest in the product, and the workers don't profit from their labor, there is no incentive to do your job well. You simply do the bare minimum to stay out of trouble. In a capitalist system, when the people running things make bad decisions, there are consequences to their livelihood. It is necessary to reward people at all levels of a company appropriately for the contributions they make. To assume the people running the company are not doing any of the work is naive. These people make the important decisions that make or break the company. When the right decisions are made, everyone in the company benefits in porportion to the percieved value of their work.
Companies win because they can produce products more cheaply, and therefore, sell them at a more competitive rate. Therefore, consumers win because they can buy products more cheaply. The ones who lose are the people who will have to accept a lower salary or lose their jobs because their jobs are being outsourced. After a while, this will balance the standard of living throughout the world by taking advantage of the talent around the world that has been wasted because the local economies couldn't take advantage of these people's skill sets.
It's not a war against fair use. It's a war against piracy. Fair use is merely collateral damage. That is, unless you consider distributing free copies to complete strangers fair use.
I heard from a guy on the inside that the numbering scheme was actually developed to compare with older model Athlons. The Pentium 4 comparison seemed to work out anyway, at least for older p4s.
I've heard that Scientologists believe in the idea of litigating an enemy to death. Whether or not they have a legitimate case, the legal fees often cause oppenents to give in rather than fighting. This is probably the case with eBay
Yes. However, if someone buys a DRM movie and runs it on an open source codec, they could modify the code to give them access to the decrypted data, and then share it in an unencrypted format. So I think DRM and open source don't mix, but it's not as bad as the parent made it out to be.
It is not any more wrong to write an open source codec that supports DRM than it is to write an open source ssh program. In both cases the source is open but some content remains protected from viewing and copying without consent by some party. I wouldn't say that digital content with DRM (particularly harware supported) will be easy to crack any more than satellite tv is easy to crack. It'll eliminate casual piracy, and, therefore, enable new online markets. Of course there will be limitations, but without DRM you will be stuck with the "old business model" that slashdotters love to complain about.
Not that you already do, but don't complain about "old business models" if you refuse to accept new business models in cluding DRM from the movie industry. The same people who complain about the MPAA/RIAA tend to complain about not being able to get content online legally, and at the same time telling people to boycott DRM.
Hmm. I wonder which zealot you are?
"*If* the act of accepting money to play particular songs is bad for the people, than the people have the right -- as owners of the airwaves -- to change the rules that the radio stations have to play by."
I disagree that it's bad to accept money to play songs. Let artists put their money where their mouths are if they want airplay.
The FCC has overstepped their bounds. Their onl real job is to prevent people from using bandwidth that hasn't been given to them. They shouldn't be censoring, and they shouldn't be regulating content.
"Playing music for compensation" and "telling customers that no compensation took place" are two entirely different issues.
There's a difference between denying you play songs for money and having to disclaim it after every song you play. Anyway, don't complain when the govt. tells you you can't link to DeCSS. Same issue, different victims.
The US is based on individual freedoms, not pandering to the consumer at the expense of the freedom of the producer. Saying a consumer has more rights than a producer is the kind of attitude that schackles productivity. This doesn't benefit either producers or consumers.
If you don't like clearChannel, don't listen to them. But don't take away their rights to free speech and freedom to conduct business just because you don't like them. This bill is more big govt. trampling over people's rights.
So, radio stations must pay copyright holders to broadcast their songs, but in order to charge for the otherwise free advertising they're giving these songs, they need to say "paid for by Warner bros."? What happened to freedom in this country. Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything? If a radio station wants to play unknown stuff from independent artists, let them. If they want to take cash to play stuff from artists with deep pockets, why shouldn't they be able to? Radio station have the right to free speech, not the obligation to play music without compensation.
His point is that Apple searches around for open source that they can use without strings, but then doesn't give back by allowing others to modify their code.
If your assumption were correct, MS would not have lost any cases.
No, the original anaolgy is better. They hold the swap meet on their property with the hope that it'll attract business for their store when people can't find what they're looking for among the junk being traded. I don't know what the laws are regarding an environment conducive to criminal behavior, however.
DRM is already here. It just doesn't have hardware support yet. And everyone from MS to Intel is ready to support it without govt. coercion.
"How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money?"
That's a terrible analogy. Kazaa has no copyright to the material distributed using its software. Whether the blame is to be put on the end users (my opinion) or Kazaa is the only real issue here.