Shits going to get through, one way or another. Even through your preferred e-mail system, or through a web browser exploit, or through something else.
I use hotmail and gmail every day, mainly as spam-sisterns. They've taken pretty much every worm, scam and spam the 'net has seen, and I've never been infected from either service. Nor has my local AV software ever kicked in to protect me from anything. YMMV.
I like the write up. You didn't find problems with hotmail, but hate MSFT, so you put it on the same list as Yahoo, who forwards.vbs scripts. Lol. I know better than to bite a troll like that.
So, what are your favorite Apple products? Me, I'm excited about the iPhone.
I know I've been angered more than once by his rediculous opinions, and it would be nice to finally shut him up.
Yeah. I wish all the people I disagree with would shut the fuck up. It ought to be illegal to hold different views from the majority. People shouldn't be free to speak whatever they want.
The guy should be held accountable for frivolous lawsuits, but he has the right to say whatever he wants. To sue him squawking about "free speech", with the intention of "shutting him up", is way beyond hypocritical - almost lawyerish.
Ya Saddam was operating a kennel, raising cute adorable schitzu puppies. It was all rainbows and lollipops for the Iraqi people, especially the Kurds in the north, until big mean Bush came along and started kicking the doors of their tree-forts.
Doesn't make it cost effective, or a good investment. From a wall street point of view, you have to realize that they see a company that hires as many people as it can, then lets them goof off for 20% of their work week (thats how they see it).
I don't care if comments are code, copyrightable, or what.
The issue is: IS LINUS A LIAR? He claims he wrote it himself. If he copied it from another source, that claim is a lie. Now every other claim he makes publically, is in doubt.
Yes or no?
I don't give a fuck about splitting hairs about what a comment is or a # sign or what.
Can I trust what Linus says? Did he attempt to mislead the community?
100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).
It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
Bullshit. Anything I write is copyrightable creative work, including this post, and including my description of a bubble sort in an old programming assignment from high school.
Besides, that wasnt my point. I don't care if its copyrightable. If comments match up 100%, its a clear indication of copy/paste, and a clear indication that (if true) Linus' claim he wrote it himself is false.
To me, a comment is more copyrightable than code, and a clearer indication of straight-up forgery.
There's only one way to write "#DEFINE SIGKILL 9"
There's a multitude of ways to describe what that means in any human language. If I saw comments that matched verbatim, I would certainly assume the source of those was CTRL-C, CTRL-V (or however the fuck you copy and paste in whatever flavor of linux you run)
That's big. That throws the whole of linux into doubt. If he copy pasted 300 lines from SCO, and that can be shown, now the doors open for people to start auditing and making their own claims.
No, I could see him writing "#DEFINE FALSE 0, #DEFINE TRUE !(FALSE)" and believe it.
But comments are written in human language, and it's unlikely that two people phrase a complex thought th same way. If you're grading programming assignments in university, and see the exact same comments in two student's works - it pretty much tips you off to cheating.
I don't know what Linus actually said - whether he copied from Minix, the wiki article says "Linus Torvalds, the creator and trademark holder of Linux, has denied SCO's claim, saying he wrote the code himself."
If he copied it from Minix, he didn't write it himself.
I'm not talking about IBM, SCO, or anything else. Is Linus a liar, or is the wikipedia article misrepresenting what he said?
Is he lying or not? If the original unix comments are in there verbatim, it sounds unlikely that it was completely original.
I'm not saying it should be copyrightable or affect the suit at all, but it certainly bears on Linus' credibility, if he copy/pasted a header file then claimed it was a product of his genious.
This isn't a win, this isn't an anything. Wait until we see what the judge actually awards.
He may decide "aww gee you guys sure spent a lot fighting this, you must have had a strong good faith belief in your claims, therefore Ms Foster isn't entitled to that much".
He may decide "you guys are assholes and I dont like you wasting my time, so bend over, here comes da gavel".
This news by itself means nothing. It's like a sports announcer announcing "and Manning throws the ball... " and then going to commercial. The throw is meaningless, we need to know if it's caught, fumbled, intercepted, or what.
All spoken quotes turned text end up with some of the authors bias.
You just assume the author was neutral and tried to accuratly capture what was spoken, but if you have an agenda (which everyone has when it comes to GWB, and zonk has when it comes to some gay video game nobody plays), it's hard to be "fair".
There's very little neutrality in modern print "journalism". You have papers well-known for leaning left, and well-known for leaning right, but you never hear one praised for it's "fair straight down the middle" approach. It makes any bit of print media worthless in and of itself.
I have no idea how usenet slipped under the radar so long. IRC + private ftps have been left alone too. Maybe it's just so geeky and obscure, and just doesn't do the volume to alarm the big guys - where napster and youtube do? I do know that in some cases posters have been tracked down and sued (stupid ones who let themselves be ID'd).
I also know there's a couple dudes that hang out in front of the 7-11 a block away, and I know they sell crack, I've seen them do it with my own eyes. I also know the cops must know, but they haven't done anything about it. Maybe they got bigger fish to fry? Maybe they've just given up on 'da hood'. Maybe their building a case against a higher-up and dont want to rock the boat?
Whatever the case, it doesnt mean it's okay to sell crack.
This will escalate past viacom, the rest of the MPAA players will get involved. I'm thinking they don't want word to get out in the media that you can watch practically any movie on-demand on youtube.
Porn videos on youtube are purged right-quick, with no notice from any copyright holder. Obviously they check all the content as its put on.
Google knows when it's seeing something thats obviously a commercial work. There's no reason for them to allow full length hollywood movies to be posted, except for their profit.
Their real problem is that the public at large do not respect copyright as Viacom and others would like to define it.
Yes, they do. You don't, and most slashdotters dont, but many people, I'd wager most, do. I know a guy, who I'd describe as typical, who was apprehensive about borrowing a blockbuster tape I'd rented to watch - because he hadnt paid to rent it.
People are not naturally thieves, despite the fact that shoplifting happens every day. Most people - good people - would feel ashamed after walking out of a store, and realizing they forgot to pay for something. Many of them go back to make up the difference. They need no law officer to make them do this, their conscience is enough.
Now of course, we're very left here. So we don't believe in "good" or "evil" or "consciences" or "morality". Everything's relative. Spiderman 2 sucked, therefore I shouldn't pay for it. Britney only has one good song, therefore I shouldnt pay for her CD. It's a bunch of excuses and relativistic bullshit lies.
They recognize that the show they're watching took resources to make, actors and crew were paid, sets were built, locations were rented, make up was done, etc. They feel guilty stealing that. Yes, they feel actual guilt. They feel it is a moral wrong to watch that show for free, when they know it's against the owners wishes.
Yeah, there are assholes who have no problem sneaking in the fire exit at the movie theater. It happens, it doesn't mean movie theatres shouldn't charge admission, and shouldn't prosecute people sneaking in.
Why would "the public" embrace iTunes, when they were so used to getting mp3s free? The public was clamoring way to pay for music online.
"The public" will feel that viacom has been wronged - that google wrongly (and knowingly) allowed their copyrighted content to remain online, because google knew they could profit from it. Google knows they profit more from Daily Show clips than they do from Anne McEmo's video blog.
It's up to viacom what to do with their content. It may be in their best interest to put it up on youtube. It may not. It's their choice.
It might be in your best interest to post all your home videos. It might not. But it's up to you, not me, CmdrTaco or even Google.
YouTube made its billions violating copyrights, as did napster. This "user-created" is just hot air, I bet every one of us' first exposure to youtube was watching some commercial productions. We all know that practically all of the vapid "video blogs" are worthless.
Just because we like google doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.
Why should google be above the law, just because they're a/. fave?
Youtube doesn't have the right to host whole tv shows, movies, etc.
Then YouTube turns around to sue a website for copyright infrigement, for allowing you to download the YouTube content - that they don't even own.
I hate youtube. I hate google even more for their involvement of it. It's napster jr, plain and simple, and it'll be shut down.
An interview with Miyamoto, or Tycho, could be interesting. But nothing MTV airs is interesting.
Gawd, I actually watched MTV's "sneak XBox 360 preview party", thinking I'd learn something about it, instead of just watching a terrible infomercial all x-tremed up to the maxxxx an keepin it real.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the same thing, I doubt a human would have such a low failure rate.
Shits going to get through, one way or another. Even through your preferred e-mail system, or through a web browser exploit, or through something else.
.vbs scripts. Lol. I know better than to bite a troll like that.
I use hotmail and gmail every day, mainly as spam-sisterns. They've taken pretty much every worm, scam and spam the 'net has seen, and I've never been infected from either service. Nor has my local AV software ever kicked in to protect me from anything. YMMV.
I like the write up. You didn't find problems with hotmail, but hate MSFT, so you put it on the same list as Yahoo, who forwards
So, what are your favorite Apple products? Me, I'm excited about the iPhone.
I know I've been angered more than once by his rediculous opinions, and it would be nice to finally shut him up.
Yeah. I wish all the people I disagree with would shut the fuck up. It ought to be illegal to hold different views from the majority. People shouldn't be free to speak whatever they want.
The guy should be held accountable for frivolous lawsuits, but he has the right to say whatever he wants. To sue him squawking about "free speech", with the intention of "shutting him up", is way beyond hypocritical - almost lawyerish.
Ya Saddam was operating a kennel, raising cute adorable schitzu puppies. It was all rainbows and lollipops for the Iraqi people, especially the Kurds in the north, until big mean Bush came along and started kicking the doors of their tree-forts.
Spellcheck won't help. Solider is a word, a bad one (more solid), but a word.
No, you need editors with some sort of cognitive functions, an ability to proofread, and some semblance of pride in their work.
be like a 60/40 tin and lead mix, or do they have some new alloys that might work better?
Will the cancer causing (only in california) agents be removed from flux?
LOL
More sense to run native machine code, good one.. Well played.
Why is linux written in C? Wouldnt it make more sense to use it on computers?
Doesn't make it cost effective, or a good investment. From a wall street point of view, you have to realize that they see a company that hires as many people as it can, then lets them goof off for 20% of their work week (thats how they see it).
I don't care if comments are code, copyrightable, or what.
The issue is: IS LINUS A LIAR? He claims he wrote it himself. If he copied it from another source, that claim is a lie. Now every other claim he makes publically, is in doubt.
Yes or no?
I don't give a fuck about splitting hairs about what a comment is or a # sign or what.
Can I trust what Linus says? Did he attempt to mislead the community?
100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).
It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
Bullshit. Anything I write is copyrightable creative work, including this post, and including my description of a bubble sort in an old programming assignment from high school.
Besides, that wasnt my point. I don't care if its copyrightable. If comments match up 100%, its a clear indication of copy/paste, and a clear indication that (if true) Linus' claim he wrote it himself is false.
The story says some of the matches are comments.
To me, a comment is more copyrightable than code, and a clearer indication of straight-up forgery.
There's only one way to write "#DEFINE SIGKILL 9"
There's a multitude of ways to describe what that means in any human language. If I saw comments that matched verbatim, I would certainly assume the source of those was CTRL-C, CTRL-V (or however the fuck you copy and paste in whatever flavor of linux you run)
That's big. That throws the whole of linux into doubt. If he copy pasted 300 lines from SCO, and that can be shown, now the doors open for people to start auditing and making their own claims.
No, I could see him writing "#DEFINE FALSE 0, #DEFINE TRUE !(FALSE)" and believe it.
But comments are written in human language, and it's unlikely that two people phrase a complex thought th same way. If you're grading programming assignments in university, and see the exact same comments in two student's works - it pretty much tips you off to cheating.
I don't know what Linus actually said - whether he copied from Minix, the wiki article says "Linus Torvalds, the creator and trademark holder of Linux, has denied SCO's claim, saying he wrote the code himself."
If he copied it from Minix, he didn't write it himself.
I'm not talking about IBM, SCO, or anything else. Is Linus a liar, or is the wikipedia article misrepresenting what he said?
At least the wikipedia article says so.
Is he lying or not? If the original unix comments are in there verbatim, it sounds unlikely that it was completely original.
I'm not saying it should be copyrightable or affect the suit at all, but it certainly bears on Linus' credibility, if he copy/pasted a header file then claimed it was a product of his genious.
This isn't a win, this isn't an anything. Wait until we see what the judge actually awards.
He may decide "aww gee you guys sure spent a lot fighting this, you must have had a strong good faith belief in your claims, therefore Ms Foster isn't entitled to that much".
He may decide "you guys are assholes and I dont like you wasting my time, so bend over, here comes da gavel".
This news by itself means nothing. It's like a sports announcer announcing "and Manning throws the ball... " and then going to commercial. The throw is meaningless, we need to know if it's caught, fumbled, intercepted, or what.
Neither are accurate, that's my point.
All spoken quotes turned text end up with some of the authors bias.
You just assume the author was neutral and tried to accuratly capture what was spoken, but if you have an agenda (which everyone has when it comes to GWB, and zonk has when it comes to some gay video game nobody plays), it's hard to be "fair".
There's very little neutrality in modern print "journalism". You have papers well-known for leaning left, and well-known for leaning right, but you never hear one praised for it's "fair straight down the middle" approach. It makes any bit of print media worthless in and of itself.
I have no idea how usenet slipped under the radar so long. IRC + private ftps have been left alone too. Maybe it's just so geeky and obscure, and just doesn't do the volume to alarm the big guys - where napster and youtube do? I do know that in some cases posters have been tracked down and sued (stupid ones who let themselves be ID'd).
I also know there's a couple dudes that hang out in front of the 7-11 a block away, and I know they sell crack, I've seen them do it with my own eyes. I also know the cops must know, but they haven't done anything about it. Maybe they got bigger fish to fry? Maybe they've just given up on 'da hood'. Maybe their building a case against a higher-up and dont want to rock the boat?
Whatever the case, it doesnt mean it's okay to sell crack.
Why should I care about some minor maneuver in the legal end-game of a case that's been already decided?
Entire episodes, entire movies.
This will escalate past viacom, the rest of the MPAA players will get involved. I'm thinking they don't want word to get out in the media that you can watch practically any movie on-demand on youtube.
Porn videos on youtube are purged right-quick, with no notice from any copyright holder. Obviously they check all the content as its put on.
Google knows when it's seeing something thats obviously a commercial work. There's no reason for them to allow full length hollywood movies to be posted, except for their profit.
Their real problem is that the public at large do not respect copyright as Viacom and others would like to define it.
Yes, they do. You don't, and most slashdotters dont, but many people, I'd wager most, do. I know a guy, who I'd describe as typical, who was apprehensive about borrowing a blockbuster tape I'd rented to watch - because he hadnt paid to rent it.
People are not naturally thieves, despite the fact that shoplifting happens every day. Most people - good people - would feel ashamed after walking out of a store, and realizing they forgot to pay for something. Many of them go back to make up the difference. They need no law officer to make them do this, their conscience is enough.
Now of course, we're very left here. So we don't believe in "good" or "evil" or "consciences" or "morality". Everything's relative. Spiderman 2 sucked, therefore I shouldn't pay for it. Britney only has one good song, therefore I shouldnt pay for her CD. It's a bunch of excuses and relativistic bullshit lies.
They recognize that the show they're watching took resources to make, actors and crew were paid, sets were built, locations were rented, make up was done, etc. They feel guilty stealing that. Yes, they feel actual guilt. They feel it is a moral wrong to watch that show for free, when they know it's against the owners wishes.
Yeah, there are assholes who have no problem sneaking in the fire exit at the movie theater. It happens, it doesn't mean movie theatres shouldn't charge admission, and shouldn't prosecute people sneaking in.
Why would "the public" embrace iTunes, when they were so used to getting mp3s free? The public was clamoring way to pay for music online.
"The public" will feel that viacom has been wronged - that google wrongly (and knowingly) allowed their copyrighted content to remain online, because google knew they could profit from it. Google knows they profit more from Daily Show clips than they do from Anne McEmo's video blog.
So what?
It's up to viacom what to do with their content. It may be in their best interest to put it up on youtube. It may not. It's their choice.
It might be in your best interest to post all your home videos. It might not. But it's up to you, not me, CmdrTaco or even Google.
YouTube made its billions violating copyrights, as did napster. This "user-created" is just hot air, I bet every one of us' first exposure to youtube was watching some commercial productions. We all know that practically all of the vapid "video blogs" are worthless.
The snowballs come from the kuiper belt, they get dirty when they brush up against Uranus.
hee hee. Imagine how boring astronomy would be if they didn't name Uranus what they did?
Just because we like google doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
/. fave?
If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.
Why should google be above the law, just because they're a
Youtube doesn't have the right to host whole tv shows, movies, etc.
Then YouTube turns around to sue a website for copyright infrigement, for allowing you to download the YouTube content - that they don't even own.
I hate youtube. I hate google even more for their involvement of it. It's napster jr, plain and simple, and it'll be shut down.
Committee designed systems never have faults!
An interview with Miyamoto, or Tycho, could be interesting. But nothing MTV airs is interesting.
Gawd, I actually watched MTV's "sneak XBox 360 preview party", thinking I'd learn something about it, instead of just watching a terrible infomercial all x-tremed up to the maxxxx an keepin it real.