Port 443 is *already* effectively blocked for anyone who isn't centrally approved. Have you seen the error message you get in IE or Firefox when you try to visit a site with a self-signed certificate?
Yeah, and without the message SSL would be vulnerable to MITM attacks and become entirely useless. The solution is to get certs for open CAs like cacert.org installed by default, not to abandon encryption or render it useless by making it vulnerable to MITMs.
Most gankers are almost certainly sociopaths. It's the best explanation for their behavior.
Um, they are only sociopaths if they think what they're doing is against the law or violating the rights of others. Ganking is a part of EVE by design and is socially accepted, even if no one likes getting ganked.
I was not talking about EVE, I was merely responding to the ludicrous assertion that not wanting to get ganked every five minutes automatically makes you a "carebear."
Which was made in the context of playing EVE, where that statement is fairly accurate.
Not true. I engage in PVP regularly and often fight outnumbered or outpriced, both by myself and with my alliance (and no, we don't nano our ships). Tactics, both in how your ship as fit and what choices you make during the battle, play a huge role.
Big ships are not required for massive profits. I make billions of isk every month by simply studying the market and manipulating it. All that's required for that is a good Production Efficiency level (about a week to train to level 4), and optionally some trading skills. There are many, many ways to make isk in game, even for PVP players like me who have never bothered to try mining.
You don't understand EVE. You can't truly play the game apart from the other players. If you want a game where NPCs play a large role, don't play EVE, because everything they do in it is secondary and relatively unimportant.*
That "sociopath" "ruining and interrupting" your game is none of those. If you view him as such EVE's probably not the game for you. He's another player, just like you, playing the game. EVE is centered around PvP, not NPCs. This is why some like the game: in a world where one wrong fight can cost you everything, fights suddenly become meaningful (meaningful within the game; ultimately the game itself is just a game). Personally, I'm sick of games where losing a fight has very little meaning. I have no motivation not to die, because who cares if I do? EVE, on the other hand, makes fights exciting because your ship and its fitting are at stake, both of which can potentially represent days or weeks of work.
If you don't like the PVP playstyle, fine, but it's not a problem with the game itself. It simply isn't the type of game you like.
*Unless you truly do go the complete "carebear" route, which means never leaving high security systems. There isn't a whole lot for you to do that way, though, and I would argue that the game was never intended to be played this way. NPCs supplement the game, they don't make it.
I'm sure the fuck-off letters are generic. I doubt they send everyone a warm and fuzzy personal fuck-off letter telling how their day was and what they've been doing recently. As for removing some material, it's a lot easier to identify kiddie porn than it is to identify a game with a friendly license. I don't expect them to investigate "Foo King 2008" to see if the license justifies pirating the game.
I note that our game's up on The Pirate Bay for people to download (http://www.caravelgames.com). So, uh, it's not just the big bad RIAA that they're thumbing their nose at, it's everyone who tries to make some kind of money from content. They don't care who they hurt. ...
It's a shame that the Pirate Bay are being set up as these renegade folk heroes, but I guess that's what happens when a smaller villain tweaks the nose of a larger one. While I agree with you that a game licensed in that fashion shouldn't be pirated, it's not really fair to blame The Pirate Bay for the fact it is. The torrents on TPB are added by users. I won't blame TPB for hosting specific material as they don't add it themselves and don't have the resources to investigate torrents to see how friendly the content's license is.
And the majority of these homebrew games look like retail games, except they're free. Actually, the Wii has been hacked to allow pirated games for about a year (it was presented at the previous CCC). This new hack will eventually allow people to run unsigned code, whereas the previous hack did not. Basically all the old hack did was provide a way to trick the Wii into thinking that burned DVDs were originals (current modchips sit between the DVD drive and the motherboard to intercept the "is this DVD real?" signal), but the content on the DVD still needed to be digitally signed by Nintendo.
As opposed to the dozens of Linux distros we have now, each with their own repositories of custom compiled software that typically doesn't work anywhere but on that specific version of that specific distro. Bullshit and FUD. Any free software that will run on one Linux distro will run just fine on any other. It may have to be recompiled against the new distro's library versions and such, but you make it sound as if the software itself won't run anywhere. It is only that specific binary that won't, and only then because it isn't statically linked (which is an option, but there are enough arguments against it that it's generally not done).
I have yet to hear anyone decent reasons for why this is actually a problem, other than "but there are multiple distros". Who cares? The ones that don't offer anything new die out and those that improve upon the current state of things continue or influence new distros. Think of it as survival of the fittest.
I'm not signed up for the copyright laws fanclub either but with that reasoning you declare that everyone can act based on their own beliefs, blatantly ignoring the governmental system they are a part of. So Rosa Parks and other activists during the Civil Rights Movement should have obeyed the law instead of peacefully protesting it?
So, unless you're downloading at over 1Mbit/s from your ISP (and in turn every hop to the MS update servers), there won't be any noticeable change in your download rate. 1Mbit/s? As in 128kbyte/s? Most US broadband connections are faster than that. I have my ISP's standard cable package and regularly download at 600kbyte/s. To say it's not a problem because no one is going to download at 1Mbit/s is ridiculous.
I've had it happen. More often though, some sound daemon would crash and I'd have no sound at all until I rebooted. If you're using a sound daemon, that's probably part of the problem. You're better off using ALSA directly without artsd/esd/whatever.
Linux has struggled for years to have a scheduler that does NOT skip audios when CPU hog processes are running. And it's still not there. Source? I have no problem with audio and heavy CPU usage on my 550mhz, 1.3ghz p3m laptop, or dual core opty desktop. In fact, when I first got the opty I ran 3 instances of mprime, a game, and listened to music at the same time as a stress test. mprime was slowed down, the game and music were unaffected as they should be. And no, I didn't manually nice anything. Any prioritization was done by the scheduler. I regularly compile source and listen to music on all of the computers with no problem.
Don't be too harsh, there is a billion dollar industry around convincing everyone that they do need these material positions. That there lives are crap without them. They use a variety of psychological manipulations to trick people into this. There is also a billion dollar industry based entirely around convincing everyone that they don't need material possessions and ought to give a percentage of their income to this industry instead.
How does the ability to link to old-style BSD code make the license more proprietary-friendly than the ability to link to LGPL code? An exception that says "This code can link with BSD or LGPL code" does not. As I explained, an exception that says "This code can link with code under any license" does.
Howso? How does allowing GPL code to *link* against old-style BSD licenses mean more compatibility with proprietary apps? If you are worried that someone could write an old-style BSD licensed bridge between proprietary code and GPL code, the same holds true already for LGPL and new-style BSD code. The *only* exception is the obnoxious advertising clause. How does that work exactly? The linking exception states:
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. That exception allows the code to link with code under _any_ license, not just BSD. The license could be a proprietary one, at which point it's up to the author whether or not allowing linking with proprietary software is desirable in this instance. In cases where one is trying to gain users for a library or standard, it may be wanted. In other cases it may not be. As a general rule, I see no reason to let anyone use my code with proprietary software.
Your points can be reduced to the same thing: the GPL is incompatible with many other Free Software licenses. This is true. The issue is that the same provisions which make it impossible for others to take away the freedom that the GPL gives you make it impossible for GPL software to be relicensed under many licenses.
A linking exception as you suggested may help increase compatibility with other licenses, but by increasing compatibility with Free Software licenses it also increases compatibility with proprietary licenses. This may or may not be desired by the copyright holder, and its desirability is dependent on the nature of the program, which is why it isn't built into the GPL.
Of course, this problem would go away if everyone used the GPL (or a BSD-style license in appropriate cases); the problem only exists because multiple Free Software licenses do. Not that the GPL is perfect, but I don't believe any of its flaws are sufficient reason to use another license (excluding BSD-style licenses for cases where universal adoption is required) without good reason.
The "freedom" you are referring to is the freedom to take away freedom from others. I would hardly consider that a desirable freedom, if you can even call it that. As murder, kidnapping, and slavery are almost universally looked upon as undesirable, it appears that most of the world agrees.
Release, like most any word, has several definitions. It was clear from the OP's context that he was talking about making it freely available to the public as protocols often are, not licensing it.
From Merriam-Webster Online: 4: to give permission for publication, performance, exhibition, or sale of; also : to make available to the public
What's the name going to be for the upcoming auto-encrypted open-sourced fork of Bittorrent? This is where it could get ugly. uTorrent is the most popular client, at least according to the article, and it's closed source. If the protocol is forked and modified enough to be incompatible with the older protocol versions, there's going to be some fragmentation. Anyone using uTorrent wouldn't be able to connect to people using the new protocol. uTorrent users would have to switch to a new client if its developers refused to update its protocol. Or worse, uTorrent users might continue to use uTorrent while everyone else uses the new protocol, causing nasty fragmentation.
They are not "releasing" an SDK. They are making one available for licensing under currently unknown terms (the article didn't say and I was unable to find any licensing terms using the website's horrible search function). The excuse the article gives for keeping uTorrent's source closed is the repackaging mentioned by the GP, as I mentioned. As for supporting the old client, I'm unable to find anything that indicates it will be upgraded to support changes in the BT protocol.
So why complain people are repackaging and selling the software when it is explicitly allowed in the open source definition? Because it gives them an excuse to close the source.
Slashdot Mirror
Port 443 is *already* effectively blocked for anyone who isn't centrally approved. Have you seen the error message you get in IE or Firefox when you try to visit a site with a self-signed certificate?
Yeah, and without the message SSL would be vulnerable to MITM attacks and become entirely useless. The solution is to get certs for open CAs like cacert.org installed by default, not to abandon encryption or render it useless by making it vulnerable to MITMs.
Most gankers are almost certainly sociopaths. It's the best explanation for their behavior.
Um, they are only sociopaths if they think what they're doing is against the law or violating the rights of others. Ganking is a part of EVE by design and is socially accepted, even if no one likes getting ganked.
I was not talking about EVE, I was merely responding to the ludicrous assertion that not wanting to get ganked every five minutes automatically makes you a "carebear."
Which was made in the context of playing EVE, where that statement is fairly accurate.
Not true. I engage in PVP regularly and often fight outnumbered or outpriced, both by myself and with my alliance (and no, we don't nano our ships). Tactics, both in how your ship as fit and what choices you make during the battle, play a huge role.
Big ships are not required for massive profits. I make billions of isk every month by simply studying the market and manipulating it. All that's required for that is a good Production Efficiency level (about a week to train to level 4), and optionally some trading skills. There are many, many ways to make isk in game, even for PVP players like me who have never bothered to try mining.
You don't understand EVE. You can't truly play the game apart from the other players. If you want a game where NPCs play a large role, don't play EVE, because everything they do in it is secondary and relatively unimportant.*
That "sociopath" "ruining and interrupting" your game is none of those. If you view him as such EVE's probably not the game for you. He's another player, just like you, playing the game. EVE is centered around PvP, not NPCs. This is why some like the game: in a world where one wrong fight can cost you everything, fights suddenly become meaningful (meaningful within the game; ultimately the game itself is just a game). Personally, I'm sick of games where losing a fight has very little meaning. I have no motivation not to die, because who cares if I do? EVE, on the other hand, makes fights exciting because your ship and its fitting are at stake, both of which can potentially represent days or weeks of work.
If you don't like the PVP playstyle, fine, but it's not a problem with the game itself. It simply isn't the type of game you like.
*Unless you truly do go the complete "carebear" route, which means never leaving high security systems. There isn't a whole lot for you to do that way, though, and I would argue that the game was never intended to be played this way. NPCs supplement the game, they don't make it.
Easier to just add this to the device section of your xorg.conf:
Option "InitialPixmapPlacement" "2"
Option "GlyphCache" "1"
I'm sure the fuck-off letters are generic. I doubt they send everyone a warm and fuzzy personal fuck-off letter telling how their day was and what they've been doing recently. As for removing some material, it's a lot easier to identify kiddie porn than it is to identify a game with a friendly license. I don't expect them to investigate "Foo King 2008" to see if the license justifies pirating the game.
It's a shame that the Pirate Bay are being set up as these renegade folk heroes, but I guess that's what happens when a smaller villain tweaks the nose of a larger one. While I agree with you that a game licensed in that fashion shouldn't be pirated, it's not really fair to blame The Pirate Bay for the fact it is. The torrents on TPB are added by users. I won't blame TPB for hosting specific material as they don't add it themselves and don't have the resources to investigate torrents to see how friendly the content's license is.
I have yet to hear anyone decent reasons for why this is actually a problem, other than "but there are multiple distros". Who cares? The ones that don't offer anything new die out and those that improve upon the current state of things continue or influence new distros. Think of it as survival of the fittest.
organized religion?
Your points can be reduced to the same thing: the GPL is incompatible with many other Free Software licenses. This is true. The issue is that the same provisions which make it impossible for others to take away the freedom that the GPL gives you make it impossible for GPL software to be relicensed under many licenses.
A linking exception as you suggested may help increase compatibility with other licenses, but by increasing compatibility with Free Software licenses it also increases compatibility with proprietary licenses. This may or may not be desired by the copyright holder, and its desirability is dependent on the nature of the program, which is why it isn't built into the GPL.
Of course, this problem would go away if everyone used the GPL (or a BSD-style license in appropriate cases); the problem only exists because multiple Free Software licenses do. Not that the GPL is perfect, but I don't believe any of its flaws are sufficient reason to use another license (excluding BSD-style licenses for cases where universal adoption is required) without good reason.
The "freedom" you are referring to is the freedom to take away freedom from others. I would hardly consider that a desirable freedom, if you can even call it that. As murder, kidnapping, and slavery are almost universally looked upon as undesirable, it appears that most of the world agrees.
Release, like most any word, has several definitions. It was clear from the OP's context that he was talking about making it freely available to the public as protocols often are, not licensing it.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
4: to give permission for publication, performance, exhibition, or sale of; also : to make available to the public
They are not "releasing" an SDK. They are making one available for licensing under currently unknown terms (the article didn't say and I was unable to find any licensing terms using the website's horrible search function). The excuse the article gives for keeping uTorrent's source closed is the repackaging mentioned by the GP, as I mentioned. As for supporting the old client, I'm unable to find anything that indicates it will be upgraded to support changes in the BT protocol.