They would have to filter based on protocol. No protocols not approved by the government, etc.
That is what may happen. The US Government is already working on getting protocol-analyzers ("Carnivore") installed at major ISPs. Once those are in place and happily scanning all POP3+HTTP, we might expect the feds will discourage the use of formats they can't read, and suggest ISPs block encrypted streams.
As long as I can send IP packets between my computer and yours, we still will be able to communicate much as is done today.
Too late! Already, if you try to send me a packet, it will be dropped by my ISP. My connection is outbound-only. Unless I've very recently sent an IP message to you, none of your packets can reach me. And I can only even send outbound packets on a few ports: 21, 23, and 80. (And port 80 goes through a proxy to ensure that everything is well-formed HTTP protocol). Run apache on 8000 or 8080? I can't get there. I have been segmented into the "consumer" group, not the "broadcaster" category.
(Much of the technical work in producing systems like Napster and Kazaa is actually workarounds for the fact that their users are often not true "peers" of the internet, so "P2P" work is required to partially restore that status.)
Is there any technological reason why we can't have both?
The reason is not technological, but economic. Already most people with internet access are restricted to "consumer" usage, meaning they can open connections to others, but not wait for others to connect to them (run a server).
ISPs have a strong incentive to divide internet use into separate categories, for stronger price-discriminating power. It may always be possible to buy "premium, unfiltered" internet access, but the additional cost could be prohibitively expensive, unless you plan to be a profitable business.
Or we might not even get that much. Since raw TCP/IP and encrypted streams are tools of terrorist planning, the government may decide that anyone who wants to purchase it will have to be carefully licensed, subjected to random inspections, polygraphed, etc.
Another manifesto/thesis/rant, "World of Ends", raised similar problems, although from a more limited, technical perspective. And it was a shorter document overall. There was a Slashdot discussion of it too.
The article's (which is already slashdotted) main idea is that it will be possible for a cooperation of government and corporate interests to change the internet from the freewheeling, content-neutral common carrier we know and love into a strict disciplinarian.
That was the thesis of Lawrence Lessig's 5 year old book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". The internet is artificial. It's not a force of nature. Human effort built it, and human laws can change it. With sufficient financial motivation, laws will change it.
Tired quotations like "The internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it" are at best observations of recent behavior, not guarantees that truely effective internet censorship won't happen in the future.
Those who care about freedom cannot just sit back and assume that because the net is fairly free now, it always will be. Eternal vigiliance is the price.
Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.
I guess we're all sharing a mass hallucination! We can't be reading a website, because Tim Berners-Lee would've never invented the WWW if he wouldn't get a patent on it.
did Edison acquire a monopoly on the idea of the light bulb? No, just a particular implementation.
Well, Edison didn't have the lightbulb patent, it went to Joe Swan.
But even pretending he did, your claim is still incorrect. It presents a false dichotomy between "idea" and "particular implementation", when in actuality "implementations" are a subset of all "ideas". (The rubric "Ideas can never be copyrighted or patented" is false. Not every idea can be, but some can.)
"Submarine" is a different kind of abuse of the patent system. It means becoming aware that someone is infringing your patent, but intentionally refraining from mentioning it until the victim has poured a heavy investment into the technology.
Then you spring the patent on him when it's too late for him to avoid it. He's then forced to concede to onerous licensing terms, or write-off the whole project.
Waiting to annouce the patent can actually increase the punitive damages you'll collect. Or at least weaken a potential competitor. The supreme example is the Polaroid patent on instant film development, which cost Kodak around $500,000,000
Hard disks are more reliable in my experience than CPUs too.
You living in Bizarro world? Or are you just an overclocker?
How could a mechanical hard drive be more reliable than a solid-state CPU? Hard drive failures are a well-known problem, which even makes its way into primetime sitcoms. Everyone knows someone who's drive crashed. Rumors fly that the latest batch of Seagate or Western Digital may have jinxy spindles.
But stop a pedestrian and ask him when he last heard of a CPU burnout- you'll get a puzzled look. Since I don't OC, I've never lost a CPU. But my stack of dead IDE drives is tall on the bookcase.
Even amoung Slashdot users, I'm sure a show of hands would reveal that far many more people have suffered from unpredictable failures of an HD than a CPU.
(Google says that "hard drive reliability" is nearly twice as common a topic as "CPU reliability")
The most you`d hope to get out of it is `yes, there are other civilisations out there`, and I already know that.
You'd get two things, sequentially: 1. Not just knowledge, but PROOF. That you followed Sagan's "billions & billions" calculations is one thing. That everyone else KNOWS its true is another. Potentially, this could change the terrestrial balance of power. (More likely, resistant groups will deny the proof, but they'll at least be marginalized somewhat)
2. Later you'd get actual translations of the messages. Who could predict the value of alien wisdom and folly?
Presumably since it can handle 32 bit software, it can also handle the normal 32 bit drivers
That's a wrong presumption. Microsoft(tm) has already acknowledged that when a 64-bit Windows(r) comes out, you'll need all new drivers. (The same is true for Linux, but with most drivers open-source, it's fairly trivial to change. Or at least you're not at the whim of a Taiwanese OEM to decide when your soundcard is going to get supported)
Unless they concoct a completely new driver compatibility layer... but there have been no plans announced about that. And Microsoft in recent years has tried to fight "driver oddities", which are a big cause of embarrasing OS crashes, so they probably won't want to make the architecture any more complex.
64-bit Linux distros will do NO good for professionals who make a living off their machines
Those people who really need the power of early-adopted 64-bit CPUs will basically fall in two categories:
1. Heavy server users: They need things like Apache and Oracle, which are both already available for 64-bit Linux.
2. Heavy computation users: Many of the first big installations of 64-bit CPUs will be in scientific computation clusters. They run custom code there, and will have no qualms about recompiling it for new chips.
Both of those groups find it cost-effective to hire a few "slash-heads" to swap OSes around.
anyone keeping pace with industry standards and proprietary formats, evil or not, are subject to sticking with a platform CONSISTANTLY over a period of time.
Linux is a platform. Changing out CPUs underneath it doesn't change it a whole lot. My own 64-bit workstation runs Red Hat or Debian just fine, and the programmer effort to upgrade custom scientific apps has not been prohibitive.
No version of Linux can completely handle the de-facto standards used to "make a living" in most professional offices, like Microsoft Office file formats. Both 32 and 64 bit versions support those quasi-standards equally poorly.
No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.
Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.
No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.
And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.
Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.
Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.
You would not want a major launch accident occurring over a more populated center.
Why not? For an accident to be really dangerous, the collateral targets would have to be extremely close.
The penisula of Florida is a populous area of the USA, but the rather major launch catastrophe that happened there in 1986 didn't come close to hurting anyone one the ground. Nor did NASA see any reason to move future launches further into the wilderness.
The distance from Orlando to Canaveral can easily be exceeded in many places near cities in southwest China. See this population map (TIFF), it's not that crowded there. And launching out over the ocean gives greater safety- insuring that no civilians are wandering beneath, and allowing splashdown recoveries.
The only downside I can imagine to a southeast coastal positioning is the increased scrutiny from outsiders. US spyplanes could get a better view of the launch activity, while places like Japan, Taiwan, or SK might worry about huge Chinese projectiles passing over them at sub-orbital altitudes (Could that be military? They won't know until it bombs on them!)
So maybe the Gobi desert was selected for privacy.
If it had happened it would already have leaked by now.
Of course, that vague rumor he "heard" could be considered a kind of leak.
It goes back to the pink elephant principle. Any claim involving "It's impossible for that to have happened, or someone would've heard about it" can be countered by a conspiracy theorist arguing that "We have heard of it, but because it's so outlandish nobody believes the reports"
I've heard that the Russians didn't have great success on their early manned launches,
They used a safe procedure to incrementally test the new technology. Remember that they were really the first doing it, so there were questions not only about the quality of the equipment, but also the unknown dangers of the extra-atmospheric environment (Does the Van Allen belt emit lethal cosmic radiation? Who could guess?)
The USSR (that's what they called it back then) flew it's space capsules through earth orbit carrying dogs and manniquins first, before ever putting a human in them. So any early failures would've killed "Ivan Ivanovich", not brave young pioneers. (The dummy came out fine, and is now on display in Washington, DC)
I suppose a paranoid-type could theorize that there was really a human who died in that first test, and the corpse was replaced with a manniquin for better PR...
The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source
That's it. Too much prima facie untruth from you. That's exactly what GPL section 3a requires.
It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.
Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.
Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.
RTA how about you READ MY POST logging as in what IP address is connecting.
Directly from the article's second paragraph: develop a technology called LionShare, a file-sharing system that requires students to log in each time
Plainly, they're logging USERNAMES, not just IP addresses. Otherwise the student's wouldn't have to "log in each time".
So how do you expect to track people when some people are stupid enough to write l/p's and leave them on post it notes right on their machine.
Yes, there are certainly problems when users fail to appropriately protect their passwords- but those security vulernabilities apply to nearly ANY system, including those based on ssh, SMB, NIS, SSL, or whatever! That's such a fundamental problem that it's something most system designers are unwilling to even acknowledge, because they know there's no good answer.
They are not talking about logging IPs, but usernames. Anyone who leaves his password out on his desk can have his machine zombied. Or the IP can be simply spoofed when he's offline. You seem to understand that logging by IP is full of shortcomings, so why do you assume they'll try to use that?
If users won't be able to place files on it then how is it p2p
Users can place files on it. Students can't. Users!=Students.
Bring back a tougher argument.
If you'd even made an argument, I might have something to respond to.
what if one is the band playing we will rock you or something for practice?
That he's getting practice out of it doesn't make it any more legal.
Oh logging? You mean as in DHCP logging?
RTA. The article strongly implies that the logging will take the form of a secured, username/password pair when signing onto the service. Nothing as low-level as DHCP.
what happens when(if) users start doing stupid little things like hijacking addresses, arp hijacks, yadda yadda to try to circumvent the p2p programs, t
Why bother? Users with even a fraction of the technical skill to pull off such hacks will simply run their own p2p network on top of their regular TCP/IP access.
Oh, and if you RTA, it says that students will be given no ability to place files onto this p2p network at all, so the whole discussion about a CS major's large files is moot.
I have no idea, since you obviously are too stupid to understand me.
I see that you're incorrigible and have no desire to understand the truth. But for the benefit of others who might be reading (although I hope none would traverse so far down a vapid thread), I'll slowly explain why you were just totally wrong.
And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?
It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.
It does not allow you to make copies and distribute them for free. Lets go over this one step at a time.
Copying & redistributing a computer program is normally illegal, without permission from the copyright holder.
The GPL offers you that permission in the following (abbreviated) section:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
More briefly, you can give out copies if you include with them either the source code itself, or an offer for the source code (regardless of if the offer is honored by you, or an upstream provider).
If you don't have the source code, and can't get the source code, then you have no way to include it with the software, or to make an offer for code. The customers buying these routers are getting neither source tarballs nor coupons to mail away for source CD-ROMs, which is why the vendor is in violation of the GPL.
Therefore you cannot satisify section 3 of the GPL, so you have no permission to copy & distribute the program, so you cannot "make copies and distribute them for free"
That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code.
No, I'm saying that if you didn't have the source code, you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you don't have the source code. If you somehow get a GPLed program and have no way to get the source code, then the GPL has already been broken.
Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?
I rather doubt it. So unless there was "an offer" along with the chips, they were in violation of the GPL. (And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).
Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?
The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.
And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone? Absolutely nothing. It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).
The GPL is meant to make the source for programs available to all users of the programs, including derived versions. To that end, it requires A) Recipents of software be given source code (or an offer for source code) B) Modified versions use the same license
You've just stated that although part A is gone, section B is still in effect. But the only purpose of B was to propagate A. Without A, B is meaningless.
Blatantly nonsensical. "For XYZ to work, XYZ must work well" cannot be true, for it begs a definition of "work" that is loaded with a non-objective quality judgement.
and move straight on to the ad hominem attacks.
Mark down "ad hominem" as something else you'll need to get explained in your remedial education.
Here's some help: it means an attack targeted at the speaker, not what he says. I don't know anything about you, and didn't use any personal information in my post. It was solely based on what you wrote. That is notad hominem.
To create ad hominem abuse, I would have to follow your killingmachines URL and look for offtopic, personal details to twist into insults. Dig up someplace where you made a mistake once, and, and create the implication that nothing else you say can be trusted either. That would be petty and uncomfortable, and I'm not into that.
Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.
And what else is there to avoid? Requiring distribution of source code is the sole objective of the GPL.
(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)
Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.
And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.
If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".
If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code. Or if you remove the GPL, then you are no longer distributing what you got, but rather a modified copy, and have to get permission from the copyright-holder for that.
(Just imagine if I bought Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP, and replaced the EULA with a BSD-style license before selling it on E-Bay. Would that work? No! You can't edit the license on software before legally reselling it. That's fraud)
Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?
To further clarify, in case you genuinely don't get it and aren't just trying to mislead, here is the most concise explanation in the license, from section 0:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted
That is, a corporation may run and *use* a GPL program without distributing any copies whatsoever.
By the time you're reading the GPL license, you've already got the program it was included with on your harddrive. There is no further copying required to make use of it, so no licensing is needed.
Prehaps you're coming from the perspective that a corporate IT department will be unwilling to go to each of their PCs and redownload the program from the distributor's website, and would rather make their own copies to hand out to employees. That is not a prerequist for *use*. But if they want to do this, they can spend 2 minutes to attach a text file offering those employees a copy of the source code. In the unlikely event some employee really wants it, they can email him the original download URL. Only if he's unable to acquire it that way must they make a copy for him. And, giving one copy to an employee is not equivalent to "providing a mirror", which implies operating a public website.
(Note additionally that a manager distributing software to his employees is not a commercial transaction, as it is internal to the company, and is not taxable like true "commerce")
Ok, so you demonstrated an abliity to get the GPL on your screen. That's a good first step!
Now work on reading it sometime, and maybe you can tell me where it states "Any corporation (but not individuals or non-profits) using GPL software must mirror it".
I'll give you a hint: The word "use", which you so delightfully *highlighted* in your untrue post, is nowhere present in the section you just pasted. It has the words "copy" and "distribute", but those are not "use". If you can't tell the difference... you've got serious problems.
The software is *free* because to *use* it, you don't have to pay any money. Just like if Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP was *free*, you could obtain it without paying anything. But once you get it, you have no more right to pass out copies than if you'd paid $299.
Slashdot Mirror
They would have to filter based on protocol. No protocols not approved by the government, etc.
That is what may happen. The US Government is already working on getting protocol-analyzers ("Carnivore") installed at major ISPs. Once those are in place and happily scanning all POP3+HTTP, we might expect the feds will discourage the use of formats they can't read, and suggest ISPs block encrypted streams.
As long as I can send IP packets between my computer and yours, we still will be able to communicate much as is done today.
Too late! Already, if you try to send me a packet, it will be dropped by my ISP. My connection is outbound-only. Unless I've very recently sent an IP message to you, none of your packets can reach me. And I can only even send outbound packets on a few ports: 21, 23, and 80. (And port 80 goes through a proxy to ensure that everything is well-formed HTTP protocol). Run apache on 8000 or 8080? I can't get there. I have been segmented into the "consumer" group, not the "broadcaster" category.
(Much of the technical work in producing systems like Napster and Kazaa is actually workarounds for the fact that their users are often not true "peers" of the internet, so "P2P" work is required to partially restore that status.)
Is there any technological reason why we can't have both?
The reason is not technological, but economic. Already most people with internet access are restricted to "consumer" usage, meaning they can open connections to others, but not wait for others to connect to them (run a server).
ISPs have a strong incentive to divide internet use into separate categories, for stronger price-discriminating power. It may always be possible to buy "premium, unfiltered" internet access, but the additional cost could be prohibitively expensive, unless you plan to be a profitable business.
Or we might not even get that much. Since raw TCP/IP and encrypted streams are tools of terrorist planning, the government may decide that anyone who wants to purchase it will have to be carefully licensed, subjected to random inspections, polygraphed, etc.
Another manifesto/thesis/rant, "World of Ends", raised similar problems, although from a more limited, technical perspective. And it was a shorter document overall. There was a Slashdot discussion of it too.
Except I don't know what that means.
Then you must be a prognathous pithecanthropoid knuckle-typer!
The article's (which is already slashdotted) main idea is that it will be possible for a cooperation of government and corporate interests to change the internet from the freewheeling, content-neutral common carrier we know and love into a strict disciplinarian.
That was the thesis of Lawrence Lessig's 5 year old book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". The internet is artificial. It's not a force of nature. Human effort built it, and human laws can change it. With sufficient financial motivation, laws will change it.
Tired quotations like "The internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it" are at best observations of recent behavior, not guarantees that truely effective internet censorship won't happen in the future.
Those who care about freedom cannot just sit back and assume that because the net is fairly free now, it always will be. Eternal vigiliance is the price.
Only oddballs like RMS think people will continue to invent things without any prospect of reward and benefit.
I guess we're all sharing a mass hallucination! We can't be reading a website, because Tim Berners-Lee would've never invented the WWW if he wouldn't get a patent on it.
did Edison acquire a monopoly on the idea of the light bulb? No, just a particular implementation.
Well, Edison didn't have the lightbulb patent, it went to Joe Swan.
But even pretending he did, your claim is still incorrect. It presents a false dichotomy between "idea" and "particular implementation", when in actuality "implementations" are a subset of all "ideas". (The rubric "Ideas can never be copyrighted or patented" is false. Not every idea can be, but some can.)
"Submarine" is a different kind of abuse of the patent system. It means becoming aware that someone is infringing your patent, but intentionally refraining from mentioning it until the victim has poured a heavy investment into the technology.
Then you spring the patent on him when it's too late for him to avoid it. He's then forced to concede to onerous licensing terms, or write-off the whole project.
Waiting to annouce the patent can actually increase the punitive damages you'll collect. Or at least weaken a potential competitor. The supreme example is the Polaroid patent on instant film development, which cost Kodak around $500,000,000
Hard disks are more reliable in my experience than CPUs too.
You living in Bizarro world? Or are you just an overclocker?
How could a mechanical hard drive be more reliable than a solid-state CPU? Hard drive failures are a well-known problem, which even makes its way into primetime sitcoms. Everyone knows someone who's drive crashed. Rumors fly that the latest batch of Seagate or Western Digital may have jinxy spindles.
But stop a pedestrian and ask him when he last heard of a CPU burnout- you'll get a puzzled look. Since I don't OC, I've never lost a CPU. But my stack of dead IDE drives is tall on the bookcase.
Even amoung Slashdot users, I'm sure a show of hands would reveal that far many more people have suffered from unpredictable failures of an HD than a CPU.
(Google says that "hard drive reliability" is nearly twice as common a topic as "CPU reliability")
The most you`d hope to get out of it is `yes, there are other civilisations out there`, and I already know that.
You'd get two things, sequentially:
1. Not just knowledge, but PROOF. That you followed Sagan's "billions & billions" calculations is one thing. That everyone else KNOWS its true is another. Potentially, this could change the terrestrial balance of power. (More likely, resistant groups will deny the proof, but they'll at least be marginalized somewhat)
2. Later you'd get actual translations of the messages. Who could predict the value of alien wisdom and folly?
Presumably since it can handle 32 bit software, it can also handle the normal 32 bit drivers
That's a wrong presumption. Microsoft(tm) has already acknowledged that when a 64-bit Windows(r) comes out, you'll need all new drivers. (The same is true for Linux, but with most drivers open-source, it's fairly trivial to change. Or at least you're not at the whim of a Taiwanese OEM to decide when your soundcard is going to get supported)
Unless they concoct a completely new driver compatibility layer... but there have been no plans announced about that. And Microsoft in recent years has tried to fight "driver oddities", which are a big cause of embarrasing OS crashes, so they probably won't want to make the architecture any more complex.
64-bit Linux distros will do NO good for professionals who make a living off their machines
Those people who really need the power of early-adopted 64-bit CPUs will basically fall in two categories:
1. Heavy server users: They need things like Apache and Oracle, which are both already available for 64-bit Linux.
2. Heavy computation users: Many of the first big installations of 64-bit CPUs will be in scientific computation clusters. They run custom code there, and will have no qualms about recompiling it for new chips.
Both of those groups find it cost-effective to hire a few "slash-heads" to swap OSes around.
anyone keeping pace with industry standards and proprietary formats, evil or not, are subject to sticking with a platform CONSISTANTLY over a period of time.
Linux is a platform. Changing out CPUs underneath it doesn't change it a whole lot. My own 64-bit workstation runs Red Hat or Debian just fine, and the programmer effort to upgrade custom scientific apps has not been prohibitive.
No version of Linux can completely handle the de-facto standards used to "make a living" in most professional offices, like Microsoft Office file formats. Both 32 and 64 bit versions support those quasi-standards equally poorly.
No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.
Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.
No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.
And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.
Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.
Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.
You would not want a major launch accident occurring over a more populated center.
Why not? For an accident to be really dangerous, the collateral targets would have to be extremely close.
The penisula of Florida is a populous area of the USA, but the rather major launch catastrophe that happened there in 1986 didn't come close to hurting anyone one the ground. Nor did NASA see any reason to move future launches further into the wilderness.
The distance from Orlando to Canaveral can easily be exceeded in many places near cities in southwest China. See this population map (TIFF), it's not that crowded there. And launching out over the ocean gives greater safety- insuring that no civilians are wandering beneath, and allowing splashdown recoveries.
The only downside I can imagine to a southeast coastal positioning is the increased scrutiny from outsiders. US spyplanes could get a better view of the launch activity, while places like Japan, Taiwan, or SK might worry about huge Chinese projectiles passing over them at sub-orbital altitudes (Could that be military? They won't know until it bombs on them!)
So maybe the Gobi desert was selected for privacy.
If it had happened it would already have leaked by now.
Of course, that vague rumor he "heard" could be considered a kind of leak.
It goes back to the pink elephant principle. Any claim involving "It's impossible for that to have happened, or someone would've heard about it" can be countered by a conspiracy theorist arguing that "We have heard of it, but because it's so outlandish nobody believes the reports"
I've heard that the Russians didn't have great success on their early manned launches,
They used a safe procedure to incrementally test the new technology. Remember that they were really the first doing it, so there were questions not only about the quality of the equipment, but also the unknown dangers of the extra-atmospheric environment (Does the Van Allen belt emit lethal cosmic radiation? Who could guess?)
The USSR (that's what they called it back then) flew it's space capsules through earth orbit carrying dogs and manniquins first, before ever putting a human in them. So any early failures would've killed "Ivan Ivanovich", not brave young pioneers. (The dummy came out fine, and is now on display in Washington, DC)
I suppose a paranoid-type could theorize that there was really a human who died in that first test, and the corpse was replaced with a manniquin for better PR...
The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source
That's it. Too much prima facie untruth from you. That's exactly what GPL section 3a requires.
It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.
Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.
Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.
RTA how about you READ MY POST logging as in what IP address is connecting.
Directly from the article's second paragraph:
develop a technology called LionShare, a file-sharing system that requires students to log in each time
Plainly, they're logging USERNAMES, not just IP addresses. Otherwise the student's wouldn't have to "log in each time".
So how do you expect to track people when some people are stupid enough to write l/p's and leave them on post it notes right on their machine.
Yes, there are certainly problems when users fail to appropriately protect their passwords- but those security vulernabilities apply to nearly ANY system, including those based on ssh, SMB, NIS, SSL, or whatever! That's such a fundamental problem that it's something most system designers are unwilling to even acknowledge, because they know there's no good answer.
They are not talking about logging IPs, but usernames. Anyone who leaves his password out on his desk can have his machine zombied. Or the IP can be simply spoofed when he's offline. You seem to understand that logging by IP is full of shortcomings, so why do you assume they'll try to use that?
If users won't be able to place files on it then how is it p2p
Users can place files on it. Students can't. Users!=Students.
Bring back a tougher argument.
If you'd even made an argument, I might have something to respond to.
what if one is the band playing we will rock you or something for practice?
That he's getting practice out of it doesn't make it any more legal.
Oh logging? You mean as in DHCP logging?
RTA. The article strongly implies that the logging will take the form of a secured, username/password pair when signing onto the service. Nothing as low-level as DHCP.
what happens when(if) users start doing stupid little things like hijacking addresses, arp hijacks, yadda yadda to try to circumvent the p2p programs, t
Why bother? Users with even a fraction of the technical skill to pull off such hacks will simply run their own p2p network on top of their regular TCP/IP access.
Oh, and if you RTA, it says that students will be given no ability to place files onto this p2p network at all, so the whole discussion about a CS major's large files is moot.
I see that you're incorrigible and have no desire to understand the truth. But for the benefit of others who might be reading (although I hope none would traverse so far down a vapid thread), I'll slowly explain why you were just totally wrong.
- And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?
It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.It does not allow you to make copies and distribute them for free. Lets go over this one step at a time.
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
More briefly, you can give out copies if you include with them either the source code itself, or an offer for the source code (regardless of if the offer is honored by you, or an upstream provider).
That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code.
No, I'm saying that if you didn't have the source code, you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you don't have the source code. If you somehow get a GPLed program and have no way to get the source code, then the GPL has already been broken.
Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?
I rather doubt it. So unless there was "an offer" along with the chips, they were in violation of the GPL. (And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).
Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?
The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.
And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone? Absolutely nothing. It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).
The GPL is meant to make the source for programs available to all users of the programs, including derived versions. To that end, it requires
A) Recipents of software be given source code (or an offer for source code)
B) Modified versions use the same license
You've just stated that although part A is gone, section B is still in effect. But the only purpose of B was to propagate A. Without A, B is meaningless.
For satire to work, it has to work well.
Blatantly nonsensical. "For XYZ to work, XYZ must work well" cannot be true, for it begs a definition of "work" that is loaded with a non-objective quality judgement.
and move straight on to the ad hominem attacks.
Mark down "ad hominem" as something else you'll need to get explained in your remedial education.
Here's some help: it means an attack targeted at the speaker, not what he says. I don't know anything about you, and didn't use any personal information in my post. It was solely based on what you wrote. That is not ad hominem.
To create ad hominem abuse, I would have to follow your killingmachines URL and look for offtopic, personal details to twist into insults. Dig up someplace where you made a mistake once, and, and create the implication that nothing else you say can be trusted either. That would be petty and uncomfortable, and I'm not into that.
Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.
And what else is there to avoid? Requiring distribution of source code is the sole objective of the GPL.
(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)
Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.
And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.
If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".
If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code. Or if you remove the GPL, then you are no longer distributing what you got, but rather a modified copy, and have to get permission from the copyright-holder for that.
(Just imagine if I bought Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP, and replaced the EULA with a BSD-style license before selling it on E-Bay. Would that work? No! You can't edit the license on software before legally reselling it. That's fraud)
Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted
That is, a corporation may run and *use* a GPL program without distributing any copies whatsoever.
By the time you're reading the GPL license, you've already got the program it was included with on your harddrive. There is no further copying required to make use of it, so no licensing is needed.
Prehaps you're coming from the perspective that a corporate IT department will be unwilling to go to each of their PCs and redownload the program from the distributor's website, and would rather make their own copies to hand out to employees. That is not a prerequist for *use*. But if they want to do this, they can spend 2 minutes to attach a text file offering those employees a copy of the source code. In the unlikely event some employee really wants it, they can email him the original download URL. Only if he's unable to acquire it that way must they make a copy for him. And, giving one copy to an employee is not equivalent to "providing a mirror", which implies operating a public website.
(Note additionally that a manager distributing software to his employees is not a commercial transaction, as it is internal to the company, and is not taxable like true "commerce")
Ok, so you demonstrated an abliity to get the GPL on your screen. That's a good first step!
Now work on reading it sometime, and maybe you can tell me where it states "Any corporation (but not individuals or non-profits) using GPL software must mirror it".
I'll give you a hint: The word "use", which you so delightfully *highlighted* in your untrue post, is nowhere present in the section you just pasted. It has the words "copy" and "distribute", but those are not "use". If you can't tell the difference... you've got serious problems.
The software is *free* because to *use* it, you don't have to pay any money. Just like if Microsoft(tm) Windows(r) XP was *free*, you could obtain it without paying anything. But once you get it, you have no more right to pass out copies than if you'd paid $299.