I think we need to add a new type SIP record to DNS like MX
SRV. Some SIP projects use this already, carriers
do not because they (wisely) do not trust DNS. I expect
that even if an open standard is used to relay this kind
of information it will be done over semi-private
networks rather than the public internet.
Success with this sort of millitary technology by the
current government of China is no reason to be happy.
I can see little good about a dangerous nation like China
developing spaceflight. The only bright side is that this
may provide the impetus to get the US interested in
space again.
You are not going to "be the guy that creates any kind of chilling effect on research". The DMCA is doing that
quite nicely without your help. If anything a ridiculous
case like this would be more likely to make people
aware of what
a ridiculous fuck-up the DMCA really is.
Apple makes physical objects with a distinctive look. The product just has to appear for a second. Nobody has to interrupt the flow of dialogue to say anything about it.
What's Microsoft going to do?
I'm thinking something like those pharmacuetical company
comercials that started showing up on television a few
years ago. Those comercials never mentioned what the product did,
they just repeated the company name and product name
over and over again with images of joyful people doing
things with their family and friends in the background.
The comercials were not selling the illusion of cool, but
they were trying to create brand recognition for previously
invisible companies as well as sell the illusion of health.
The part of Verizon responsible for IP transit would have slightly better systems in place to do things like this.
I don't work for Verizon, but another carrier - and I can tell
you that those systems you speak of are for
troubleshooting or to satisfy CALEA and Title 3. They are
labor intensive and not made for use on a large scale
monitoring system.
Making those systems available to use at RIAAs whim
would cost more money than you can believe - and make
Verizon responsible
for holding RIAAs dick from now till the end of time.
Since it is designed for just that model, why aren't those businesses using BSD software instead then?
In many cases they are - just quietly. GPL requires that
a company give up exclusive right to something that they
view as valuable and that requires either a philosophical
commitment, a realization of the benefits of open
development, or overriding customer demand.
Large businesses with a philosophy are rare. The leaders
may subscribe to some version of Rand (with themselves
cast as her heros), but business is about making money
and that is all.
Some comapanies have realized that they can make money
with GPL software, but the philosophical basis of the GPL
does not make immediate sense to companies that make
money selling proprietary software or hardware and the
practical considerations of losing exclusive copy control
and trade secrets are often hard for them to accept.
Most companies, the overwhelming majority of which are not in the software publishing business and never intend to be, do not have any particular view on the detail of the GPL. Practical matters like 'oooh free' and 'oh... lawsuits' matter to them, but to say that they 'dilike' the GPL is silly. At worst they're uncomfortable with some of the things they've heard about lack of support or chances of being sued.
My job leads me to deal with software vendors on a regular
basis, and many of them have been hostile or dismissive
of Linux and the GPL - such companies don't get our
business and some have later changed their minds, but
the attitude exists.
My other experience with this has
been that a contractor released a work for hire under the
GPL without my companies permission, this has created
a credibility problem with management regarding the GPL
and halted later attempts to release anything under the
GPL.
My employer is not a software publishing house, but we
do wind up consuming and producing a fair amount
of software anyway.
MS encourages us to use their software in order
to get their business and this sort of quid pro quo makes
more sense to most business types than the "hippy
nonsense" of the GPL.
My experience might not be typical, but from what I read
and hear it is fairly common.
MS can still compete on quality and they have a lot of
residual lock in, but there are alternatives - and normal
people are starting to use them.
Regarding your examples.
Windows Media Player is actually a decent product, and I
will continue to use it untill a comparable free program
is available for Windows or DRM becomes mandatory.
Windows Messenger has some success because of
integration with Windows, but is not good enough to
keep users who learn of an alternative and does not have
enough market share to force people to migrate to it.
At this point Microsoft's only way of maintaining lock in
would alienate so many customers (and software
"partners") that they would hasten migration to other
platforms.
I think that product activation and subscription services
are a move in this direction, but network license managers
and recuring costs are barely acceptable annoyances in a
business environment - home users will reject them
entirely.
Dislike of the business world for the GPL? It's got to be one of the most used licences by businesses. Okay, they don't only choose GPLd products on licencing ground but there are generally alternative products if they disliked the licence that much.
There have been several instances of businesses trying to
end run the GPL, they have no problem using the software
- they just don't like the idea of releasing their
enhancements for their competitors (or individuals) to use.
I expect such behaviour to become more common.
The fact is that most companies (esp. software vendors)
don't get the GPL. They accept it as a neccessary evil to get
some good software without all the expense and problems
you get with a vendor, but they do not understand or like it.
I've been trying to imagine a more extreme position than Microsoft's "our fair share is 100%," but I can't.
I've been having a difficult time envisioning this as well.
The only thing I can think of would be government
assistance and enforcement of that position, which seems
unlikely.
Microsoft's chance to become an old style utility monopoly
with barriers to entry being ownership of infrastructure
has passed.
However, the middle ground is always defined by the end points. Move the end points to the right and the "moderate" point of view moves to the right right along with them. (Errrr, right?)
The extremes set the dynamic and the boundaries of the
discussion. That is why it is important for defenders of
the status quo to demonize the radicals, once the idea
of Free Software became a part of the discussion then the
established software business was under attack.
The
thing that is funny is that GNU was Stallman's reaction to
the proprietary software industry that developed in the
late 70s, and leads me to wonder what counter
movements GNU itself might spawn now that it is a
success.
...of how incredible ideas, while adding enormous value, can also be bogged down and lessened when attached to extremist views or politics.
Stallman's vision for GNU has stayed remarkably consistent.
He has am overriding definition of value - "free is better",
everything since has been a result of that. The dislike of
the business world for the GPL is not a setback for RMS,
his goal is Free Software, so the fact
that it is now interested
does not mean he is going to sell out his principles and
do anything to get businesses to use his software.
I admire that. Although I use a lot of prorietary software
(and tend toward the pragmatic over principle)
I'm glad that RMS chose to start GNU
and stuck with it so long.
I would work at 7-11 in a moment if they would give me a $2 million advance against my 7-11 salary.
Why not? Here is a voucher for $2 million, along with an
invoice for construction of the store you will work in,
retooling the factory that made your uniform, and a salary
for the manager's cousin who will act as a slurpie
flavor consultant.
Meanwhile, let's patch for the latest ssh vulnerability.:P
Non sequitur much?
What do the recent ssh vulnerabilities have to
do with whether or not the Microsoft monopoly is a danger
to national security and whether or not MS will use the
excuse of security to increase their hold on the industry.
People who have serious spam problems are not very good at dealing with it.
You are so wrong. My home email which I manage
myself is mostly spam free - I see maybe one
piece of spam a week. My work email is full of
internal communications, mail from marketing, mail
from customers, status reports, and so on.
I cannot filter that mail aggresively and see 10
to 20 pieces of spam a day.
I know exactly how to deal with spam, but because
of the use and exposure of that email address
those options are unavailable.
Eh? SWG has some serious implementation problems,
many balance problems, and a resistance to listening to
player input - but it is the best designed MMORPG I've
ever played.
The UI has good defaults, is scriptable, and can be
arranged in any manner you see fit. The PvP system is
better thought out than any other system I've seen. Any
play style is allowed (crafters, entertainers, healers,
combat). Character advancement is very free form, with
restrictions only when you reach high levels. The
player run economy is the first I've seen come close to
working, it is somewhat crazy - but much better than any
other I've seen. They realized that falling damage in an
online game was stupid and did away with it.
If the security profesionals I've encountered are any
indication, then Symantec is probably full of ex-millitary,
FBI, and CIA people. I'm sure there are nice people
who choose to work for those agencies - I never meet
them, I meet the power tripping assholes who think
Ashcroft is soft. Such people have a mindset in which
no one but professionals having access to security
information is an excellent thing, free speech be damned.
So of course the law would not apply to them, they're the
good guys.
But you can laugh and cheer as the two scumbags cut each
other up.
And I agree, these Netster people are evil. My upgrade
schedule for Privoxy is solely determined by these people
or their ilk figuring out new ways to send me ads when I
typo a domain.
Agreed on Kefka. FF3 is probably my favorite of the series.
Great characters, tons of hidden characters, wonderful
music, tons of variety in character abilities, and free form
without letting you get lost too easily, the game was a
masterpiece.
The only thing I remember missing when I played it was
the awkward phrasing sometimes used by the translators.
C'mon kids how many of you had any idea what "spoony
bard" meant? They did keep the "..." and *blink* *blink*
from the previous games though.
Random encounters every step, and monsters guaranteed to kick your ass a hundred times over.
I'll see your Dragon Warrior woes and raise you Phantasy
Star II. You had to level for more than an hour before you
could leave the area of the first city and there were a couple
dungeons where you had a fight every third step.
And as far as geezerism goes I bought the first Zelda
game the day it came out with my paper route money:)
The only real hope that I have is that their merge with Enix might bring back some of the teams that really knew how to work wonders with RPG design.
I won't hold my breath waiting for good to come out of
Enix, the last
Dragon Warrior was bad - as in in not fun, ugly graphics,
boring combat, and a poor menu system.
I did get Final Fantasy Tactics Advance the other day and
it is actually pretty fun - but Tactics is not an RPG,
it is basically Square and Enix using all the old fantasy RPG
elements for a turn based strategy game.
We need an RFC stating that this is not permissable.
Depending on how an ISP achieves the redirect it may
already violate published RFCs. An ISP doing redirection in
the same way as Verisign would be violating 2308
(the RFC that brought us NXDOMAIN).
If the redirection is accomplished with a proxy or layer4
switch then the action would be valid. An informational
RFC saying "don't do that" would rightly be ignored by
everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Harlan Ellison did it first. Harlan sued AOL over posts of his copyrighted material to Usenet.
SRV. Some SIP projects use this already, carriers do not because they (wisely) do not trust DNS. I expect that even if an open standard is used to relay this kind of information it will be done over semi-private networks rather than the public internet.
Why?
Success with this sort of millitary technology by the current government of China is no reason to be happy. I can see little good about a dangerous nation like China developing spaceflight. The only bright side is that this may provide the impetus to get the US interested in space again.
You are not going to "be the guy that creates any kind of chilling effect on research". The DMCA is doing that quite nicely without your help. If anything a ridiculous case like this would be more likely to make people aware of what a ridiculous fuck-up the DMCA really is.
No
I'm pretty sure this is the first instance of "pedant-bait" I've ever seen on /.
What's Microsoft going to do?
I'm thinking something like those pharmacuetical company comercials that started showing up on television a few years ago. Those comercials never mentioned what the product did, they just repeated the company name and product name over and over again with images of joyful people doing things with their family and friends in the background.
The comercials were not selling the illusion of cool, but they were trying to create brand recognition for previously invisible companies as well as sell the illusion of health.
I don't work for Verizon, but another carrier - and I can tell you that those systems you speak of are for troubleshooting or to satisfy CALEA and Title 3. They are labor intensive and not made for use on a large scale monitoring system.
Making those systems available to use at RIAAs whim would cost more money than you can believe - and make Verizon responsible for holding RIAAs dick from now till the end of time.
In many cases they are - just quietly. GPL requires that a company give up exclusive right to something that they view as valuable and that requires either a philosophical commitment, a realization of the benefits of open development, or overriding customer demand.
Large businesses with a philosophy are rare. The leaders may subscribe to some version of Rand (with themselves cast as her heros), but business is about making money and that is all. Some comapanies have realized that they can make money with GPL software, but the philosophical basis of the GPL does not make immediate sense to companies that make money selling proprietary software or hardware and the practical considerations of losing exclusive copy control and trade secrets are often hard for them to accept.
My job leads me to deal with software vendors on a regular basis, and many of them have been hostile or dismissive of Linux and the GPL - such companies don't get our business and some have later changed their minds, but the attitude exists.
My other experience with this has been that a contractor released a work for hire under the GPL without my companies permission, this has created a credibility problem with management regarding the GPL and halted later attempts to release anything under the GPL.
My employer is not a software publishing house, but we do wind up consuming and producing a fair amount of software anyway. MS encourages us to use their software in order to get their business and this sort of quid pro quo makes more sense to most business types than the "hippy nonsense" of the GPL.
My experience might not be typical, but from what I read and hear it is fairly common.
Regarding your examples. Windows Media Player is actually a decent product, and I will continue to use it untill a comparable free program is available for Windows or DRM becomes mandatory. Windows Messenger has some success because of integration with Windows, but is not good enough to keep users who learn of an alternative and does not have enough market share to force people to migrate to it.
At this point Microsoft's only way of maintaining lock in would alienate so many customers (and software "partners") that they would hasten migration to other platforms.
I think that product activation and subscription services are a move in this direction, but network license managers and recuring costs are barely acceptable annoyances in a business environment - home users will reject them entirely.
There have been several instances of businesses trying to end run the GPL, they have no problem using the software - they just don't like the idea of releasing their enhancements for their competitors (or individuals) to use. I expect such behaviour to become more common.
The fact is that most companies (esp. software vendors) don't get the GPL. They accept it as a neccessary evil to get some good software without all the expense and problems you get with a vendor, but they do not understand or like it.
I've been having a difficult time envisioning this as well. The only thing I can think of would be government assistance and enforcement of that position, which seems unlikely.
Microsoft's chance to become an old style utility monopoly with barriers to entry being ownership of infrastructure has passed.
The extremes set the dynamic and the boundaries of the discussion. That is why it is important for defenders of the status quo to demonize the radicals, once the idea of Free Software became a part of the discussion then the established software business was under attack.
The thing that is funny is that GNU was Stallman's reaction to the proprietary software industry that developed in the late 70s, and leads me to wonder what counter movements GNU itself might spawn now that it is a success.
Stallman's vision for GNU has stayed remarkably consistent. He has am overriding definition of value - "free is better", everything since has been a result of that. The dislike of the business world for the GPL is not a setback for RMS, his goal is Free Software, so the fact that it is now interested does not mean he is going to sell out his principles and do anything to get businesses to use his software.
I admire that. Although I use a lot of prorietary software (and tend toward the pragmatic over principle) I'm glad that RMS chose to start GNU and stuck with it so long.
Why not? Here is a voucher for $2 million, along with an invoice for construction of the store you will work in, retooling the factory that made your uniform, and a salary for the manager's cousin who will act as a slurpie flavor consultant.
Non sequitur much? What do the recent ssh vulnerabilities have to do with whether or not the Microsoft monopoly is a danger to national security and whether or not MS will use the excuse of security to increase their hold on the industry.
You are so wrong. My home email which I manage myself is mostly spam free - I see maybe one piece of spam a week. My work email is full of internal communications, mail from marketing, mail from customers, status reports, and so on. I cannot filter that mail aggresively and see 10 to 20 pieces of spam a day.
I know exactly how to deal with spam, but because of the use and exposure of that email address those options are unavailable.
Eh? SWG has some serious implementation problems, many balance problems, and a resistance to listening to player input - but it is the best designed MMORPG I've ever played.
The UI has good defaults, is scriptable, and can be arranged in any manner you see fit. The PvP system is better thought out than any other system I've seen. Any play style is allowed (crafters, entertainers, healers, combat). Character advancement is very free form, with restrictions only when you reach high levels. The player run economy is the first I've seen come close to working, it is somewhat crazy - but much better than any other I've seen. They realized that falling damage in an online game was stupid and did away with it.
So of course the law would not apply to them, they're the good guys.
But you can laugh and cheer as the two scumbags cut each other up.
And I agree, these Netster people are evil. My upgrade schedule for Privoxy is solely determined by these people or their ilk figuring out new ways to send me ads when I typo a domain.
The only thing I remember missing when I played it was the awkward phrasing sometimes used by the translators. C'mon kids how many of you had any idea what "spoony bard" meant? They did keep the "..." and *blink* *blink* from the previous games though.
I'll see your Dragon Warrior woes and raise you Phantasy Star II. You had to level for more than an hour before you could leave the area of the first city and there were a couple dungeons where you had a fight every third step.
And as far as geezerism goes I bought the first Zelda game the day it came out with my paper route money :)
I won't hold my breath waiting for good to come out of Enix, the last Dragon Warrior was bad - as in in not fun, ugly graphics, boring combat, and a poor menu system.
I did get Final Fantasy Tactics Advance the other day and it is actually pretty fun - but Tactics is not an RPG, it is basically Square and Enix using all the old fantasy RPG elements for a turn based strategy game.
Depending on how an ISP achieves the redirect it may already violate published RFCs. An ISP doing redirection in the same way as Verisign would be violating 2308 (the RFC that brought us NXDOMAIN). If the redirection is accomplished with a proxy or layer4 switch then the action would be valid. An informational RFC saying "don't do that" would rightly be ignored by everyone.