Adblock Plus - add a rule to block "http://a.fsdn.com/sd/commentshareicons.png"
Seems to have fixed it for me, they are most annoying and I can't think of a time I have ever wanted to share someone else's slashdot post on social media sites.
"Yup, US politicians put the interests and rights of US citizens ahead of others. If they didn't, they wouldn't get reelected, simple as that."
Who said anything about politicians or thinking they suck, it was directly aimed at the parent and other american people who think this way. No need to bring politics, european or otherwise (and here's a hint, there are even omre countries in the world that the US and European ones) into it.
You miss one point - it's possible to make more sophisticated P2P programs.
I don't (personally) want to get involved in it due to prevalence of child porn, but tru darknets like freenet start to look more appealing.
It would also be perfectly possible to set up an encrypted multi-bounce net that connects friends to each other to share data. Direct connections need go no further than friends-of-friends, each one trusted because a direct friend has signed for them. Each person shares a list of media they can 'see' with their connections, the kevin-bacon effect ensures that the net eventually encompasses a whole heap of people who can now trade data across the world but appear only to be connected to local folks.
Traffic disguising algorithms like those used by WASTE can hide or at least randomise a lot of traffic and... well. There are attempts in this direction already with projects like OneSwarm.
And as pipes get faster all the time this sort of thing just gets more feasible.
(no, I haven't got the search algorithm worked out yet)
Yup, my Dad brought one home in the early 80s, can't have been long after launch. It's one of my ealiest memories. We had Frogger and "Sprite-Man" a pacman ripoff.
Thus started my long, slow descent to a life of software engineering.
How it is possible to think of copyleft separately to copyright since it depends on it? Some people think of copyleft being anti-copyright or overturning it, but I disagree. It may overturn the traditional use of it to artificially limit supply to create a business model, but it doesn't overturn the constitutional purpose of copyright, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I'd say copyleft is doing that quite well, wouldn't you? I think it's a very good justification of copyright.
True, it doesn't overturn the aim of copyright law in the slightest, and at present copyleft does require copyright.
However imagine there is no law on an authors right to restrict distribution, you could still have a law that said "All software binaries must come with source or the offer of source".
I'm not proposing this for a second, it would be a bad and stupid law, I just wanted to point out that you could (potentially) have a world with one and not the other. Of course it may still fall into the broad category of copyright related lawmaking but still... bah!
Most folks seem to have had a white keyboard, seen how filthy it becomes over time and (instead of cleaning the damn thing) resolved to use black ones in future.
That said I did used to clean the key covers for my old Model M with vodka every once in a while.
I've used a load of web servers in the last few years - an early verion of IIS when I had only windows many years back, apache, lighttpd, thttpd, netscape web server (showing my age) and various others... but I didn't even know this was out there.
Suppose it just shows how out of the loop I am these days. Computer stuff covers a vast field these days.
Also, who the hell was storing any significant customer data on the ATMs in the first place?
'xactly.
This sounds like someone has put a marketing spin on "we fixed a really dumb security problem we had", and figured out that if they threw in the word VM then someone else may say "cloud" and suddenly we have buzzwords and more sales!
This is, of course, why I'll always be in the engineering department. Marketers are not supposed to make press releases saying "We're sorry it took us so long to stop storing your data in insecure locations", which is all I would have been able to make of this.
I'm not sure that's what I mean, no. However, taking them separately, I think both copyright and copyleft are useful and (in very broad terms) A Good Thing (TM).
Though I would like to see a huge reduction both the length of copyright/left terms and the penalties and powers set up in this area of law.
I said the case "grows much weaker", then I said "weakening" again in my next post to emphasize, and you're still blathering on about how it's not eliminated, so I have no point? Dumbass.
And I disagree that it does grow weaker, based on the idea that what prompted RMS to think about copyleft in the first place was the inability to control what all these binary blobs on his system were doing.
YOU may well be an uber-leet binary hacker, most of us are not.
If a system's wrong, it's still wrong even if you can point out good things that wouldn't have happened without it. And if it's right, it doesn't need that argument (such as it is).
I agree entirely and never said otherwise. I said that I don't believe that copyleft is significantly less compelling in a world without copyright.
So go ahead -- believe copyleft "saving" us from the public domain is a good thing.
Who said that? I certainly didn't.
It seems to make you happy, and I'm sick of arguing.
Probably for the best, I bet it's tiring fighting all those ghosts and straw men.
Except the real world is not RMS's dream where good code under a copyleft license is compelling argument for corporations to embrace openness -- in reality, 10% of companies will adopt the GPLed code and release their changes, but 90% write or license their own codebase because of silly fears about helping the competition.
True, but completely, totally, utterly irrelevant to the argument about whether a compelling case for the utility of copyleft still exists in the absence of copyright.
Now if those 90% are off-limits legally, sure, go GPL, and convert the 10% -- better a little than nothing. But when they can all use your codebase, making reverse engineering of protocol changes much easier, and there's no legal obstacle to doing so, the 100% vs 10% seems like a big deal -- as I said, weakening the benefits of copyleft. (And if you don't think reverse engineering the important changes (to beat embrace-extend-extinguish tactics) is technically feasible, you haven't been paying much attention the last few decades.)
Right, so because you can (with varying degreesx of success on varying devices) at great pain decompile, and maybe, maybe figure out how something works, there's no reason at all for people to want to protect the source code access of downstream consumers of software they write.
Copyleft licenses have no legal force without copyright. Without copyright there is public domain and secret, nothing else. Even if you release the source for your own code, without copyright law and a copyleft license nobody has to distribute source for their changes.
Absolutely true! Copyleft as it currently exists would cease to exist without copyright laws.
However that's not what I was arguing against, I was arguing against the assertion that if there was no copyright then there would be no argument for copyleft, as if the distribution of binaries without copyright somehow makes it unnecessary to also have source.
And in the absence of copyright, the arguments for "copyleft" grow much weaker. Sure, $EVILCORP can take free software, modify it, and offer a binary-only release (just like BSD-type licenses, but with no attribution/copyright notice req'd) -- but now they have no legal control over their changes, so if you really need to roll a change back into the open version, you can reverse engineer it with no clean-room requirements and no fear of lawsuits costing millions of dollars to prove you did it "by the book".
LOL! Because reverse engineering binary code is so much easier than using GPL source releases!
That's nonsense and you know it, copyleft is still a compelling idea even in the absence of copyright because getting the source is far, far preferable to having to pick apart compiled binaries. Programming may be a minority skill set, reverse engineering machine code is an even smaller one.
I do support FOSS and I do support copyright. I'm not sure I agree that you *have* to be both though.
I support limited terms on said copyright, much more limited than we have today, but I do support it.
As someone in the business of creating and selling novel arrangements of bits (also called software engineering), copyright is very important to my ability to make money in the commercial software world. In my spare time I use and sometimes contribute to GPL'd FOSS.
Copyright law makes the GPL work, however it doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent to use MIT/BSD style license, or no license at all, and contribute to that sort of FOSS without the belief in copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Adblock Plus - add a rule to block "http://a.fsdn.com/sd/commentshareicons.png"
Seems to have fixed it for me, they are most annoying and I can't think of a time I have ever wanted to share someone else's slashdot post on social media sites.
It will, however, make facebook worse.
Not that this should be a legal issue, but every time they make a change to the interface, it gets worse.
Respectfully, I disagree that all other countries are as self interested as the USA.
One only has to compare news coverage in various palces to see the difference.
Who said anything about politicians or thinking they suck, it was directly aimed at the parent and other american people who think this way. No need to bring politics, european or otherwise (and here's a hint, there are even omre countries in the world that the US and European ones) into it.
You know one of the reasons the rest of the world thinks you suck?
Yeah, that's it right there, only US citizens have rights in your eyes.
This is absolutely true, which is why you only connect to friends or people they have vouched for, limiting the damage to those who know idiots!
You miss one point - it's possible to make more sophisticated P2P programs.
I don't (personally) want to get involved in it due to prevalence of child porn, but tru darknets like freenet start to look more appealing.
It would also be perfectly possible to set up an encrypted multi-bounce net that connects friends to each other to share data. Direct connections need go no further than friends-of-friends, each one trusted because a direct friend has signed for them. Each person shares a list of media they can 'see' with their connections, the kevin-bacon effect ensures that the net eventually encompasses a whole heap of people who can now trade data across the world but appear only to be connected to local folks.
Traffic disguising algorithms like those used by WASTE can hide or at least randomise a lot of traffic and... well. There are attempts in this direction already with projects like OneSwarm.
And as pipes get faster all the time this sort of thing just gets more feasible.
(no, I haven't got the search algorithm worked out yet)
Yup, my Dad brought one home in the early 80s, can't have been long after launch. It's one of my ealiest memories. We had Frogger and "Sprite-Man" a pacman ripoff.
Thus started my long, slow descent to a life of software engineering.
True, it doesn't overturn the aim of copyright law in the slightest, and at present copyleft does require copyright.
However imagine there is no law on an authors right to restrict distribution, you could still have a law that said "All software binaries must come with source or the offer of source".
I'm not proposing this for a second, it would be a bad and stupid law, I just wanted to point out that you could (potentially) have a world with one and not the other. Of course it may still fall into the broad category of copyright related lawmaking but still... bah!
Surely it's just exercise for the immune system?
Most folks seem to have had a white keyboard, seen how filthy it becomes over time and (instead of cleaning the damn thing) resolved to use black ones in future.
That said I did used to clean the key covers for my old Model M with vodka every once in a while.
I've used a load of web servers in the last few years - an early verion of IIS when I had only windows many years back, apache, lighttpd, thttpd, netscape web server (showing my age) and various others... but I didn't even know this was out there.
Suppose it just shows how out of the loop I am these days. Computer stuff covers a vast field these days.
Maybe it's because we all know what comes next - 3.11, Linux for workgroups and then the dreaded Linux 95!
'xactly.
This sounds like someone has put a marketing spin on "we fixed a really dumb security problem we had", and figured out that if they threw in the word VM then someone else may say "cloud" and suddenly we have buzzwords and more sales!
This is, of course, why I'll always be in the engineering department. Marketers are not supposed to make press releases saying "We're sorry it took us so long to stop storing your data in insecure locations", which is all I would have been able to make of this.
I'm not sure that's what I mean, no. However, taking them separately, I think both copyright and copyleft are useful and (in very broad terms) A Good Thing (TM).
Though I would like to see a huge reduction both the length of copyright/left terms and the penalties and powers set up in this area of law.
And I disagree that it does grow weaker, based on the idea that what prompted RMS to think about copyleft in the first place was the inability to control what all these binary blobs on his system were doing.
YOU may well be an uber-leet binary hacker, most of us are not.
I agree entirely and never said otherwise. I said that I don't believe that copyleft is significantly less compelling in a world without copyright.
Who said that? I certainly didn't.
Probably for the best, I bet it's tiring fighting all those ghosts and straw men.
True, but completely, totally, utterly irrelevant to the argument about whether a compelling case for the utility of copyleft still exists in the absence of copyright.
Right, so because you can (with varying degreesx of success on varying devices) at great pain decompile, and maybe, maybe figure out how something works, there's no reason at all for people to want to protect the source code access of downstream consumers of software they write.
Total non-sequitur I'm afraid.
Absolutely true! Copyleft as it currently exists would cease to exist without copyright laws.
However that's not what I was arguing against, I was arguing against the assertion that if there was no copyright then there would be no argument for copyleft, as if the distribution of binaries without copyright somehow makes it unnecessary to also have source.
Best K5 posts evar. 100% of truth.
I know all that. What, did you think I was some sort of IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKER?
I finally kicked the k5 habit a couple of years ago, but it was a fun ride.
LOL! Because reverse engineering binary code is so much easier than using GPL source releases!
That's nonsense and you know it, copyleft is still a compelling idea even in the absence of copyright because getting the source is far, far preferable to having to pick apart compiled binaries. Programming may be a minority skill set, reverse engineering machine code is an even smaller one.
I do support FOSS and I do support copyright. I'm not sure I agree that you *have* to be both though.
I support limited terms on said copyright, much more limited than we have today, but I do support it.
As someone in the business of creating and selling novel arrangements of bits (also called software engineering), copyright is very important to my ability to make money in the commercial software world. In my spare time I use and sometimes contribute to GPL'd FOSS.
Copyright law makes the GPL work, however it doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent to use MIT/BSD style license, or no license at all, and contribute to that sort of FOSS without the belief in copyright.
My god! A link to K5 from when it was more than just ascii art penis pictures!
It's the same guy, microsoft shilling all day every day.
I've been coming here over a decade now, that's probably not going to last.
Heh, these days I'd be hard pushed to make the call on which is going to do more damage to your system...
I like to whine about DRM, because it's present on games I pay for.
Those that don't pay seldom have to deal with it. The 'pirate editions' are allegedly DRM free.