The moment Novell moved to "legitimize" Microsoft's threats to the Linux/FOSS world, Novell went on my "will never touch with a 1,000 foot pole" list. What they did was a sure action of self-poisoning in the Linux/FOSS community. I wonder how many other people feel the same.
You are confused. Open Source (FOSS), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS , is a free license that a developer/writer/creator is free to choose or not to choose. Open Source does not mean the destruction of copyright and its existence does not take away your rights to use traditional, closed-source, licenses. In fact, FOSS *depends* on copyright law. Supporters of FOSS are not trying to destroy nor take away copyrights, nor commercial software development. It is just an alternative.
Well, that is a little more specific than I was thinking, but yes. The Chinese government could further embrace FOSS, be it Linux, GIMP, FireFox, OpenOffice, BSD, whatever. Despite what many in the USA think, there are some really bright people in China. If just a small fraction of them shifted their focus from proprietary/closed, to FOSS, it could make a big difference.
Plus, using FOSS, they can:
1) Be assured that there is no spy code in what they are using 2) Customize it to meet their specific needs and agenda 3) Get off the S*** list of copyright violators (at least for software) 4) Build on something that can grow 5) Create new products that can compete in world markets (hardware that uses FOSS would be lower priced and more flexible) 6) Lower costs for those segments in China that really are paying for closed & copyrighted software
>Without copyright law the GPL would be unnecessary. >Even if companies guarded their source code, there would be no downside to reverse engineering.
Copyright does not protect from reverse engineering. Software patents do. Appropriately time restricted copyrights (10 years or so) are not evil nor damaging to society or markets. Software patents, however, are.
Because it wouldn't be $1 or $2 or free if they were enforcing copyrights, which is the premise of my statement.
In a market where copyright IS enforced, there is a huge incentive to using FOSS. And with more people using and contributing to FOSS, the quality and quantity of FOSS will improve.
>Shouldn't we just face the facts and realize that trying to stop noncommercial copying is impossible >and just legalize it already?
And how is that going to "solve" anything? As a silly comparison: Trying to stop murder is impossible too, but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.
When content creators have no revenue model anymore, there will be very little content worth copying. And Socialists would want to tax the hell out of us all and come up with some stupid socialized payment system that somehow can reward innovation better than a free market... um, right. No thanks.
The problem with copyright is the LENGTH of copyright, not that it exists. If you want to go after something completely corrupt and useless to society, then start attacking software patents.
I am not in favor of getting rid of software or media copyrights. I think there is an absolute place and need for them. But I am in favor of greatly reducing their lengths, which have grown way out of control. In today's world, a copyright should not last for more than maybe 10 years.
FOSS and traditionally copyrighted software can and do exist together quite fine. And they also play nice together, giving software developers and users lots of choice and possibilities.
Software PATENTS, on the other hand, are just horrible and should go away. They destroy all innovation, create needless complexity, chill all markets, ruin consumer choice, and hurt players of all sizes.
I hope they do start to enforce copyright more on software. It is likely to steer them more towards FOSS solutions and that will ultimately benefit them and everyone else, too.
>"Why make it a freebie? Because it wants to expand its RDS base and get a grip"
No! Really? MS wants to offer something "free" for the purpose of dominating some market? I just can't believe it!! I bet it can't possibly benefit them in some way.
And third, you can be FRAMED with DNA. It is not difficult, and it is hard to "prove your innocence", which seems to be the necessity now. I can frame someone with DNA far easier than trying to frame them with fingerprints...
You said it yourself.... "is the only is economically feasible large-scale sequencing AT THE MOMENT". Once the doors are opened to allowing collection, those doors will likely never close (as history has shown). As technology improves, fuller and fuller sequencing will follow. Plus, there is nothing to stop them from saving the physical specimen for further testing in the future. A small dot of DNA sample doesn't take much room nor cost very much to store.
You are assuming they are only going to take a small portion of the sequence (which at this time is probably true). BUT, at the rate computing is advancing, it will not be difficult to get an entire sequence in the future. And once sampling becomes mandatory and "accepted" they will sequence more and more of it as technology improves.
You are also assuming they are ONLY storing the small sequence. What if they store the sample, itself? Then it can be resequenced, more fully, at a later time. It doesn't take much physical space to store a dried drop of DNA-containing material.
And... I am strongly opposed to the collection of fingerprints of non-proven-guilty-felons, for many of the same reasons. Just because it is "accepted practice" doesn't make it right.
Oh, I totally agree with you. Fingerprinting of innocent arrestees is also a serious problem and I STRONGLY oppose it for many of the same reasons I strongly oppose collection of DNA from non-proven-guilty felons.
DNA, however, is even worse. Like fingerprints, you leave it around everywhere, but unlike fingerprints, DNA gives them a huge wealth of information about you in the DNA, itself. Fingerprints say almost nothing about someone, they can just be used as an identifier.
This is just a horrible, horrible idea. And once the government gets a hold of your DNA:
* You will have no idea what it is used for, by whom, nor how often * You will never really be able to get that data removed * You will be put in a position to have to prove innocence instead of being assumed innocent * You are giving up yet more control over your life and privacy to the government * The data WILL be used to make assumptions about you * Your DNA data WILL be unreasonably searched, every time a search is done, and without probable cause * The data WILL be shared with other agencies- state and fed * The data WILL be leaked in one way or another * The data WILL be used to also implicate others in your family with "close" DNA profiles
The CoCo was nice (and also my first, second, and third computers (coco 1, 2, and 3)). But the Commodore had more games which pushed a bigger following, which created a lot of momentum. However, when OS9 came out for the CoCo, it walked all over the primitive stuff on the Commodore (and made MS-DOS look like crap too). Unfortunately, too few people knew about OS9, and it wasn't exactly pushed by Radio Shack.
It wasn't until the Amiga that Commodore could compare again (on a technical merit basis).
We are a larger small (in other words, not quite medium) nonprofit and are looking into switching from home-brew spreadsheets and databases to using DonorPerfect (online) http://www.donorperfect.com/
It is nice having these on-line services that require nothing to install and nothing to update. Plus, it works with Linux+Firefox, which is a must. We have so many projects going all the time, such offerings are very compelling.... as long as you have rock solid Internet (which we do- Cox Fiber). I will pass on info about Common Ground, also.
>"It also raises the question of where all the money donated to cancer societies [...] goes, if not to actual cancer research like this."
Apparently a lot of it goes to marketing type stuff trying to convince people to change their lifestyles. At least, that is what I have noticed the most.
I have tried lots of distros and none of them can touch how well Mandriva integrates and presents KDE. It is their forte'. If *buntu could figure out how to have a nice KDE integration, it might just further hurt Mandriva. I also greatly appreciate Mandriva's work to have *all* desktops supported, easily selected, and consistently laid out, with centralized management tools that work the same regardless of desktop. It was, and still is, a good idea.
Hoyt, that is wrong on so many levels.... especially since I *KNOW* that Mandriva is your distro of choice (yes, Hoyt and have known each other for many years).
Mandriva is a complete, working, easy, slick, powerful distro and is better than Ubuntu in many ways. But it does not have the spotlight, nor the money. Not that Ubuntu isn't nice also, and does some things better than Mandriva. I would hate to see Mandriva die.
I am sure there will be controls in about:config or whatnot to turn off the video tag (at least, I certain HOPE there will be). The bigger problem comes when the site designers start denying OTHER content when you refuse to allow video/animation/sound/etc. This already happens with Flash.... no Flash? No content! Either the site is written being dependent on Flash and they have no non-Flash site, or they autodetect you don't have Flash and pop-up an oh-so-helpful screen telling you were you must download it before you can continue. Infuriating.
By the way- thin clients and video/audio/animation do not mix well at all, which is why there will always be a need to [forcibly] turn it off. Unfortunately, cutesy animation is now being done with AJAX'y stuff and (as far as I have seen) there is NO effective way to stop that stuff without adverse effects (tons of manual intervention, broken sites, etc). For example, no longer can you click on a picture and see a larger version instantly- now sites are "improved", so they have to grey the screen, make a transparent overlay, bring up a "window", show a cute animated busy icon (flower petals), then FADE IN the image. Give me a break!
Slashdot Mirror
The moment Novell moved to "legitimize" Microsoft's threats to the Linux/FOSS world, Novell went on my "will never touch with a 1,000 foot pole" list. What they did was a sure action of self-poisoning in the Linux/FOSS community. I wonder how many other people feel the same.
You are confused. Open Source (FOSS), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS , is a free license that a developer/writer/creator is free to choose or not to choose. Open Source does not mean the destruction of copyright and its existence does not take away your rights to use traditional, closed-source, licenses. In fact, FOSS *depends* on copyright law. Supporters of FOSS are not trying to destroy nor take away copyrights, nor commercial software development. It is just an alternative.
Well, that is a little more specific than I was thinking, but yes. The Chinese government could further embrace FOSS, be it Linux, GIMP, FireFox, OpenOffice, BSD, whatever. Despite what many in the USA think, there are some really bright people in China. If just a small fraction of them shifted their focus from proprietary/closed, to FOSS, it could make a big difference.
Plus, using FOSS, they can:
1) Be assured that there is no spy code in what they are using
2) Customize it to meet their specific needs and agenda
3) Get off the S*** list of copyright violators (at least for software)
4) Build on something that can grow
5) Create new products that can compete in world markets (hardware that uses FOSS would be lower priced and more flexible)
6) Lower costs for those segments in China that really are paying for closed & copyrighted software
>Without copyright law the GPL would be unnecessary.
>Even if companies guarded their source code, there would be no downside to reverse engineering.
Copyright does not protect from reverse engineering. Software patents do. Appropriately time restricted copyrights (10 years or so) are not evil nor damaging to society or markets. Software patents, however, are.
Because it wouldn't be $1 or $2 or free if they were enforcing copyrights, which is the premise of my statement.
In a market where copyright IS enforced, there is a huge incentive to using FOSS. And with more people using and contributing to FOSS, the quality and quantity of FOSS will improve.
>Shouldn't we just face the facts and realize that trying to stop noncommercial copying is impossible
>and just legalize it already?
And how is that going to "solve" anything? As a silly comparison: Trying to stop murder is impossible too, but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.
When content creators have no revenue model anymore, there will be very little content worth copying. And Socialists would want to tax the hell out of us all and come up with some stupid socialized payment system that somehow can reward innovation better than a free market... um, right. No thanks.
The problem with copyright is the LENGTH of copyright, not that it exists. If you want to go after something completely corrupt and useless to society, then start attacking software patents.
I am not in favor of getting rid of software or media copyrights. I think there is an absolute place and need for them. But I am in favor of greatly reducing their lengths, which have grown way out of control. In today's world, a copyright should not last for more than maybe 10 years.
FOSS and traditionally copyrighted software can and do exist together quite fine. And they also play nice together, giving software developers and users lots of choice and possibilities.
Software PATENTS, on the other hand, are just horrible and should go away. They destroy all innovation, create needless complexity, chill all markets, ruin consumer choice, and hurt players of all sizes.
I hope they do start to enforce copyright more on software. It is likely to steer them more towards FOSS solutions and that will ultimately benefit them and everyone else, too.
>By Android, it's likely to kill a bunch of cellphone OSs, maybe even Palm
Um, Palm's OS, which is WebOS, is just as much Linux as Android is. And it is more open in many ways.
>"Why make it a freebie? Because it wants to expand its RDS base and get a grip"
No! Really? MS wants to offer something "free" for the purpose of dominating some market? I just can't believe it!! I bet it can't possibly benefit them in some way.
And third, you can be FRAMED with DNA. It is not difficult, and it is hard to "prove your innocence", which seems to be the necessity now. I can frame someone with DNA far easier than trying to frame them with fingerprints...
You said it yourself.... "is the only is economically feasible large-scale sequencing AT THE MOMENT". Once the doors are opened to allowing collection, those doors will likely never close (as history has shown). As technology improves, fuller and fuller sequencing will follow. Plus, there is nothing to stop them from saving the physical specimen for further testing in the future. A small dot of DNA sample doesn't take much room nor cost very much to store.
You are assuming they are only going to take a small portion of the sequence (which at this time is probably true). BUT, at the rate computing is advancing, it will not be difficult to get an entire sequence in the future. And once sampling becomes mandatory and "accepted" they will sequence more and more of it as technology improves.
You are also assuming they are ONLY storing the small sequence. What if they store the sample, itself? Then it can be resequenced, more fully, at a later time. It doesn't take much physical space to store a dried drop of DNA-containing material.
And... I am strongly opposed to the collection of fingerprints of non-proven-guilty-felons, for many of the same reasons. Just because it is "accepted practice" doesn't make it right.
Oh, I totally agree with you. Fingerprinting of innocent arrestees is also a serious problem and I STRONGLY oppose it for many of the same reasons I strongly oppose collection of DNA from non-proven-guilty felons.
DNA, however, is even worse. Like fingerprints, you leave it around everywhere, but unlike fingerprints, DNA gives them a huge wealth of information about you in the DNA, itself. Fingerprints say almost nothing about someone, they can just be used as an identifier.
This is just a horrible, horrible idea. And once the government gets a hold of your DNA:
* You will have no idea what it is used for, by whom, nor how often
* You will never really be able to get that data removed
* You will be put in a position to have to prove innocence instead of being assumed innocent
* You are giving up yet more control over your life and privacy to the government
* The data WILL be used to make assumptions about you
* Your DNA data WILL be unreasonably searched, every time a search is done, and without probable cause
* The data WILL be shared with other agencies- state and fed
* The data WILL be leaked in one way or another
* The data WILL be used to also implicate others in your family with "close" DNA profiles
There are lots of other ramifications, these are just the ones that pop into my mind immediately. Perhaps it is time to Email/Fax/Call your Senator and tell them what you think before the House gets its way... http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The CoCo was nice (and also my first, second, and third computers (coco 1, 2, and 3)). But the Commodore had more games which pushed a bigger following, which created a lot of momentum. However, when OS9 came out for the CoCo, it walked all over the primitive stuff on the Commodore (and made MS-DOS look like crap too). Unfortunately, too few people knew about OS9, and it wasn't exactly pushed by Radio Shack.
It wasn't until the Amiga that Commodore could compare again (on a technical merit basis).
Oh, those were the days :)
That was me :)
My first CoCo was a 4K model. The next was 16K. I think that was the one I piggybacked another 16K to get 32K.
I didn't say MacOS-9, I said OS-9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS9
Let us not forget that OS-9 was doing it before Amiga.... and that was also submitted by someone as prior art from 1983:
http://www.post-issue.org/prior_art/83/detail
OS-9 was my first "real" OS, before eventually switching to Unix, then Linux. Back in the day, it was extremely impressive.
We are a larger small (in other words, not quite medium) nonprofit and are looking into switching from home-brew spreadsheets and databases to using DonorPerfect (online) http://www.donorperfect.com/
It is nice having these on-line services that require nothing to install and nothing to update. Plus, it works with Linux+Firefox, which is a must. We have so many projects going all the time, such offerings are very compelling.... as long as you have rock solid Internet (which we do- Cox Fiber). I will pass on info about Common Ground, also.
>"It also raises the question of where all the money donated to cancer societies [...] goes, if not to actual cancer research like this."
Apparently a lot of it goes to marketing type stuff trying to convince people to change their lifestyles. At least, that is what I have noticed the most.
I have tried lots of distros and none of them can touch how well Mandriva integrates and presents KDE. It is their forte'. If *buntu could figure out how to have a nice KDE integration, it might just further hurt Mandriva. I also greatly appreciate Mandriva's work to have *all* desktops supported, easily selected, and consistently laid out, with centralized management tools that work the same regardless of desktop. It was, and still is, a good idea.
Hoyt, that is wrong on so many levels.... especially since I *KNOW* that Mandriva is your distro of choice (yes, Hoyt and have known each other for many years).
Mandriva is a complete, working, easy, slick, powerful distro and is better than Ubuntu in many ways. But it does not have the spotlight, nor the money. Not that Ubuntu isn't nice also, and does some things better than Mandriva. I would hate to see Mandriva die.
>Or, ya'know, you could just get Netflix TODAY
Yeah, 'cause Netflix works oh so well under my Linux machines.
http://www.petitiononline.com/Linflix/petition.html
I am sure there will be controls in about:config or whatnot to turn off the video tag (at least, I certain HOPE there will be). The bigger problem comes when the site designers start denying OTHER content when you refuse to allow video/animation/sound/etc. This already happens with Flash.... no Flash? No content! Either the site is written being dependent on Flash and they have no non-Flash site, or they autodetect you don't have Flash and pop-up an oh-so-helpful screen telling you were you must download it before you can continue. Infuriating.
By the way- thin clients and video/audio/animation do not mix well at all, which is why there will always be a need to [forcibly] turn it off. Unfortunately, cutesy animation is now being done with AJAX'y stuff and (as far as I have seen) there is NO effective way to stop that stuff without adverse effects (tons of manual intervention, broken sites, etc). For example, no longer can you click on a picture and see a larger version instantly- now sites are "improved", so they have to grey the screen, make a transparent overlay, bring up a "window", show a cute animated busy icon (flower petals), then FADE IN the image. Give me a break!