Oh, I agree about funny post. In fact, if I can't say something intellegent and I want to post, then I will try for funny. And I do like the fact that humor is encouraged. The point that I was making is that if you want to increase your karma, then making funny posts is the not the way to do it. You have to make some intellegent comments in order to increase your karma. So I was just point it out to both the poster and the/. moderators, that's all.
Well folks, this is just another example of how Northern Virginian tax payers (since a good chunck of the money that floats the Commonwealth finds its way down to southern VA) are paying for a project that is overbudget. And ironically, Governor Warner wants to raise Northern Virginia's taxes to pay for more roads to deal with congestion, while Norfolk gets a MagLev train costing $14million over bugdet. Does that seem fair to you? Personally, this project, although cool, is a slap in the face to those tax payers and especially to Northern Virginia. Frankly, I think that the technology has to be tried and proven first, and then take the initative. Heck, if Norfolk gets a MagLev, then the Washington DC metro should be outfitted with one soon too! More people ride the Metro every day then Norfolk could ship on a MagLev in a Week!
Looks like FEMA played the National Security Card. With all the things that have been said about BPL, this, I think is one of the most impressive reasons not to have BPL. But it does raise the question, in the event of an emergency which would require the use of the those frequencies, would the lines even be up? Then again, I can see that if it interfers with the Civil Air Patrol, it would be reason enough.
They are experts in theory AND politicians. Further, they used contractors to implement the security. So for the most part, they were there to hash out a political agenda, not to actually worry about what they were talking about. In politics, people rarely care about the actual implementations of the goings-ons in a meeting, as long as they get to be heard. Unlike a Linux conference, security perse is not as important. If it was a Linux conference every geek would be looking over the security and judging it.
Reactionary carries such a strong meaning -- it is the direct oppossite of a radical. A reactionary is one that reacts voilently, or vehemitly to ANY change from traditonal values or ideas. By definition, a reactionary is above a conservative. The ranking goes from Conservative to Ultraconservative to Reactionary. A reactionary make Rush Limball look mild.
True, the people are not forced to steal, but the theft is comming from inflated prices for what people are unwilling to pay for. And the opportunity cost of stealing a Lexus is higher, than the opportunity cost of stealing music. The likely hood of being arrested and spending 3-5 in prision over music is so much smaller (but the penatilies for stealing on piece of music now outwiegh the penalties of stealing a car, so people, take that as a lesson. If your going to steal music and get caught, steal a car instead) Society has dictated that stealing music is not nessasarily a social crime, but stealing a car is a huge crime. Additionally, when you buy a Lexus there is a value, and most people that want a Lexus would probably agree that a Lexus is worth the value. But few would agree that Britney Spears song carries any value. The difference between a Lexus and music is that the market has generally agreed that a Lexus should sell for the $35,000, and that music is not really worth the money RIAA is charging. The argument that I was trying to make is that RIAA is encouraging theft of music by refusing to allow the market to reach equilibrium with the supply of the music and the demand. In other words, Pink's new CD should cell for more than Britney Spear's new CD, and both should sell more than Matchbox 20's CD that came out three years ago -- the price for CD's seems to be so static that whether you want the latest and greatest, you pay the same for the old and lame. RIAA could reduce the amount of piracy by having a vairable market price, which is determined by what people are willing to pay - for example, with Pink's latest, maybe people are willing to pay $12, but not $23, and then when her next CD comes out price it at the same range. How this will prevent piracy is that more people will be willing to pay the money and own the CD instead of downloading. And downloading does have an opportunity cost -- the amount of time and effort that it takes to get a quality song. If the value of the CD to person is higher than the effort to download 15 songs and try to get them in a reasonable time, then they may be willing to buy it. I had a room mate spend a week on broadband try to get a complete album, and if the CD was cheaper than $20, he would have bought them.
Another interesting aspect to look at is what you get for your $20. You get music, and that is it. But for the same $20, you can go to the movies and get popcorn and a soda, or you could buy a movie. Maybe you wanted a book, which for $20 you could buy. The problem is that the value of what you are getting for $20 is so much lower -- you get an audio experience, but with video you get more, and even with a book. With a Lexus you get more value, and you can enjoy it for years to come. With music you may listen to the song occasionally, and then never listen to it again. RIAA is trying to place the value of music on the same level as a movie, or a book. At least for $20 with a movie you get two hours of entertainment. So that is the real issue -- the value is so much lower and people would rather spend there money elsewhere. I know that I have not bought a CD in four years (and I don't download music, I prefer RADIO because it is free, except for commericals) because the value is so low and the price so high. Additionaly, music, except for concerts, is a secondary experience, where movies and books are a primary experience. You listen to music while driving, and you listen to music while studying. You don't watch a movie while driving, or drive your car while listening to music. Generally, something that aguments the primary experience is not worth as much as the primary experience.
So while I agree that you can't be forced to steal, I am arguing that RIAA encourages the theft by placing something that people want, but is generally beyond their reach because of prices. And I also agree that theft of music is morally wrong. (Although stealing music does not carry the same weight as stealing a Lexus).
If you want to bring economics into the game, whose fault is it if the masses steal? If the opportunity cost (an economic idea) is so high that people don't want to pay, then it affects the supply and demand. Since RIAA sets the price high, then there is a deficit -- what people are willing to pay and the supply do not meet equilibrium, and therefore there are a lot of CD's on the shelf. The RIAA assumes that this is the result of piracy. What has happened is that there is crappy music and so people's oppertunity cost has dropped, i.e. they don't want to pay for crappy CD's for one song, and the market has not adjusted, i.e prices should have dropped, and people look to get their music cheaper. The piracy begins when people's value of the music is so low and the price so high that people implicitly associate a lower value on the CD's (go to Best Buy and watch, invetiably some person will pick up a CD and say, "I don't want to pay $22.95 for one song.") They like the one song, but have no venue to purchase it at a reasonable cost, and there is no market structure to figure out what that cost should be -- RIAA won't cooperate, it is an all or none package, you buy the entire CD or not at all. So the person goes home and downloads the CD, because free is even cheaper than the oppertunity cost.
The problems that I have run into is compatability. Some of the older games that are considered classics have a lot of trouble running under WinXP. Then speed is another issue. On the same computer running Win98 and WinXP with Jedi Outcast, and Unreal Tournament you have better performance in terms of speed on the Win98 box. Then I also seem to have less glitches with Win98 then WinXP. I have crashed more times with WinXP than Win98 when running games. With the latest Masters of Orion 3 (yeah, I know, not the best game in the world) I would have to reinstall on WinXP every two hundred turns, where on Win98 that is not a problem. So my general perception is that Win98 is more stable in gaming.
I agree. When is the last time that you heard of a hard-core gamer running WinXP or 2K on their machine? I have actually tried, albeit unsuccesfully to run Win98 on my Windows box, but it would not co-operate. And frankly, WinXP SUCKS WHEN IT COMES TO RUNNING GAMES! And 98 is fast as living heck when it comes to running on a modern computer.
Does this mean that maybe we'll be able to get our hands on the source code so that we can implement the API's into WINE? Well, that idea probably has a snowball's chance in hell. But it might be an interesting try.
How many graphic files are on your computer? If the government knows that your using encyption they can break it. But since, as the post above me points out, your hiding the fact that your hiding information, it makes it hard to find that your finding information. A family friend works for the Government in detecting stenographic communications said that any wide spread use of stenography could really hamper the government. Why? Because instead of looking for encyrpted files, they would have to look at images and music or even executables. Think about it -- on my computer I have 32,060 images (no, none of it is p0rn) alone and that is just my Windows machine. The government would have to look at each of those images one by one for any messages. Further, if any encryption was used, it could just look like noice in the file. Imagine if used an 6 gig MP3 collection?
The real hinderence to anyone looking for steographic information is that you need the key. A quick test, using my FreeBSD box, revealled that not having the key yields no results, not even garbage. Futher, hiding a 1k file in a 25k picture revelled little graphical difference. A comparision revealed that the stegged file had a little difference, and it wasn't until I had the zoom turned up to 234 times that I founda whole lot of difference.
Agian, the whole point is so that nobody even knows that your using it. And no one is going to think twice if you just happen to have up on your website for your puppy Flopsy, then if you are emailing encyrpted files.
Re:Are you a weak-willed pirate spokesperon?
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
So radio is screwing someone over? Sorry, your either-or fallacy does not work. There are legit ways to listen to the music with out paying, you just don't get the convience of being able to choose which song when.
With yesterdays creative writing episode by Darl, I can only imagine the "evidence" that will show up. I am not saying that they will "produce" *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* evidence, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Did anybody else notice that Graklaw, was, ummm,/.ed?
That might hold true, IF and ONLY IF the GPL was for Linux only. Since the Linux kernel is the defining charateristic for Linux, and the distrobution is made from software under the LGPL, GPL 2.0, BSD, MIT, et al, licensing. The GPL works to create innovation and free software, but it does not have any real competition. Linux does not compete with the BSD's, Linux does not compete with the Windows Desktop. But they do compete in the Server area. A criminal cartel would be collusion to take over a market, but when the production of the GPL'ed software is so fragmented, and there is no central director, there cannot be collusion.
Monopoly infers market dominance, control, and manipulation. With the GPL community so fragmented there is no control. Linus releases the kernel, and the distros put it all together. The GPL provides protection for the authors. The only threat of Monoply comes from the distros. If one distro got too large, then that could be a problem. But the GPL also prevents monopoly domination -- the work of one distro is often shared with the others. Collections, and that is a distro, does not make a monopoly.
Further, a "cartel" implies that several competing entities came together for the express purpouse of price fixing to limit competition. The reward, or the price of the GPL is not money, but the recognition or employment that comes from the production. In this case, I don't think that normal laws of economy or financial laws apply.
Couldn't you just do it with the resolution and messure the distances between known targets -- ie buildings -- and then figure out the ratios involved? But then again, they may have reduced the resolution. I seriously doubt that the NSA would let something like that photo out with out taking into account somebody trying to figure out where the Sataliete was. So I don't think that it could work, or at least be reliable.
Now, could you imagine a spy satalite with a 1 giga-pixel camera? Now that would be sweet, especially if you could get the overlaying done right. Heck, they would probably devise a system to get 2 or 3 giga-pixels. It is the Government, and they need to find new ways to spend our tax dollars.
No, the problem is that when you actually submit an interesting BSD article for/., they ignore it. For example, how many of us BSD users knew that the BSD developers actually commented on the SCO suit?
"Your story just might not be interesting!
This last one requires a little explanation: if you submit a story, and we don't select it because we think it's not particularly interesting, we're not making a judgment about you as a human being. Deciding the interest level of a story is a very subjective thing, and we have to take into account not only the intrinsic interest of the story itself, but what else is happening that day. On a day when lots of things are happening, we reject some very good stories. But on a day when nothing interesting is happening, we may post something not really as cool.
The conclusion that I have come to is that the/. editors just don't care about BSD. And the editors probably use the above quote to get out of anything us BSD users might find interesting. Mathmatically, it would be represented, "Linux == Interesting; BSD != Linux; BSD != Interesting" and since "BSD != Linux then BSD MUST be dying."
And I think that your absolutely right, about them not knowing what is worthy of reporting and what is not. When I first read the Refacturing of IFCONFIG, the thought that went through my mind was, "Who cares?" It really has no bearing on the useability of the OS. I think the real issue is that/. needs to put some one who actually uses BSD as an OS doing the editing. I think then, we might see some interesting.
Personally I think that the comment about BSD users getting BSD news elsewhere is pretty insightful. The only reason I read/. is because there are other technology issues which I am interested in and the Linux movement does facinate me. But nontheless, with the general bigotted spirit towards the BSD's, I can see why I, and most likely others go elsewhere.
A while back I fired off an email to address the concerns of us BSD users. The reply I got back from CdrTaco was essentially if more BSD users read/., then the trolls would be silenced with more BSD users moderating, and more/. stories would be about BSD, because there would be more submissions.
Well, I'll get off my soap box now, and wait till I get moderated down. Any bets on what it will be? Flamebait? Or maybe Off Topic. But moderators, if I can not be insightful or interesting, please vote for Flamebait.
Well, it has been an interesting conversation -- to bad it had to be done via writing. I think that we are talking past each other, as is often the case. But nontheless, thanks for the conversation.
Although I do understand your arguments, the point that I was trying to make is that the burden of proof is shifted. If I come up to you and tell you that you have violated a copyright and then not prove that you violated a copyright you would not comply with my demands? But the problem here is that the ISP are only granted a safe harbor if they comply with the takedown notice. If they fail to comply with the notice, then they are liable. This is a constitutional issue. Why? Becuase you run an ISP, and Joe posts something that seems that is derogitory to somebody. Jack comes along and claims copyright protection, and issues a take down notice under the DMCA. The ISP then takes down the comments because of DMCA fears. Joe has been censured, and since Joe is a poor guy he doesn't fight it. That is the reason why the take-down notices are a crock. It allows people to bully the ISP's and voilate the First Amendment rights of others. That is what FatWallet was arguing. And sale prices are not all that important in terms of Free Speech, but it is an essential right. The problem is that there is no requirement to prove that a copyright has been violated in order to issue a takedown notice -- ISP's will comply just because of the fear.
In normal court when you file a subpoenia is has to be approved by a judge and as part of a suit or pending court case. The DMCA approves the use of subpoenias and allows them to be used outside a court case. This prevents people from subpeonia-ing everyone -- you have to prove that there is cause and convince a judge that the subpoenia is warrented. The courts have long disapproved of "fishing expaditions," and the DMCA essentially trumphs that. It allows people to file before a law suit. And law suits, once filed do not easily go away. In the United States we do have the notion of judicial review, and just because Congress passes a law does not mean that the Rules of Civil Procedure can be trumphed. Even in the SCO case, there are violations of Civil Procedure being cited. The rules govern the court system, and are made by the court. With 200+ years of case law, I have to say that the Rules will trump.
So if you the ISP's are forced to pay royalties, does that give you, the downloader blanket permission to download unlimited songs? This tax is impressive, I mean, with 10% plus 25cents per subscriber, that is regressive. With that rate, you ought to be granted that right. Also, does that affect all the music societies in Canada or does it just affect SOCAN? The problem I see is that the precedence would argue that the only use of the internet is for the pirating of IP, and then movies, game, etc., could take money.
Slashdot Mirror
You laugh, but if you bitch in the right forum, they will actually mod you up -- and I expected to get modded down the last time I did it.
Oh, I agree about funny post. In fact, if I can't say something intellegent and I want to post, then I will try for funny. And I do like the fact that humor is encouraged. The point that I was making is that if you want to increase your karma, then making funny posts is the not the way to do it. You have to make some intellegent comments in order to increase your karma. So I was just point it out to both the poster and the /. moderators, that's all.
This comes from the
That is exactly what I did. I built myself a respectable FreeBSD box for about $250, and I don't have to worry about system problems or crashes.
Well folks, this is just another example of how Northern Virginian tax payers (since a good chunck of the money that floats the Commonwealth finds its way down to southern VA) are paying for a project that is overbudget. And ironically, Governor Warner wants to raise Northern Virginia's taxes to pay for more roads to deal with congestion, while Norfolk gets a MagLev train costing $14million over bugdet. Does that seem fair to you? Personally, this project, although cool, is a slap in the face to those tax payers and especially to Northern Virginia. Frankly, I think that the technology has to be tried and proven first, and then take the initative. Heck, if Norfolk gets a MagLev, then the Washington DC metro should be outfitted with one soon too! More people ride the Metro every day then Norfolk could ship on a MagLev in a Week!
Looks like FEMA played the National Security Card. With all the things that have been said about BPL, this, I think is one of the most impressive reasons not to have BPL. But it does raise the question, in the event of an emergency which would require the use of the those frequencies, would the lines even be up? Then again, I can see that if it interfers with the Civil Air Patrol, it would be reason enough.
They are experts in theory AND politicians. Further, they used contractors to implement the security. So for the most part, they were there to hash out a political agenda, not to actually worry about what they were talking about. In politics, people rarely care about the actual implementations of the goings-ons in a meeting, as long as they get to be heard. Unlike a Linux conference, security perse is not as important. If it was a Linux conference every geek would be looking over the security and judging it.
Reactionary carries such a strong meaning -- it is the direct oppossite of a radical. A reactionary is one that reacts voilently, or vehemitly to ANY change from traditonal values or ideas. By definition, a reactionary is above a conservative. The ranking goes from Conservative to Ultraconservative to Reactionary. A reactionary make Rush Limball look mild.
Its Microsoft, we'll get the update on January 1 --- give people plenty of time to deploy the bug....
True, the people are not forced to steal, but the theft is comming from inflated prices for what people are unwilling to pay for. And the opportunity cost of stealing a Lexus is higher, than the opportunity cost of stealing music. The likely hood of being arrested and spending 3-5 in prision over music is so much smaller (but the penatilies for stealing on piece of music now outwiegh the penalties of stealing a car, so people, take that as a lesson. If your going to steal music and get caught, steal a car instead) Society has dictated that stealing music is not nessasarily a social crime, but stealing a car is a huge crime. Additionally, when you buy a Lexus there is a value, and most people that want a Lexus would probably agree that a Lexus is worth the value. But few would agree that Britney Spears song carries any value. The difference between a Lexus and music is that the market has generally agreed that a Lexus should sell for the $35,000, and that music is not really worth the money RIAA is charging. The argument that I was trying to make is that RIAA is encouraging theft of music by refusing to allow the market to reach equilibrium with the supply of the music and the demand. In other words, Pink's new CD should cell for more than Britney Spear's new CD, and both should sell more than Matchbox 20's CD that came out three years ago -- the price for CD's seems to be so static that whether you want the latest and greatest, you pay the same for the old and lame. RIAA could reduce the amount of piracy by having a vairable market price, which is determined by what people are willing to pay - for example, with Pink's latest, maybe people are willing to pay $12, but not $23, and then when her next CD comes out price it at the same range. How this will prevent piracy is that more people will be willing to pay the money and own the CD instead of downloading. And downloading does have an opportunity cost -- the amount of time and effort that it takes to get a quality song. If the value of the CD to person is higher than the effort to download 15 songs and try to get them in a reasonable time, then they may be willing to buy it. I had a room mate spend a week on broadband try to get a complete album, and if the CD was cheaper than $20, he would have bought them.
Another interesting aspect to look at is what you get for your $20. You get music, and that is it. But for the same $20, you can go to the movies and get popcorn and a soda, or you could buy a movie. Maybe you wanted a book, which for $20 you could buy. The problem is that the value of what you are getting for $20 is so much lower -- you get an audio experience, but with video you get more, and even with a book. With a Lexus you get more value, and you can enjoy it for years to come. With music you may listen to the song occasionally, and then never listen to it again. RIAA is trying to place the value of music on the same level as a movie, or a book. At least for $20 with a movie you get two hours of entertainment. So that is the real issue -- the value is so much lower and people would rather spend there money elsewhere. I know that I have not bought a CD in four years (and I don't download music, I prefer RADIO because it is free, except for commericals) because the value is so low and the price so high. Additionaly, music, except for concerts, is a secondary experience, where movies and books are a primary experience. You listen to music while driving, and you listen to music while studying. You don't watch a movie while driving, or drive your car while listening to music. Generally, something that aguments the primary experience is not worth as much as the primary experience.
So while I agree that you can't be forced to steal, I am arguing that RIAA encourages the theft by placing something that people want, but is generally beyond their reach because of prices. And I also agree that theft of music is morally wrong. (Although stealing music does not carry the same weight as stealing a Lexus).
If you want to bring economics into the game, whose fault is it if the masses steal? If the opportunity cost (an economic idea) is so high that people don't want to pay, then it affects the supply and demand. Since RIAA sets the price high, then there is a deficit -- what people are willing to pay and the supply do not meet equilibrium, and therefore there are a lot of CD's on the shelf. The RIAA assumes that this is the result of piracy. What has happened is that there is crappy music and so people's oppertunity cost has dropped, i.e. they don't want to pay for crappy CD's for one song, and the market has not adjusted, i.e prices should have dropped, and people look to get their music cheaper. The piracy begins when people's value of the music is so low and the price so high that people implicitly associate a lower value on the CD's (go to Best Buy and watch, invetiably some person will pick up a CD and say, "I don't want to pay $22.95 for one song.") They like the one song, but have no venue to purchase it at a reasonable cost, and there is no market structure to figure out what that cost should be -- RIAA won't cooperate, it is an all or none package, you buy the entire CD or not at all. So the person goes home and downloads the CD, because free is even cheaper than the oppertunity cost.
Well, there's my two cents.
The problems that I have run into is compatability. Some of the older games that are considered classics have a lot of trouble running under WinXP. Then speed is another issue. On the same computer running Win98 and WinXP with Jedi Outcast, and Unreal Tournament you have better performance in terms of speed on the Win98 box. Then I also seem to have less glitches with Win98 then WinXP. I have crashed more times with WinXP than Win98 when running games. With the latest Masters of Orion 3 (yeah, I know, not the best game in the world) I would have to reinstall on WinXP every two hundred turns, where on Win98 that is not a problem. So my general perception is that Win98 is more stable in gaming.
Does that help?
I agree. When is the last time that you heard of a hard-core gamer running WinXP or 2K on their machine? I have actually tried, albeit unsuccesfully to run Win98 on my Windows box, but it would not co-operate. And frankly, WinXP SUCKS WHEN IT COMES TO RUNNING GAMES! And 98 is fast as living heck when it comes to running on a modern computer.
Does this mean that maybe we'll be able to get our hands on the source code so that we can implement the API's into WINE? Well, that idea probably has a snowball's chance in hell. But it might be an interesting try.
LOL! Thanks for point it out.
I've been brute forcing my MD5 on my machine now for the past 6 hours, and frankly, I will be suprised if and when it gets broken.
How many graphic files are on your computer? If the government knows that your using encyption they can break it. But since, as the post above me points out, your hiding the fact that your hiding information, it makes it hard to find that your finding information. A family friend works for the Government in detecting stenographic communications said that any wide spread use of stenography could really hamper the government. Why? Because instead of looking for encyrpted files, they would have to look at images and music or even executables. Think about it -- on my computer I have 32,060 images (no, none of it is p0rn) alone and that is just my Windows machine. The government would have to look at each of those images one by one for any messages. Further, if any encryption was used, it could just look like noice in the file. Imagine if used an 6 gig MP3 collection?
The real hinderence to anyone looking for steographic information is that you need the key. A quick test, using my FreeBSD box, revealled that not having the key yields no results, not even garbage. Futher, hiding a 1k file in a 25k picture revelled little graphical difference. A comparision revealed that the stegged file had a little difference, and it wasn't until I had the zoom turned up to 234 times that I founda whole lot of difference.
Agian, the whole point is so that nobody even knows that your using it. And no one is going to think twice if you just happen to have up on your website for your puppy Flopsy, then if you are emailing encyrpted files.
So radio is screwing someone over? Sorry, your either-or fallacy does not work. There are legit ways to listen to the music with out paying, you just don't get the convience of being able to choose which song when.
With yesterdays creative writing episode by Darl, I can only imagine the "evidence" that will show up. I am not saying that they will "produce" *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* evidence, but I wouldn't put it past them.
/.ed?
Did anybody else notice that Graklaw, was, ummm,
That might hold true, IF and ONLY IF the GPL was for Linux only. Since the Linux kernel is the defining charateristic for Linux, and the distrobution is made from software under the LGPL, GPL 2.0, BSD, MIT, et al, licensing. The GPL works to create innovation and free software, but it does not have any real competition. Linux does not compete with the BSD's, Linux does not compete with the Windows Desktop. But they do compete in the Server area. A criminal cartel would be collusion to take over a market, but when the production of the GPL'ed software is so fragmented, and there is no central director, there cannot be collusion. Monopoly infers market dominance, control, and manipulation. With the GPL community so fragmented there is no control. Linus releases the kernel, and the distros put it all together. The GPL provides protection for the authors. The only threat of Monoply comes from the distros. If one distro got too large, then that could be a problem. But the GPL also prevents monopoly domination -- the work of one distro is often shared with the others. Collections, and that is a distro, does not make a monopoly. Further, a "cartel" implies that several competing entities came together for the express purpouse of price fixing to limit competition. The reward, or the price of the GPL is not money, but the recognition or employment that comes from the production. In this case, I don't think that normal laws of economy or financial laws apply.
And what department of SCO do you work for?
Couldn't you just do it with the resolution and messure the distances between known targets -- ie buildings -- and then figure out the ratios involved? But then again, they may have reduced the resolution. I seriously doubt that the NSA would let something like that photo out with out taking into account somebody trying to figure out where the Sataliete was. So I don't think that it could work, or at least be reliable.
Now, could you imagine a spy satalite with a 1 giga-pixel camera? Now that would be sweet, especially if you could get the overlaying done right. Heck, they would probably devise a system to get 2 or 3 giga-pixels. It is the Government, and they need to find new ways to spend our tax dollars.
The conclusion that I have come to is that the /. editors just don't care about BSD. And the editors probably use the above quote to get out of anything us BSD users might find interesting. Mathmatically, it would be represented, "Linux == Interesting; BSD != Linux; BSD != Interesting" and since "BSD != Linux then BSD MUST be dying."
And I think that your absolutely right, about them not knowing what is worthy of reporting and what is not. When I first read the Refacturing of IFCONFIG, the thought that went through my mind was, "Who cares?" It really has no bearing on the useability of the OS. I think the real issue is that /. needs to put some one who actually uses BSD as an OS doing the editing. I think then, we might see some interesting.
Personally I think that the comment about BSD users getting BSD news elsewhere is pretty insightful. The only reason I read /. is because there are other technology issues which I am interested in and the Linux movement does facinate me. But nontheless, with the general bigotted spirit towards the BSD's, I can see why I, and most likely others go elsewhere.
A while back I fired off an email to address the concerns of us BSD users. The reply I got back from CdrTaco was essentially if more BSD users read /., then the trolls would be silenced with more BSD users moderating, and more /. stories would be about BSD, because there would be more submissions.
Well, I'll get off my soap box now, and wait till I get moderated down. Any bets on what it will be? Flamebait? Or maybe Off Topic. But moderators, if I can not be insightful or interesting, please vote for Flamebait.
Well, it has been an interesting conversation -- to bad it had to be done via writing. I think that we are talking past each other, as is often the case. But nontheless, thanks for the conversation.
In normal court when you file a subpoenia is has to be approved by a judge and as part of a suit or pending court case. The DMCA approves the use of subpoenias and allows them to be used outside a court case. This prevents people from subpeonia-ing everyone -- you have to prove that there is cause and convince a judge that the subpoenia is warrented. The courts have long disapproved of "fishing expaditions," and the DMCA essentially trumphs that. It allows people to file before a law suit. And law suits, once filed do not easily go away. In the United States we do have the notion of judicial review, and just because Congress passes a law does not mean that the Rules of Civil Procedure can be trumphed. Even in the SCO case, there are violations of Civil Procedure being cited. The rules govern the court system, and are made by the court. With 200+ years of case law, I have to say that the Rules will trump.