I agree with you on this, although not completely. I've taken to finding bands (Grateful Dead mainly) that allow for their music to be recorded. You can listen to the same songs from slightly different perspectives while still having other things be at the forefront of your thoughts. It's not as good as being there, but it's definitely better than listening to the same thing over and over.
It makes you wonder, why doesn't the industry decide to make things interesting and press CDs of all the different concerts? It would be slightly more expensive, but would garner a decent amount fo interest and sales I would imagine. And, it would deter file sharing because if you want song x from concert y it would be much harder to find if there are 30 concerts and you want the one you attended.
They're avoiding criminal trials, because at that point it would bring in a jury, as you said. Which also brings in jury nullification. They don't want to open that can of worms. The United States becoming aware of that again would certainly spell the doom of a lot of the stupid laws they prosecute people on right now.
I only transferred about 100 dollars through paypal, but I cancelled my account. I also let them know that it was because I don't support groups that will use politics in who they decide to provide services too. The service is hardly secure or anything of that nature anyhow. I've heard enough stories to know that I had to worry every time someone would send me money. Chargebacks are a bitch.
I guess the perceived difference being that someplace else would not be vulnerable to one of the countries many enemies accessing it? Because, you're right, it's not like we can just make the waste magically vanish. It has to go somewhere.
Organizing it would be an issue, and it would require help from those in charge. Also, another issue would be that patent most likely would not hold up in court and even if it did it would later be appealed.
Well, in my opinion that should be a given. Hehe. If the product sucks, it generally doesn't even get close to being a part of my life or thoughts, so it doesn't even approach anything close to having an effect on me or having me consider wasting a resource on it.
People these days put up with too much... I was talking with a professor from my class and another student last night, and we discussed how little spine most of America has. Discussed times and places where rights were protected even when those rights didn't effect them. Nice to hear stories of people helping other people for nothing in return.
No, in other words if the individual or organization providing what I am interested in does not take legal action against groups or prevent me from watching or listening to what I purchase, then I have no problem in buying something from them.
The music I have bought lately has been non-riaa recordings of various classical composers, as the rest of my music library is already robust enough for me not to care about purchasing anything more.
Why are you accepting that someone should be allowed to attack my rights? I'll download a song and I should be able to send it to someone as well. A good portion of the music I am listening to I would have never even cared for without file sharing, since I don't listen to the radio or watch TV.
Why does not supporting a corporation have anything to do with me wanting everything handed to me for free? I don't even take my open source software for free... I contribute back by downloading on bittorrent and trying to do the odd IRC support jobs and helping other people that I know personally. I'm not at the level of coding to be able to contribute back that way (working on it) but I would be doing that as well.
I don't agree with the system of everything needing to be owned by and forcing money to exchange hands. What's wrong with supporting the people who are willing to support me? Things can be a community instead of a war zone. I know it's hard for someone like to imagine.
Do you really think that will be the outcome? This will be used to market towards companies and individuals to prevent file sharing, and will help it become main stream. Otherwise it will have no effect at all. There is a slight chance they would sue and try and prevent others from doing this, but there are so many that have done it before that there is no way the patent would hold up in court. It's useless legally, and is merely so that they can market as the true, legal implementation.
Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will do something. In this situation anyhow, it would be very unlikely if they could to begin with.
If you eliminate one technology, another one will pop up in its place. Maybe even just an improved version of the one currently in place! Since this has been done before, you'd hope that they did an improved version of it in some way, and that's how they got the patent? It hasn't worked yet, and it won't work anytime in the future either.
All this does is damage a network through crap flooding anyhow. It will kill freely distributed content as well as the content they are attacking. On the same note, I think that it's complete crap that you can patent something like that. Patent a means of attacking something? If they can patent this, I really need to patent my method of ridding people of underage drinking, known as firing a pistol at the containers that they are holding.
I use bittorrent for my content, and have no need for something that someone is trying to keep me from using, hearing, or seeing by eroding my privacy and rights. If they want to put a barrier between me and their product, I won't waste my time or money on it.
Personally, I wouldn't have put the people calling it into question and then the fact that it is unproven legally at the end. It might be best for the flow, but to conclude "All of this might be meaningless, as it hasn't been proven to work!" is slightly strange to me.
I didn't learn anything new from reading this, but there are those that might, as was stated by the submitter. In my opinion, telling the uninitiated simply that the GPL grants the right to use the code however you like, but if you decide to distribute it you have to agree to the contract stating that you'll give the source as well. If they have other questions, send them to the GNU.org philosophy page
Well, the standard even with a car is that if there wasn't a recall and the brakes in the vehicle all start failing after less than a year in a catastrophic way the company can still stand to lose a court case, and is thus why they do recalls. I guess the point being, that this is sudden and there is no amount of testing of basic functions that could detect it though.
I see the point, and it just makes one of Microsoft's arguments against the adoption of Linux look even more meek now that companies are selling indemnity. Even if there isn't a single entity to blame, if you have a contract saying a company will handle it it won't make a difference. That single company wouldn't be liable anyhow unless they volunteer to be.
I do sue Ford though if they later tell me that I also needed to buy doors to my car (firewall) and that the car had a mechanism to allow anyone with the proper knowledge to cause damage to it without even being near it (antivirus).
This isn't a car. Not only do they not give you the full package, they can force the vendors with a license into not giving it to you as well.
"You can't package that, it's against our license."
In this day and age, wouldn't there be a possibility of an attempt at trying the individual as a terrorist? They've done it with other things, and I would really really see them doing it here if the virus writer manages to foul up a good portion of things.
Just because the law says one thing doesn't mean that is going to happen in this day and age.
The company or the people that are unable to secure their computer? There is a whole chain here, and in other cases with the law, it always seems the manufacturer gets sued. Shouldn't that be the case here? If there is a single vendor or individual that can be blamed, shouldn't they?
The difference here, possibly, being that Microsoft had patched against this and that could be seen as an equivalent to a warning or a recall. It makes you wonder though, if a worm hits on an unknown exploit, will Microsoft be responsible? In any other industry, I'd have to say yes, but I'm not so sure when it comes to software.
Anyhow, this is just another case for why any infrastructure should not be ran on a single operating system. If you have multiple kernels with multiple implementations that can all work, you'll be much safer. Linux kernels with different versions, BSDs, AIX, Solaris... Those won't have the same exploits and have different strengths and weaknesses. No worm can traverse all of that (hopefully).
Personally, I don't see this turning into much. Claims like this have been made before, without much coming of it. The details are short, which is generally not a good sign for something like this.
And, those are select few wallets. Only the wallets that go the deepest will be heard. So, in reality, if you are hurt financially and it's not by one of those big wallets in a way that is malicious, you won't have a single damn thing done about it. Look at identity theft and how huge of a hole that is. Recent Slashdot article about a 19 year old kid being accused of being a middle easterner because of his SSN. Nothing will be done about it. If I stole Bill Gate's SSN as a terrorist, I guarantee someone would listen to him.//rant
On a more positive note, at least the FBI hasn't decided to raid random homes on the assumption that there may be something illegal going on inside. Or the neighbors made a single report about them doing something illegal along the lines of file sharing. When that happens, we know we're fucked. Please, no one link to an article showing that being done. Please.
DRM on a cell phone? Was there a lot of ring tone pirating going on? Were people downloading MP3s and playing them when they received phone calls? Jogging along listening to the tinny phone speaker? Who's market did that effect and what's the point of having DRM on a cell phone?
I don't even see the point of DRM on a computer besides to kill the market. With music, it's always been easily obtainable. To make it the hardest to get and use on a computer is stupid. People will pick what is easiest for them, and that just happens to Kazaa. Remove the DRM on that crap. Most people won't pay for a crippled song when they can get the same thing for free. Another person will already make the copy, so crippling someone who has no intention of distributing it is DUMB!
RISC OS is an operating system used in Acorn/Castle machines. It had some good GUI features, but was poor in other areas. ROX seeks to bring these good UI features to Unix-type platforms.
The thing that makes zero install interesting is that you don't have to install the programs as root and how easily it does slots. As a user who knows what I am doing and is in full control of his computer, I have no need for this. Someone like my mom or brother though, I do not want to be installing every program as root that fits their fancy. That's too much like Windows. It's better if they can install the programs they want that are easily deleted and can't effect anything but the user environment. That's what zero install is striving for, not the group of users that should have root access. At least, that's what I see the purpose being.
I'd also like to add, when I first saw this a while ago, I just glanced over it and said I have ports/apt-get/portage so I don't need this. However, even with a GUI, those programs would require a rewrite to do what zero-install does. I see it filling a purpose for a group of users. Choice is good.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you on this, although not completely. I've taken to finding bands (Grateful Dead mainly) that allow for their music to be recorded. You can listen to the same songs from slightly different perspectives while still having other things be at the forefront of your thoughts. It's not as good as being there, but it's definitely better than listening to the same thing over and over.
It makes you wonder, why doesn't the industry decide to make things interesting and press CDs of all the different concerts? It would be slightly more expensive, but would garner a decent amount fo interest and sales I would imagine. And, it would deter file sharing because if you want song x from concert y it would be much harder to find if there are 30 concerts and you want the one you attended.
Was a joke highlighting size. As I'm sure you know, things with nanotechnology are small.
They're avoiding criminal trials, because at that point it would bring in a jury, as you said. Which also brings in jury nullification. They don't want to open that can of worms. The United States becoming aware of that again would certainly spell the doom of a lot of the stupid laws they prosecute people on right now.
Ah, yes, the ease of using Microsoft "products".
I only transferred about 100 dollars through paypal, but I cancelled my account. I also let them know that it was because I don't support groups that will use politics in who they decide to provide services too. The service is hardly secure or anything of that nature anyhow. I've heard enough stories to know that I had to worry every time someone would send me money. Chargebacks are a bitch.
I guess the perceived difference being that someplace else would not be vulnerable to one of the countries many enemies accessing it? Because, you're right, it's not like we can just make the waste magically vanish. It has to go somewhere.
Organizing it would be an issue, and it would require help from those in charge. Also, another issue would be that patent most likely would not hold up in court and even if it did it would later be appealed.
Well, in my opinion that should be a given. Hehe. If the product sucks, it generally doesn't even get close to being a part of my life or thoughts, so it doesn't even approach anything close to having an effect on me or having me consider wasting a resource on it.
People these days put up with too much... I was talking with a professor from my class and another student last night, and we discussed how little spine most of America has. Discussed times and places where rights were protected even when those rights didn't effect them. Nice to hear stories of people helping other people for nothing in return.
No, in other words if the individual or organization providing what I am interested in does not take legal action against groups or prevent me from watching or listening to what I purchase, then I have no problem in buying something from them.
The music I have bought lately has been non-riaa recordings of various classical composers, as the rest of my music library is already robust enough for me not to care about purchasing anything more.
Why are you accepting that someone should be allowed to attack my rights? I'll download a song and I should be able to send it to someone as well. A good portion of the music I am listening to I would have never even cared for without file sharing, since I don't listen to the radio or watch TV.
Why does not supporting a corporation have anything to do with me wanting everything handed to me for free? I don't even take my open source software for free... I contribute back by downloading on bittorrent and trying to do the odd IRC support jobs and helping other people that I know personally. I'm not at the level of coding to be able to contribute back that way (working on it) but I would be doing that as well.
I don't agree with the system of everything needing to be owned by and forcing money to exchange hands. What's wrong with supporting the people who are willing to support me? Things can be a community instead of a war zone. I know it's hard for someone like to imagine.
Do you really think that will be the outcome? This will be used to market towards companies and individuals to prevent file sharing, and will help it become main stream. Otherwise it will have no effect at all. There is a slight chance they would sue and try and prevent others from doing this, but there are so many that have done it before that there is no way the patent would hold up in court. It's useless legally, and is merely so that they can market as the true, legal implementation.
Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will do something. In this situation anyhow, it would be very unlikely if they could to begin with.
If you eliminate one technology, another one will pop up in its place. Maybe even just an improved version of the one currently in place! Since this has been done before, you'd hope that they did an improved version of it in some way, and that's how they got the patent? It hasn't worked yet, and it won't work anytime in the future either.
All this does is damage a network through crap flooding anyhow. It will kill freely distributed content as well as the content they are attacking. On the same note, I think that it's complete crap that you can patent something like that. Patent a means of attacking something? If they can patent this, I really need to patent my method of ridding people of underage drinking, known as firing a pistol at the containers that they are holding.
I use bittorrent for my content, and have no need for something that someone is trying to keep me from using, hearing, or seeing by eroding my privacy and rights. If they want to put a barrier between me and their product, I won't waste my time or money on it.
Or calling Coke water, since that's what is at the core of it.
Come on, we all know that Microsoft helps you easily dumb things down. Why make something functional when you can easily make something pretty?
Not to say open source can't be pretty. In fact, I'm going to go back to ogling the program I found this morning called filelight
Personally, I wouldn't have put the people calling it into question and then the fact that it is unproven legally at the end. It might be best for the flow, but to conclude "All of this might be meaningless, as it hasn't been proven to work!" is slightly strange to me.
I didn't learn anything new from reading this, but there are those that might, as was stated by the submitter. In my opinion, telling the uninitiated simply that the GPL grants the right to use the code however you like, but if you decide to distribute it you have to agree to the contract stating that you'll give the source as well. If they have other questions, send them to the GNU.org philosophy page
Win2k came with a firewall? WinXP came with a firewall that was on by default? That's the same as having to snap the doors in.
Pointless though, I see that you're right when it comes down to it.
Well, the standard even with a car is that if there wasn't a recall and the brakes in the vehicle all start failing after less than a year in a catastrophic way the company can still stand to lose a court case, and is thus why they do recalls. I guess the point being, that this is sudden and there is no amount of testing of basic functions that could detect it though.
I see the point, and it just makes one of Microsoft's arguments against the adoption of Linux look even more meek now that companies are selling indemnity. Even if there isn't a single entity to blame, if you have a contract saying a company will handle it it won't make a difference. That single company wouldn't be liable anyhow unless they volunteer to be.
I do sue Ford though if they later tell me that I also needed to buy doors to my car (firewall) and that the car had a mechanism to allow anyone with the proper knowledge to cause damage to it without even being near it (antivirus).
This isn't a car. Not only do they not give you the full package, they can force the vendors with a license into not giving it to you as well.
"You can't package that, it's against our license."
In this day and age, wouldn't there be a possibility of an attempt at trying the individual as a terrorist? They've done it with other things, and I would really really see them doing it here if the virus writer manages to foul up a good portion of things.
Just because the law says one thing doesn't mean that is going to happen in this day and age.
The company or the people that are unable to secure their computer? There is a whole chain here, and in other cases with the law, it always seems the manufacturer gets sued. Shouldn't that be the case here? If there is a single vendor or individual that can be blamed, shouldn't they?
The difference here, possibly, being that Microsoft had patched against this and that could be seen as an equivalent to a warning or a recall. It makes you wonder though, if a worm hits on an unknown exploit, will Microsoft be responsible? In any other industry, I'd have to say yes, but I'm not so sure when it comes to software.
Anyhow, this is just another case for why any infrastructure should not be ran on a single operating system. If you have multiple kernels with multiple implementations that can all work, you'll be much safer. Linux kernels with different versions, BSDs, AIX, Solaris... Those won't have the same exploits and have different strengths and weaknesses. No worm can traverse all of that (hopefully).
Article from the Guardian with more details
Personally, I don't see this turning into much. Claims like this have been made before, without much coming of it. The details are short, which is generally not a good sign for something like this.
And, those are select few wallets. Only the wallets that go the deepest will be heard. So, in reality, if you are hurt financially and it's not by one of those big wallets in a way that is malicious, you won't have a single damn thing done about it. Look at identity theft and how huge of a hole that is. Recent Slashdot article about a 19 year old kid being accused of being a middle easterner because of his SSN. Nothing will be done about it. If I stole Bill Gate's SSN as a terrorist, I guarantee someone would listen to him. //rant
On a more positive note, at least the FBI hasn't decided to raid random homes on the assumption that there may be something illegal going on inside. Or the neighbors made a single report about them doing something illegal along the lines of file sharing. When that happens, we know we're fucked. Please, no one link to an article showing that being done. Please.
DRM on a cell phone? Was there a lot of ring tone pirating going on? Were people downloading MP3s and playing them when they received phone calls? Jogging along listening to the tinny phone speaker? Who's market did that effect and what's the point of having DRM on a cell phone?
I don't even see the point of DRM on a computer besides to kill the market. With music, it's always been easily obtainable. To make it the hardest to get and use on a computer is stupid. People will pick what is easiest for them, and that just happens to Kazaa. Remove the DRM on that crap. Most people won't pay for a crippled song when they can get the same thing for free. Another person will already make the copy, so crippling someone who has no intention of distributing it is DUMB!
The /. Karma model, finally filled in:
/. crowd
1. Complain about the
2. Taunt the mods
3. Karma!!!
Snipped:
More Info
Snipped:
The thing that makes zero install interesting is that you don't have to install the programs as root and how easily it does slots. As a user who knows what I am doing and is in full control of his computer, I have no need for this. Someone like my mom or brother though, I do not want to be installing every program as root that fits their fancy. That's too much like Windows. It's better if they can install the programs they want that are easily deleted and can't effect anything but the user environment. That's what zero install is striving for, not the group of users that should have root access. At least, that's what I see the purpose being.
I'd also like to add, when I first saw this a while ago, I just glanced over it and said I have ports/apt-get/portage so I don't need this. However, even with a GUI, those programs would require a rewrite to do what zero-install does. I see it filling a purpose for a group of users. Choice is good.