which will continue keeping redhat 7.3 and redhat 9 up to date with all current security patches so you can happily continue to run machine on those distros far into the future...
why troll???
they approached him because they liked his work. never undersell yourself. if the price is too high, they'll tell you and you negotiatem they wont just drop you.
all of these mirror's are already hosed... if they would just use bittorrent on all those servers insteads of ftp/http we'd all be watching cool vids by now.
he's not talking about pop-up windows with video
on
Nat Demos Dashboard
·
· Score: 1
he's talking about the VH-1 show PopUp Video which had little bits of weird information related to stuff on the screen, or the story behing the artists or the making of the video. dashboard has NOTHING to do with clippy, and thank god:)
"How is Mono going to be a complete.Net implementation if you don't implement Windows.Forms? How will you implement Windows.Forms without steping on Microsofts toes?"
aparently you dont read very carefullly, ximian clearly outline their strategy. they've made it abundantly clear, that even if mono had to be utterly purged of ALL patent encumbered parts of.NET like windows.forms, its still a win for linux. applications like Dashboard DONT USE the patented sections of mono. so in the future if MS starts adding unacceptable terms to their patented stuff, Ximian simply stops distributing it, big deal. so they loose the ease of porting from windows to linux, BUT THAT ISNT THE POINT OF MONO. it is much much more.
while planetccrma might take you an hour or two to install and configure, its AWSOME... i love it. once its up and running its so much slicker than windows or macos for keeping your audio environment up to date.
bascially planetccrma is a multimedia distro on top of redhat (7.3, 8.0 or 9.0). it gives you a new kernel with alsa and the low latency + preemptive patches built in. plus it uses Apt-Rpm so installing and updating all those constantly developing linux audio apps is dead simple.
nando, the guy who puts it all together is really friendly and usually answers any install questions or program requests within a day.
I'm a total convert and this is actually letting move away from windows for my main audio performace OS.
freenet is a *protocol*, not a client (though they do ship the http proxy client with the main distro). just like the http protocol doesnt have any search functionality built into it, neither does freenet. you can, and people do in fact use regular old web spiders to create searchable indexes of freenet.
i'm familar with the stated goals of both projects, but i think that in the long term freenet will fit the exact niche of bittorrent and do it better (ie, anonymously). recently when freenet was running at its tops there were reports of transfer rates of 90 k/s plus... i only ever got 30 k/s, but that is not too shabby. not as fast as bittorrent, but not bad. i dont think biggest bandwidth block is the encryption, i thinks it's mostly routing problems that they are working on. by the time freent hits 1.0 i think that we will be seeing almost comparable speeds.
well, not only is centralisation a legal problem in many cases when you are dealing with sensitive or illegal material, it is also a big technical problem as is the topic of this thread.
you are citing the same legal precident that was central to my point. this fact is what is going to keep bittorrent pigeon wholed into the niche of distributing non-controversial content (in the long term), which may be just fine by the authors. its really good at that, when you can find the.torrent file, ie when the indexes are not slashdotted. but i think a lot of people are searching for a more general tool that lets you distribute controversial content in similar fashion, and for this there is freenet. plus freenet handily gets around the other related problems of centralisation of the torrent lists getting slashdotted.
of course the legality of content does not nessesarily reflect its morality. think decss. i can think of many cases where people need a mechanism for distrution large files free from censorship, like video of official state abuse and whatnot. for the long term we really need a decentralised distribution system like freenet/bitorrent that preserves our rights. so for a long term solution, i think bottorent's centralization of indexes are a dead end.
like i said, i use bittorent more today (first thing i used it for was redhat 9 iso's), but i feel that its archetectural design problems are going to lead to it being dwarfed by freenet (once freent stabilises more) on the long term... and i'm ok with that.
bittorrent follows a similar idea to Freenet, but freenet suffers from none of the weaknesses that plague bittorrent: no central points of failure, real anonminity.
of course it is a much more complex protocol and often badly suffers from bugs slowly propagating throughout the network as they upgrate and test changes to it. so the ride can be a bit rough, but a few months ago i was able to download 700 meg iso's from freenet at 30 k/s, which is quite decent considering that that person who posts the content is kept anonymous. good tradeoff to me.
for the time being, i am using bittorrent more and more because it is fast as hell, but I really think on the long term it will be a blip in history due to its centralised model. i mean, i sure as hell wouldnt want to be a seed node for a big hollywood movie considering the president set by recent lawsuits.
there needs to be clear distinctions in bugzilla between the current mozilla browser and the future Mozilla Browser... hence the name Firebird (equevielent to Seamonkey now)
they stopped refereing to their browser as "Firebird (TM)" and now call it exclusively "Mozilla Firebird Browser"... if there is anyone left who is confused by that they really have bigger problems to worry about than this pathetic little dispute.
mozilla have made great efforts at meeting the SQL people in the middle... i'm just not seeing the SQL people recipricating.
whats utterly unprovable is your suggestion that the artist looses anything because of some fictitious "future revenue"... lets say someone downloads 60 gigs of music from every artist they can, regarless of how they feel about them because they are interested in having a "complete" music collection? now, its is utterly impossible that they could have ever afforded to pay for all of that, so what future revenue did the artist loose? none, its a rediculous idea.
its akin to saying that person A who ruins the end of a movie for person B by telling them the ending or just saying "dont go, it sucks" STOLE from the movie house since they are "depriving" them of some theoretical future revenue "lost" because person B probably would have gone had they not run into person A. this is such an inane idea. it doesnt hold water for a millisecond.
and, "dude", just becayse you say "it's theft" doesnt make it so. in all this babeling there there has yet been one convincing argument that supports that idea. sorry.
i think this is key. i've been working on launching an open source record label soon and this i think cuts to the quick of the morality of this for me. if feels wrong when someoen "takes" someone elses work and sells it as their own because you are misrepresenting their work as your own. this is clearly immoral. i think this is the key behind hte BSD license: "take it, do what you want with it, but please keep me credit where credit is due." sounds good to me.
"Okay, steer around this one, o high and mighty one"
its pretty sad that you can't write one response to me without throwing some insult.
"you're sharing information that the information creator has declared to be unshareable. You are going against the wishes of the person who created the info in the first place."
sharing, distributing, and deriving from information without the consent of the original author is commonplace and perfectly moral. reporters regularly publish internal memo's from companies, the authors of which clearly never intended for a public eye. the is perfectly moral and legal.
"Take the GPL for a good analogy. You are free to share all sorts of stuff under the GPL, but you must meet certain criteria set forth by the creators of the GPL and the software authors. I recall that in the past several companies have attempted to take GPL-protected works and use them in commercial software without crediting or compensating the original software authors. What a horrendous outrage ensued on Slashdot, with everyone screaming for blood at how awful it all was! I'm sure you were somewhere in the crowd, raging on how unprincipled the violator must've been to violate the GPL in such a manner.
Now, here you stand advocating the exact same kind of action! The author of the works has decreed that you must comply with certain criteria if you wish to make use of their work. In this case, they demand to be paid. You, feeling smug and self-assured of your righteousness, violate their wishes, partake of their efforts, and give no thought whatosever to the fact that you've done something wrong. Quite to the contrary, you think you've done something noble! What a farce! What an amazing, absolutely mind-boggling amount of self-deception you've engaged in! You're more than happy to tread on rights, so long as they're not your rights! How self centered and egotistical you are to think in this manner!"
you have this whole mystique built up about me even though you know nothing about me. in fact, i side much more with the BSD style license which allows people to take and resell free software derivatives. further, i actively encourage people to take my works and make derivative works from them. so really, this whole indignant passage you wrote has nothing to do with me, or the argument at hand.
still, you have not laid down any evidence of deprivation or harm caused by someone downloading and listening to a song they didnt buy.
"you cannot force others to give their services away just because you do"
nowhere did i say this. it has nothing to do with my point, so cut it out with the staw men. i brought up the fact that i am a content creator because you keep trying to paint me as some shiftie-eyed theif trying to jusitfy their crime spree instead of listening to the reasoned argument i make. you know nothing about me, so instead of wasting your time trying to impeach my character, try dealing with my logic.
as of yet you have made no convincing argument of deprivation from file sharing, but your managed to waste a lot of energy with personal attacks and misleading analagies.
are you intellectually able to lay off the personal attacks and stick the discussion at hand? do you understnad hte concept of ad hominem and how badly it reflects on a) your reasoning skills and b) your argument?
"The blinders you wear are gargantuan, and it must be nice to life in your own little world. Let me know if you ever become reconnected to reality."
i'm very sorry that you are unable to talk rationally without resorting to playground insults.
if you cared to notice my web page you would know that in fact i am a content creator who encourages the free trade of my music. so instead of trying disqualify my rational arguments based on ad hominem attacks, why not try logic?
so when you cant come up with any rational argument for this insane idea that sharing information = theft, just change the subject? show me once where i cloaked, muddled, deflected or obfuscated. all i've done was argue ratinally and point out the gaping holes in your assertions which you cannot defend.
"Ah! So, just because someone has a lot of something, that gives you the right to take some of it, because they "won't notice it"?
Great! I'm sure you've got some money in your bank account somewhere. I'll just take some of it! You shouldn't care, because you had a lot of it in there to begin with!"
see there you go again with the bad analagies. in this case the person is literally deprived of money from their bank account, which is clear theft.
Slashdot Mirror
which will continue keeping redhat 7.3 and redhat 9 up to date with all current security patches so you can happily continue to run machine on those distros far into the future... why troll???
they approached him because they liked his work. never undersell yourself. if the price is too high, they'll tell you and you negotiatem they wont just drop you.
and... coincidentally, its the only episode i've been able to download :)
all of these mirror's are already hosed... if they would just use bittorrent on all those servers insteads of ftp/http we'd all be watching cool vids by now.
yep.
he's talking about the VH-1 show PopUp Video which had little bits of weird information related to stuff on the screen, or the story behing the artists or the making of the video. dashboard has NOTHING to do with clippy, and thank god :)
replace "our" with out in my previous subject line ;)
its meant for RSI prevention, but could absolutely be used for this
http://www.workrave.org/
"How is Mono going to be a complete .Net implementation if you don't implement Windows.Forms? How will you implement Windows.Forms without steping on Microsofts toes?"
.NET like windows.forms, its still a win for linux. applications like Dashboard DONT USE the patented sections of mono. so in the future if MS starts adding unacceptable terms to their patented stuff, Ximian simply stops distributing it, big deal. so they loose the ease of porting from windows to linux, BUT THAT ISNT THE POINT OF MONO. it is much much more.
aparently you dont read very carefullly, ximian clearly outline their strategy. they've made it abundantly clear, that even if mono had to be utterly purged of ALL patent encumbered parts of
while planetccrma might take you an hour or two to install and configure, its AWSOME... i love it. once its up and running its so much slicker than windows or macos for keeping your audio environment up to date.
bascially planetccrma is a multimedia distro on top of redhat (7.3, 8.0 or 9.0). it gives you a new kernel with alsa and the low latency + preemptive patches built in. plus it uses Apt-Rpm so installing and updating all those constantly developing linux audio apps is dead simple.
nando, the guy who puts it all together is really friendly and usually answers any install questions or program requests within a day.
I'm a total convert and this is actually letting move away from windows for my main audio performace OS.
here's the siteftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/current/RPMS/linux-kernel-binary-2.4.13-21S.i38 6.rpm
yepp... thats SCO distributing the linux kernel, *right now*
freenet is a *protocol*, not a client (though they do ship the http proxy client with the main distro). just like the http protocol doesnt have any search functionality built into it, neither does freenet. you can, and people do in fact use regular old web spiders to create searchable indexes of freenet.
right you are, he's working on a dialog, not a file manager :)
i'm familar with the stated goals of both projects, but i think that in the long term freenet will fit the exact niche of bittorrent and do it better (ie, anonymously). recently when freenet was running at its tops there were reports of transfer rates of 90 k/s plus... i only ever got 30 k/s, but that is not too shabby. not as fast as bittorrent, but not bad. i dont think biggest bandwidth block is the encryption, i thinks it's mostly routing problems that they are working on. by the time freent hits 1.0 i think that we will be seeing almost comparable speeds.
well, not only is centralisation a legal problem in many cases when you are dealing with sensitive or illegal material, it is also a big technical problem as is the topic of this thread.
you are citing the same legal precident that was central to my point. this fact is what is going to keep bittorrent pigeon wholed into the niche of distributing non-controversial content (in the long term), which may be just fine by the authors. its really good at that, when you can find the .torrent file, ie when the indexes are not slashdotted. but i think a lot of people are searching for a more general tool that lets you distribute controversial content in similar fashion, and for this there is freenet. plus freenet handily gets around the other related problems of centralisation of the torrent lists getting slashdotted.
of course the legality of content does not nessesarily reflect its morality. think decss. i can think of many cases where people need a mechanism for distrution large files free from censorship, like video of official state abuse and whatnot. for the long term we really need a decentralised distribution system like freenet/bitorrent that preserves our rights. so for a long term solution, i think bottorent's centralization of indexes are a dead end.
like i said, i use bittorent more today (first thing i used it for was redhat 9 iso's), but i feel that its archetectural design problems are going to lead to it being dwarfed by freenet (once freent stabilises more) on the long term... and i'm ok with that.
bittorrent follows a similar idea to Freenet, but freenet suffers from none of the weaknesses that plague bittorrent: no central points of failure, real anonminity.
of course it is a much more complex protocol and often badly suffers from bugs slowly propagating throughout the network as they upgrate and test changes to it. so the ride can be a bit rough, but a few months ago i was able to download 700 meg iso's from freenet at 30 k/s, which is quite decent considering that that person who posts the content is kept anonymous. good tradeoff to me.
for the time being, i am using bittorrent more and more because it is fast as hell, but I really think on the long term it will be a blip in history due to its centralised model. i mean, i sure as hell wouldnt want to be a seed node for a big hollywood movie considering the president set by recent lawsuits.
there needs to be clear distinctions in bugzilla between the current mozilla browser and the future Mozilla Browser... hence the name Firebird (equevielent to Seamonkey now)
they stopped refereing to their browser as "Firebird (TM)" and now call it exclusively "Mozilla Firebird Browser" ... if there is anyone left who is confused by that they really have bigger problems to worry about than this pathetic little dispute.
mozilla have made great efforts at meeting the SQL people in the middle... i'm just not seeing the SQL people recipricating.
whats utterly unprovable is your suggestion that the artist looses anything because of some fictitious "future revenue" ... lets say someone downloads 60 gigs of music from every artist they can, regarless of how they feel about them because they are interested in having a "complete" music collection? now, its is utterly impossible that they could have ever afforded to pay for all of that, so what future revenue did the artist loose? none, its a rediculous idea.
its akin to saying that person A who ruins the end of a movie for person B by telling them the ending or just saying "dont go, it sucks" STOLE from the movie house since they are "depriving" them of some theoretical future revenue "lost" because person B probably would have gone had they not run into person A. this is such an inane idea. it doesnt hold water for a millisecond.
and, "dude", just becayse you say "it's theft" doesnt make it so. in all this babeling there there has yet been one convincing argument that supports that idea. sorry.
i think this is key. i've been working on launching an open source record label soon and this i think cuts to the quick of the morality of this for me. if feels wrong when someoen "takes" someone elses work and sells it as their own because you are misrepresenting their work as your own. this is clearly immoral. i think this is the key behind hte BSD license: "take it, do what you want with it, but please keep me credit where credit is due." sounds good to me.
"Okay, steer around this one, o high and mighty one"
its pretty sad that you can't write one response to me without throwing some insult.
"you're sharing information that the information creator has declared to be unshareable. You are going against the wishes of the person who created the info in the first place."
sharing, distributing, and deriving from information without the consent of the original author is commonplace and perfectly moral. reporters regularly publish internal memo's from companies, the authors of which clearly never intended for a public eye. the is perfectly moral and legal.
"Take the GPL for a good analogy. You are free to share all sorts of stuff under the GPL, but you must meet certain criteria set forth by the creators of the GPL and the software authors. I recall that in the past several companies have attempted to take GPL-protected works and use them in commercial software without crediting or compensating the original software authors. What a horrendous outrage ensued on Slashdot, with everyone screaming for blood at how awful it all was! I'm sure you were somewhere in the crowd, raging on how unprincipled the violator must've been to violate the GPL in such a manner.
Now, here you stand advocating the exact same kind of action! The author of the works has decreed that you must comply with certain criteria if you wish to make use of their work. In this case, they demand to be paid. You, feeling smug and self-assured of your righteousness, violate their wishes, partake of their efforts, and give no thought whatosever to the fact that you've done something wrong. Quite to the contrary, you think you've done something noble! What a farce! What an amazing, absolutely mind-boggling amount of self-deception you've engaged in! You're more than happy to tread on rights, so long as they're not your rights! How self centered and egotistical you are to think in this manner!"
you have this whole mystique built up about me even though you know nothing about me. in fact, i side much more with the BSD style license which allows people to take and resell free software derivatives. further, i actively encourage people to take my works and make derivative works from them. so really, this whole indignant passage you wrote has nothing to do with me, or the argument at hand.
still, you have not laid down any evidence of deprivation or harm caused by someone downloading and listening to a song they didnt buy.
and stop putting words in my mouth.
"you cannot force others to give their services away just because you do"
nowhere did i say this. it has nothing to do with my point, so cut it out with the staw men. i brought up the fact that i am a content creator because you keep trying to paint me as some shiftie-eyed theif trying to jusitfy their crime spree instead of listening to the reasoned argument i make. you know nothing about me, so instead of wasting your time trying to impeach my character, try dealing with my logic.
as of yet you have made no convincing argument of deprivation from file sharing, but your managed to waste a lot of energy with personal attacks and misleading analagies.
are you intellectually able to lay off the personal attacks and stick the discussion at hand? do you understnad hte concept of ad hominem and how badly it reflects on a) your reasoning skills and b) your argument?
"The blinders you wear are gargantuan, and it must be nice to life in your own little world. Let me know if you ever become reconnected to reality."
i'm very sorry that you are unable to talk rationally without resorting to playground insults.
if you cared to notice my web page you would know that in fact i am a content creator who encourages the free trade of my music. so instead of trying disqualify my rational arguments based on ad hominem attacks, why not try logic?
so when you cant come up with any rational argument for this insane idea that sharing information = theft, just change the subject? show me once where i cloaked, muddled, deflected or obfuscated. all i've done was argue ratinally and point out the gaping holes in your assertions which you cannot defend.
"Ah! So, just because someone has a lot of something, that gives you the right to take some of it, because they "won't notice it"?
Great! I'm sure you've got some money in your bank account somewhere. I'll just take some of it! You shouldn't care, because you had a lot of it in there to begin with!"
see there you go again with the bad analagies. in this case the person is literally deprived of money from their bank account, which is clear theft.