The Radeon ships with a heatsink/fan combo which generates just as much case heat, heat being a function of the work the video card does and nothing else. Why would this replacement cooler require additional case fans? Answer: it only does if you're hyping Apple.
I think what he means is obvious, if you buy a SCO license you have a valid license to use all Linux. If companies believe this and stampede to buy SCO licenses, it validates their claim in the public eye and FUDs the GPL for years to come, causing immense harm to the adoption of Linux.
And further considering that your country has made hundreds of these little, and some not-so little, changes over the past twenty years (remember the War on Drugs and Patriot Act?) there's little worry that you'll ever lose basic rights and freedoms. After all, hundreds of these little steps never add up large steps, right?
Putting "...so you can still move freely about the globe" and " as long as you are supposed too" in a single sentence demonstrates you are, indeed, a master of irony (if not spelling.) "Supposed to" according to whom?
I doubt it. Where's the bandwidth coming from? Point to point won't work for most so I don't see how this is at all technically feasible. Given the ever increasing demand for bandwidth, we're far more likely to finally see fiber to the end user than universal wireless.
Does this somehow prevent you from sharing non-copyrighted files over P2P (which, as we all know, is the "primary" use of P2P)?
"We all know" is a term that has caused more historical injustice than we could all know. 'P2P' is a popular term describing a handful of sharing protocols with wide news coverage. Peer-to-peer file transfers on the other hand are the foundation of network computing. All files move from one computer in essentially peer-to-peer fashion. It will be impossible to tightly legislate the first without destroying the latter. There have been posts here describing how to move mp3's with lpr Unix print queues, will the RIAA have domain over printing as well?
Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others?
Sigh. Copyright is an artificial arrangement granting a very small class of citizens a temporary monopoly for, originally, a short period of time. Your question begs the question with its underlying tone of property rights. Why do you feel that everyone's ability to exchange files be criminalized to, and let's be blunt, minimize loss of profits to an oligarchy which distributes (not creates!) the most trivial, non-essential product know to society. To my way of thinking that's madness.
.....sharing Redhat ISOs and MP3s of lame garage bands,
And with those two adjectives - 'lame' and 'garage' - Cereal Box shows who he really speaks for: the status quo. No music unauthorized by a major label could possibly be worth hearing, and they must all come from a 'garage'. But then, you sum it up yourself in the last paragraph when you say the way to end this dispute is to do what the RIAA demands, which I doubt would work anyway. Subject to authority, give up your right to exchange information (files), be patient when the RIAA wrongly accuses you.
Both the uploader as a distributor and the downloader as a copier are individually breaking the law.
More correctly, the downloader is "breaking the law where cpt kangarooski lives." Not in Canada. There are alternatives to subjecting the globe's information flow to the approval of the RIAA.
This is why the RIAA hates the internet so much, and why they dropped the ball so badly as to allow P2P to start in the first place.
RIAA has no rights over P2P, that's what the battle is about. The RIAA is an organization of non-citizens - corporations - twisting the legal system to delimit the flow on information between those who government is meant to represent. P2P is peer-to-peer transfer of data in the form of files, period. The RIAA wants all file transfers presumed guilty to halt trading of copies of their member's product to maximize profits (for all their blather and a decade of trading, none have gone out of business.) A victory for the RIAA is greatly outweighted by the long-term damage to society. The profits of a handful of non-essential middle-men distributors isn't worth giving up the free flow of information forever.
If iTunes had been around in 1995, there would have been no Napster.
More likely iTunes would have blunted the impact of services such as Kazaa, not stopped them. There will always be those who prefer free. Not gouging on CD prices would have had as much impact.
There is no way for SCO to determine if a business is using Linux, therefore there is no risk for businesses at this junction to ignore SCO's Ransom demand. Let the courts decide, any PHB which volunteers his company to pay this extortion should have his title revoked and sent to Biggie Size U. tomorrow.
Doesn't affect the PIM apps, but give the new ROM from the Kompany a spin if the OS is part of the hassle. Basically a de-bugged Sharp ROM with a KDE-like skin. Best I've used of four by a wide margin.
That being said, if the RIAA breaks down the door to get the HDs I keep the stuff on, I have no problems whatsoever with activating the electromagnets sitting on top of 'em and scrambling the whole mess into indecipherable gobbledygook.
If you really believe that's going to work, there's a Nigerian gentleman who needs your help retrieving a fortune. He's desperately trying to contact the moderators too.
They didn't care about it before now, because it's only with the rise of fast connections to the Internet that people have had enough bandwidth to make it a real problem. The losses were a blip on the radar.
So, so wrong. The industry fought VCRs, they fought cassettes, they fought radio. Going further back they fought sheet music. Had people taken your recommendation a hundred years ago none would exisit today and the music industry would be much worse off.
The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. [But] we said we couldn't take it until you [IBM] said very explicitly that you also license the patents.
Does this mean there is patented code in the Linux kernel? How does that not conflict with the GPL?
"I saw what appeared to be a word-for-word copy of about every third line of code in the central module of the Linux kernel," said Enderle...
Someone help me understand this as it's been close to 20 years since I've touched code. How is this even possible? Programs are a tightly knit system of instructions. SCO makes it sound as if each line was an independant entity unrelated to the whole. If GM claimed a competitor released a vehicle built one-third of Chevy parts it would make as much sense and be just as credible.
First of all, do you honestly think that the RIAA is going to go door-to-door, and start demanding that people provide licenses for every piece of music they own? Are you really *that* stupid?
They already do something similar. They walk into places that allow public access - stores, bars, restaurants, taxis - and demand a cut of the profit in the form of license fees. The only reason they don't walk into your house is it's illegal. 'Enhance' their rights and you can be damn sure that they would barge into a party or backyard BBQ demanding to see your music license.
Slashdot Mirror
The Radeon ships with a heatsink/fan combo which generates just as much case heat, heat being a function of the work the video card does and nothing else. Why would this replacement cooler require additional case fans? Answer: it only does if you're hyping Apple.
I think what he means is obvious, if you buy a SCO license you have a valid license to use all Linux. If companies believe this and stampede to buy SCO licenses, it validates their claim in the public eye and FUDs the GPL for years to come, causing immense harm to the adoption of Linux.
And further considering that your country has made hundreds of these little, and some not-so little, changes over the past twenty years (remember the War on Drugs and Patriot Act?) there's little worry that you'll ever lose basic rights and freedoms. After all, hundreds of these little steps never add up large steps, right?
Putting "...so you can still move freely about the globe" and " as long as you are supposed too" in a single sentence demonstrates you are, indeed, a master of irony (if not spelling.) "Supposed to" according to whom?
I doubt it. Where's the bandwidth coming from? Point to point won't work for most so I don't see how this is at all technically feasible. Given the ever increasing demand for bandwidth, we're far more likely to finally see fiber to the end user than universal wireless.
Proficient in the use of small arms.
You raise begging the question to an art form.
"We all know" is a term that has caused more historical injustice than we could all know. 'P2P' is a popular term describing a handful of sharing protocols with wide news coverage. Peer-to-peer file transfers on the other hand are the foundation of network computing. All files move from one computer in essentially peer-to-peer fashion. It will be impossible to tightly legislate the first without destroying the latter. There have been posts here describing how to move mp3's with lpr Unix print queues, will the RIAA have domain over printing as well?
Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others?
Sigh. Copyright is an artificial arrangement granting a very small class of citizens a temporary monopoly for, originally, a short period of time. Your question begs the question with its underlying tone of property rights. Why do you feel that everyone's ability to exchange files be criminalized to, and let's be blunt, minimize loss of profits to an oligarchy which distributes (not creates!) the most trivial, non-essential product know to society. To my way of thinking that's madness.
And with those two adjectives - 'lame' and 'garage' - Cereal Box shows who he really speaks for: the status quo. No music unauthorized by a major label could possibly be worth hearing, and they must all come from a 'garage'. But then, you sum it up yourself in the last paragraph when you say the way to end this dispute is to do what the RIAA demands, which I doubt would work anyway. Subject to authority, give up your right to exchange information (files), be patient when the RIAA wrongly accuses you.
No thanks.
More correctly, the downloader is "breaking the law where cpt kangarooski lives." Not in Canada. There are alternatives to subjecting the globe's information flow to the approval of the RIAA.
RIAA has no rights over P2P, that's what the battle is about. The RIAA is an organization of non-citizens - corporations - twisting the legal system to delimit the flow on information between those who government is meant to represent. P2P is peer-to-peer transfer of data in the form of files, period. The RIAA wants all file transfers presumed guilty to halt trading of copies of their member's product to maximize profits (for all their blather and a decade of trading, none have gone out of business.) A victory for the RIAA is greatly outweighted by the long-term damage to society. The profits of a handful of non-essential middle-men distributors isn't worth giving up the free flow of information forever.
If iTunes had been around in 1995, there would have been no Napster.
More likely iTunes would have blunted the impact of services such as Kazaa, not stopped them. There will always be those who prefer free. Not gouging on CD prices would have had as much impact.
There is no way for SCO to determine if a business is using Linux, therefore there is no risk for businesses at this junction to ignore SCO's Ransom demand. Let the courts decide, any PHB which volunteers his company to pay this extortion should have his title revoked and sent to Biggie Size U. tomorrow.
Doesn't affect the PIM apps, but give the new ROM from the Kompany a spin if the OS is part of the hassle. Basically a de-bugged Sharp ROM with a KDE-like skin. Best I've used of four by a wide margin.
PayPal! Or Ebay?
If you really believe that's going to work, there's a Nigerian gentleman who needs your help retrieving a fortune. He's desperately trying to contact the moderators too.
Like, for example, publication of the "Federalist Papers"? All the US got out of that was a Constitution.
So, so wrong. The industry fought VCRs, they fought cassettes, they fought radio. Going further back they fought sheet music. Had people taken your recommendation a hundred years ago none would exisit today and the music industry would be much worse off.
I wouldn't be surprised if it continues happening worldwide.
That magic switch is called Microsoft Licensing. Upgrade or face losing support or inviting a software audit. Both have been reported here ad nauseum.
The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. [But] we said we couldn't take it until you [IBM] said very explicitly that you also license the patents.
Does this mean there is patented code in the Linux kernel? How does that not conflict with the GPL?
No one marketed Kazaaa either. If it's good enough and does what others can't, word will spread.
They're all religious views, free market capitalism, and the proprietary systems it entails, included.
Isn't "piece of the action" the correct terminology for their kind of work?
Apparently screwing artists directly hasn't been successful.
Someone help me understand this as it's been close to 20 years since I've touched code. How is this even possible? Programs are a tightly knit system of instructions. SCO makes it sound as if each line was an independant entity unrelated to the whole. If GM claimed a competitor released a vehicle built one-third of Chevy parts it would make as much sense and be just as credible.
They already do something similar. They walk into places that allow public access - stores, bars, restaurants, taxis - and demand a cut of the profit in the form of license fees. The only reason they don't walk into your house is it's illegal. 'Enhance' their rights and you can be damn sure that they would barge into a party or backyard BBQ demanding to see your music license.