This is an "urban legend." A look at news footage puts it to sleep quite nicely. And I know for a fact that none of the guys leaving our installation (Fort Lewis / McChord AFB) leave without vests.
The fact that a BETA version uses XYZ open source really does not mean much. First of all, the military simply isn't going to get involved with GPL or anything else like that for combat gear, if you think so, you're dreaming. Second, when the project hits a defense contractor for production, it may look nothing like the BETA. Defense contractors do not make money by pushing Open Source. They make money by building something that LOCKS IN them and their sub-contractors.
Also note that Microsoft specifically says that their software is not suitable for mission critical systems.
Wasn't there a story on this very web site a few days back (a week?) about some European country that has just built a stelth war ship that runs on NT4?
"Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run."
This is what the Wired story says, but exactly what does the memo actually say? Simply saying "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems" does not in the least imply they are thinking of open source solutions. What they are much more likely thinking about is proprietary embedded systems.
Honestly, when was the last time a multi-zillion dollar military contract involve Open Source?
The RIAA to haul up hundreds of people in the name of the draconian DMCA are the least of the "rules" of free society that the United States does not adhere to. If we Americans don't like some silly "free society" rule, we simply say it does not apply to us. I could list many such rules here, from free trade rules to things like Iraq. And of course this goes way back before GWB and his henchmen where in power here, we have always been the 800 pound gorilla who sleeps where we want. But this is all way off-topic...
Update: 05/19 13:34 GMT by T: Several comments to this thread indicate that the listed mailbox size limit has returned to the previous 1GB level, so this apparent change may be nothing more than the result of a misplaced decimal point.
But if I want to donate $20 to Freenet, I can't do so anonymously?
Well, then. I guess you can't do it through PayPal. PayPal is not required to accept payments by anyone if it does not want to. Send fREEserve cash in a letter. No problem.
I wonder if maybe that has something to do with the freeze? Everyone's first guess seems to be that PayPal cut off Freenet because they didn't approve of the project, but the whole bit about "use of an anonymous proxy" has me curious.
In all liklyhood, this is exactly what happened. Freenet could very well go and get another PayPal account and move on. But this is Slashdot, and so of course it has to be something shaky on PayPal's part in an attempt to kill off Freenet. Paranoia, folks.
That's a "nice thought", but you do understand that PayPal does not give a crap what you think, so why waste your time? Really it goes to the Patriot Act and the fact the they fear being associated with an org that some in Washington consider dangerous.
This might be good. But really, it you have the computing power, does it matter? But also, for us, our catalog of images was constantly in flux, new galleries coming in, old galleries going out when our licensing expired (yup, major sites do license the material). But then again, I guess we could have set up a nightly cron job...
Oh, and we used Perl. PHP was at v. 3 or early 4, not-ready-for-prime-time. I think PHP is now, or will soon give peral a run for it's money as the best server-side web scripting language (insert Perl / PHP flames here...).
Well, I can't speak for the first post, but from my experience at Internet Entertainment Group (ClubLove, went out of biz a few years ago), most of our pages WHERE dynamic. We had several hundred sites that all drew off the same database of picks (stored in a simply HUGE RAID named Cthulhu). Most of the sites where template driven, and heavily relied on generating galleries on the fly based on whatever theme of the particular site (cum shots, MILF, gay, cream pies, whatever...). We server it all off of 9 SGI machines running Irix...
Canned air makers do not have a monopoly since there is no barrier to entry, i.e. I myself can can air right now. Super glue is also not a monopoly since there are readily available alternatives.
In order for monopoly to exist you need: 1) Strong barriers to entry and no close alternatives.
It's not true now, of course, but SubPop did fairly well without being part of the "monopoly". There are many examples.
The RIAA only controls the IP of the companies / musicians it represents. The RIAA does not control the distributers that are not members of it.
The blatent evidence is that the RIAA was recently fined for abusing their monopoly to gouge consumers and were fined under US anti-trust laws.
Reference, please.
But the fact exists: Record companies own the music that they do, and they can require whatever they want as far as distribution restrictions.
You're ignoring the virtual monopoly that exists for music nowadays.
People toss the term "monopoly" around quite inaccurately, I think. I mean, of course record companies have a "virtual monopoly" on making records. But canned air makers have a "virtual monopoly" on canned air. Super glue makers have a "virtual monopoly" on super glue. So what?
Indie musicians release their music outside the traditional channels, and if you would like to make your own canned air, if you have the resources, no one is stopping you. But, if you want a piece of music (product) managed, owned, controlled by some major label, you have to give them what they want for it. It's their product; they manage it, own or manage the rights to it. They don't have to give it to you at all, if they don't want to.
If you buy a car off the lot, you don't tell the dealership what they are going to sell it to you for, they tell you. And, if you buy that car and start producing exact copies in your garage and distributing these copies, my guess is you will get a visit from a lawyer.
Can I do that without buying another 15 songs and get a lossless copy that is free of DRM?
Of course not. That's not what they are selling. Can I get just one section of that orange? And without the peel please. And instead of you, the seller telling me how much you want, I'll tell you how much you get...
Until the patent system is overhauled, this is the sort of thing that will happen. It's a waste of time fret over each individual ridiculous patent. Focus on pushing for a system revision rather than nit-picking at things which are legal within the current flawed system.
No, the fence was 500 yards from your window. On the other hand, had you been associated with China Lake, you would have lived smack dab in the God-damn middle of it.
The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community...
This is only "news" if you haven't paid any attention at all to who owns MP3.com, and the "general trend" in on-line music sites to charge for downloads. Really, to say this is "no surprise" is even an overstatement. Just another music-for-sale download site. Move along...
Slashdot Mirror
This is an "urban legend." A look at news footage puts it to sleep quite nicely. And I know for a fact that none of the guys leaving our installation (Fort Lewis / McChord AFB) leave without vests.
The fact that a BETA version uses XYZ open source really does not mean much. First of all, the military simply isn't going to get involved with GPL or anything else like that for combat gear, if you think so, you're dreaming. Second, when the project hits a defense contractor for production, it may look nothing like the BETA. Defense contractors do not make money by pushing Open Source. They make money by building something that LOCKS IN them and their sub-contractors.
Wasn't there a story on this very web site a few days back (a week?) about some European country that has just built a stelth war ship that runs on NT4?
This is what the Wired story says, but exactly what does the memo actually say? Simply saying "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems" does not in the least imply they are thinking of open source solutions. What they are much more likely thinking about is proprietary embedded systems.
Honestly, when was the last time a multi-zillion dollar military contract involve Open Source?
The RIAA to haul up hundreds of people in the name of the draconian DMCA are the least of the "rules" of free society that the United States does not adhere to. If we Americans don't like some silly "free society" rule, we simply say it does not apply to us. I could list many such rules here, from free trade rules to things like Iraq. And of course this goes way back before GWB and his henchmen where in power here, we have always been the 800 pound gorilla who sleeps where we want. But this is all way off-topic...
No, not a dupe. In the previous story, Grokline had not yet gone on-line.
Good way to throw your back out...
Typical Slashdot. Ignore the obvious.
Well, then. I guess you can't do it through PayPal. PayPal is not required to accept payments by anyone if it does not want to. Send fREEserve cash in a letter. No problem.
In all liklyhood, this is exactly what happened. Freenet could very well go and get another PayPal account and move on. But this is Slashdot, and so of course it has to be something shaky on PayPal's part in an attempt to kill off Freenet. Paranoia, folks.
That's a "nice thought", but you do understand that PayPal does not give a crap what you think, so why waste your time? Really it goes to the Patriot Act and the fact the they fear being associated with an org that some in Washington consider dangerous.
...and used by virtually no one...
This might be good. But really, it you have the computing power, does it matter? But also, for us, our catalog of images was constantly in flux, new galleries coming in, old galleries going out when our licensing expired (yup, major sites do license the material). But then again, I guess we could have set up a nightly cron job...
Oh, and we used Perl. PHP was at v. 3 or early 4, not-ready-for-prime-time. I think PHP is now, or will soon give peral a run for it's money as the best server-side web scripting language (insert Perl / PHP flames here...).
Well, I can't speak for the first post, but from my experience at Internet Entertainment Group (ClubLove, went out of biz a few years ago), most of our pages WHERE dynamic. We had several hundred sites that all drew off the same database of picks (stored in a simply HUGE RAID named Cthulhu). Most of the sites where template driven, and heavily relied on generating galleries on the fly based on whatever theme of the particular site (cum shots, MILF, gay, cream pies, whatever...). We server it all off of 9 SGI machines running Irix...
No, no. That's the Virgin Mary.
There is a big difference between "fair use" and what most people use p2p for.
In order for monopoly to exist you need: 1) Strong barriers to entry and no close alternatives.
It's not true now, of course, but SubPop did fairly well without being part of the "monopoly". There are many examples.
The RIAA only controls the IP of the companies / musicians it represents. The RIAA does not control the distributers that are not members of it.
The blatent evidence is that the RIAA was recently fined for abusing their monopoly to gouge consumers and were fined under US anti-trust laws.
Reference, please.
But the fact exists: Record companies own the music that they do, and they can require whatever they want as far as distribution restrictions.
People toss the term "monopoly" around quite inaccurately, I think. I mean, of course record companies have a "virtual monopoly" on making records. But canned air makers have a "virtual monopoly" on canned air. Super glue makers have a "virtual monopoly" on super glue. So what?
Indie musicians release their music outside the traditional channels, and if you would like to make your own canned air, if you have the resources, no one is stopping you. But, if you want a piece of music (product) managed, owned, controlled by some major label, you have to give them what they want for it. It's their product; they manage it, own or manage the rights to it. They don't have to give it to you at all, if they don't want to.
If you buy a car off the lot, you don't tell the dealership what they are going to sell it to you for, they tell you. And, if you buy that car and start producing exact copies in your garage and distributing these copies, my guess is you will get a visit from a lawyer.
Of course not. That's not what they are selling. Can I get just one section of that orange? And without the peel please. And instead of you, the seller telling me how much you want, I'll tell you how much you get...
Doesn't work that way in a Capatalist society.
The solution is exceptionally simple: When you hear a song you want, go to the store or whatever source, and buy it. You will have no problems.
Until the patent system is overhauled, this is the sort of thing that will happen. It's a waste of time fret over each individual ridiculous patent. Focus on pushing for a system revision rather than nit-picking at things which are legal within the current flawed system.
No, the fence was 500 yards from your window. On the other hand, had you been associated with China Lake, you would have lived smack dab in the God-damn middle of it.
Well, what do you expect? It's (snicker) "optimized" for Windoz users...
This is only "news" if you haven't paid any attention at all to who owns MP3.com, and the "general trend" in on-line music sites to charge for downloads. Really, to say this is "no surprise" is even an overstatement. Just another music-for-sale download site. Move along...