Stallman was never about that. He was always, and continues to be, about "the user should have absolute control over the tools he uses."
Sounds revisionists to me, I'm pretty sure the slogan was always "software should be free." Well, it is. Now he wants to make it less free.
Once you realize this, you'll see that Stallman's anti-DRM stance is entirely consistent with what his goal has always been, and that the GPL v.3 has exactly the same purpose as the GPL v.2.
Not for people who really like the simplicity of GPL 2, and don't like the political directions of GPL 3.
Now at 5 the blade density is already getting up there so I'm not quite sure how much higher they can go (without pointless tricks like splitting the blades in half and calling it "10 bladed").
Sir, if you don't patent that - and I mean right now - you're an idiot.
Since that time it appears that the real world operates on a different set of rules than RMS's "Free no matter what" and reality be damned.
Actually, I think Stallman's changed more than the notion of free software. He's gone from "Source code should be free to anyone" to "Source code should be free to anyone who agrees with my politics." Right now, "politics" means DRM. But once that can of worms opens, it might be tough to close.
In the US, that sort of thing would be labeled fascist. What are their rights, anyway? Do they even have any?
Damn it, that's not fascism. China does share some of the characteristics of a fascist state, but there are many non-fascist states that do not allow free speech. Different societies have different values, and in the growing homogenization of the West, that's lost sometimes.
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science into another chess piece. Better sort it out quick or you'll be left too far behind to catch up!
Except California, you mean? So Caltech and Berkeley are still doing fine.
I don't see any reference to that distinction in the Constitution.....
Yet the courts support different standards for all sorts of speech. Print > Broadcast > Advertising, for example. Personal web pages and comments are generally afforded the same protection as print. Not all speech is created equal.
Like it or not, the courts have as much role as the legislative branch in making laws, as far as practical matters are concerned.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?
Nope. It's certainly not codified anywhere, mainly since when they copyright act was written, the only "player" was your eyes, and the usual medium was ink on paper. It's the courts that have generally established the doctrine we refer to as fair use.
Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this
I wouldn't patronize Linus there. From everything I read, it's not that he can't see the harm in DRM - it's that he doesn't feel it's his place to wage an issue campaign with software. Why stop with DRM? Why not say that people who don't share the correct political views can't use FSF? Why not block certain countries? Linus seems to believe there's more harm done than good with this sort of thing.
Personally, I think there's a nice line somewhere between pragmatist and visionary. I think Linus has a good mix of both. I think Stallman is an ideologue, who sees the world in terms of black/white, good/evil, friend/enemy, "my way or the highway." I don't trust people like that, and I certainly can't stand working with them.
And if you want proof, go back and read the Slashdot story concerning the iPod mini announcement. Doom-and-gloom predictions left and right from everybody. Yet it becomes the #1 selling iPod.
I must have missed that one. When it came out, I thought "finally, an iPod that wouldn't be annoying as hell strapped to my arm while I run." 4 GB is a little light on space, but it's more than enough for all the songs I own that I really like. So that became my first iPod. My only complaint is that they announced the nano soon after I got my mini.
You may joke, but these days anyone who questions the current pseudoscience-dogma-of-the-month tends to get modded -1 when they interject facts into the discussion, so you're not that far off.
You know, that used to be more true. Then Digg came along and took away all the morons. Go check out some of their flamebait stories (politics would be a good start). If you don't echo the group view, you will be modded into oblivion. However, statements like "Bush is teh stupid!" will actually get modded up. Modding is definitely done by sentiment more than any actual insight.
Powerful friends and in powerful places... MPAA in Bed with VISA...
Nothing new. In most western countries, people pay taxes either directly or indirectly (through recordable media taxes) to that nation's respective recording lobby, which then generally pockets the money. It's actually fairly interesting that the US has fairly lax laws on that, not requiring such on any data CDs, hard drives, etc.
OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?
It doesn't matter. It shouldn't happen AT ALL. It's such a blatant violation of security that it's a joke. I mean really, if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed.
I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.
Yeah, I'd say you're guessing all right. I'd say the iPods were also hooked up to newish machines that gave them the virus. Owning a newish machine does not imply that its user has kept virus protection up-to-date. And many iPods - actually, most iPods - are owned by windows users. Also, given usage of AV software being rather low, I'd say *most* iPods will see the USB port of a Windows machine that hasn't seen an AV update for a little while.
In any event, this result is absolutely unacceptable, and defending it is ridiculous.
Probably it's me not being of English mother language, but I can't understand if you're mocking me or not. Can you explain?:)
Sorry, I'm not mocking you, I completely agree with you. My point (aside from being a smartass) was to suggest a potential causal mechanism for the *opposite* direction than the research claimed - namely that, since autistic children have trouble in social settings, perhaps they choose to interact with TV more? In other words, not only are you right, this research is even worse than you stated.
So you're right - a correlation not imply causation. Worse yet, 1) they state no mechanism through which a genetic disorder like autism can be caused by watching TV, and 2) it is logical that autistic kids would spend extra time with activities that don't require human interaction, like TV.
In other words, not only do they not support their suggested causal relationship, they likely got it backwards if there is any causal relationship at all!
That is, it is entirely possible (and plausible) that a correlation exists. However I'd interpret it in the reverse way. That is, the study shows just that children born with autism are more likely to spend time watching TV (knowing the features of autism, this is entirely possible).
Uh oh, someone has critical reasoning abilities! Seriously, I think you're dead on. Let's see, a disease that affects a subject's ability to interact with others. What might they turn to for interaction? Perhaps something that doesn't require social skills? Like maybe TV?
Sheesh, next thing you'll tell me is that more people with autism use slashdot.;)
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." Ok, so that isn't your zip code. Is there supposed to be somethin else there, or am I looking to hard?
90210? As in, the show? Beverly hills?
This article isn't credible. It must be a hoax. I mean, c'mon, you really expect me to believe someone wrote a 1,000 line perl script. And that it did what it was supposed to?
It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?". Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked. JUST SAY NO.
My phone number? 1-800-UP-YOURS. (Apologies to anyone who actually has that number).
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." They never catch it. That was while the show was on, of course. For reference, I lived in the midwest.
They do seem somewhat startled when I rather pleasantly answer "no" to their requests for info.
Your point is well-taken, but I can't imagine Apple sending such bad wireless to market. When the wireless iPod comes, it will work better than Zune from Day One.
Can't argue there, since it's hard to imagine it working *worse*.
You're actually missing Steve's point. He's not saying wireless sharing of music isn't a useful feature, he's saying that it's too complicated to be useful right now. So yes, he'll change his tune but only after Apple finds a way to do it "right".
Yeah, I get his "point," which is that he's setting up for the doublespeak on the wireless issue. And yes, he did say in the speech that old-fashioned podjacking is better than wireless. So he's trying to have it both ways as usual.
Not that I don't look forward to wireless on my next iPod. But I don't have to buy the spin to enjoy his products.
*Sigh* Another victim of the Reality Distortion Field (TM).
You know, he's got a point. It might seem very impressive in a geeky way to Zuma a file across the room to the pretty girl (if you don't mind that I just used "Zuma" as a verb), but she is definitely not going to be impressed unless she's also a geek. You've also got the matter of the song being played in a vacuum, where your own thoughts and feelings on the tune are missing. Thus it holds no meaning. Besides, pod-jacking gives you a much better chance of being able to talk to that pretty girl.;-)
You know damned well that when (not if) iPod comes out with wireless, his tune on that will change in a hurry. Kind of like Intel was slow until Apple was using it.
Of course, he'll have an answer about how impersonal wireless was until Apple did it. And he'll be partly right. But for now, wireless is a Zuma advangage - right now, the guy can podjack (zumajack?) the pretty girl, then when she likes the song, he can Zuma it to her. That would be pretty cool. MS should let users associate a text message with the song, that would be better. Also, would be even cooler if it didn't disappear immediately, but whatever.
I like my iPod and my powerbook, but Steve's just a little *too* slick for me. It makes me not trust anything he says, whether he's right or wrong, simply because if you let yourself get caught up in his spin, you *will* believe whatever he says.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman was never about that. He was always, and continues to be, about "the user should have absolute control over the tools he uses."
Sounds revisionists to me, I'm pretty sure the slogan was always "software should be free." Well, it is. Now he wants to make it less free.
Once you realize this, you'll see that Stallman's anti-DRM stance is entirely consistent with what his goal has always been, and that the GPL v.3 has exactly the same purpose as the GPL v.2.
Not for people who really like the simplicity of GPL 2, and don't like the political directions of GPL 3.
Now at 5 the blade density is already getting up there so I'm not quite sure how much higher they can go (without pointless tricks like splitting the blades in half and calling it "10 bladed").
Sir, if you don't patent that - and I mean right now - you're an idiot.
Come on, "Santorum" is the granddaddy of them all! Best Googlebomb ever. Have to mention that one!
Since that time it appears that the real world operates on a different set of rules than RMS's "Free no matter what" and reality be damned.
Actually, I think Stallman's changed more than the notion of free software. He's gone from "Source code should be free to anyone" to "Source code should be free to anyone who agrees with my politics." Right now, "politics" means DRM. But once that can of worms opens, it might be tough to close.
In the US, that sort of thing would be labeled fascist. What are their rights, anyway? Do they even have any?
Damn it, that's not fascism. China does share some of the characteristics of a fascist state, but there are many non-fascist states that do not allow free speech. Different societies have different values, and in the growing homogenization of the West, that's lost sometimes.
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science into another chess piece. Better sort it out quick or you'll be left too far behind to catch up!
Except California, you mean? So Caltech and Berkeley are still doing fine.
I don't see any reference to that distinction in the Constitution.....
Yet the courts support different standards for all sorts of speech. Print > Broadcast > Advertising, for example. Personal web pages and comments are generally afforded the same protection as print. Not all speech is created equal.
Like it or not, the courts have as much role as the legislative branch in making laws, as far as practical matters are concerned.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?
Nope. It's certainly not codified anywhere, mainly since when they copyright act was written, the only "player" was your eyes, and the usual medium was ink on paper. It's the courts that have generally established the doctrine we refer to as fair use.
Not to mention which, that title makes exactly 0 sense. So he nails the "pompous" and "incomprehensible" exacta.
Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this
I wouldn't patronize Linus there. From everything I read, it's not that he can't see the harm in DRM - it's that he doesn't feel it's his place to wage an issue campaign with software. Why stop with DRM? Why not say that people who don't share the correct political views can't use FSF? Why not block certain countries? Linus seems to believe there's more harm done than good with this sort of thing.
Personally, I think there's a nice line somewhere between pragmatist and visionary. I think Linus has a good mix of both. I think Stallman is an ideologue, who sees the world in terms of black/white, good/evil, friend/enemy, "my way or the highway." I don't trust people like that, and I certainly can't stand working with them.
And if you want proof, go back and read the Slashdot story concerning the iPod mini announcement. Doom-and-gloom predictions left and right from everybody. Yet it becomes the #1 selling iPod.
I must have missed that one. When it came out, I thought "finally, an iPod that wouldn't be annoying as hell strapped to my arm while I run." 4 GB is a little light on space, but it's more than enough for all the songs I own that I really like. So that became my first iPod. My only complaint is that they announced the nano soon after I got my mini.
And hell, look at 'progressives' throwing Oreos at a Senate candidate for the sin of being a black republican.
No way. Who is that? Michael Steele?
God that's disgusting.
You may joke, but these days anyone who questions the current pseudoscience-dogma-of-the-month tends to get modded -1 when they interject facts into the discussion, so you're not that far off.
You know, that used to be more true. Then Digg came along and took away all the morons. Go check out some of their flamebait stories (politics would be a good start). If you don't echo the group view, you will be modded into oblivion. However, statements like "Bush is teh stupid!" will actually get modded up. Modding is definitely done by sentiment more than any actual insight.
So thanks Digg, for making slashdot better!
Dell making apple computers would be a bit like repurposing the old Ford Taurus plant to make Ferrari's.
Is Jaguar close enough for your analogy?
Powerful friends and in powerful places... MPAA in Bed with VISA...
Nothing new. In most western countries, people pay taxes either directly or indirectly (through recordable media taxes) to that nation's respective recording lobby, which then generally pockets the money. It's actually fairly interesting that the US has fairly lax laws on that, not requiring such on any data CDs, hard drives, etc.
OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?
It doesn't matter. It shouldn't happen AT ALL. It's such a blatant violation of security that it's a joke. I mean really, if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed.
I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.
Yeah, I'd say you're guessing all right. I'd say the iPods were also hooked up to newish machines that gave them the virus. Owning a newish machine does not imply that its user has kept virus protection up-to-date. And many iPods - actually, most iPods - are owned by windows users. Also, given usage of AV software being rather low, I'd say *most* iPods will see the USB port of a Windows machine that hasn't seen an AV update for a little while.
In any event, this result is absolutely unacceptable, and defending it is ridiculous.
Still not an excuse for selling virus-ridden hardware.
Probably it's me not being of English mother language, but I can't understand if you're mocking me or not. Can you explain? :)
Sorry, I'm not mocking you, I completely agree with you. My point (aside from being a smartass) was to suggest a potential causal mechanism for the *opposite* direction than the research claimed - namely that, since autistic children have trouble in social settings, perhaps they choose to interact with TV more? In other words, not only are you right, this research is even worse than you stated.
So you're right - a correlation not imply causation. Worse yet, 1) they state no mechanism through which a genetic disorder like autism can be caused by watching TV, and 2) it is logical that autistic kids would spend extra time with activities that don't require human interaction, like TV.
In other words, not only do they not support their suggested causal relationship, they likely got it backwards if there is any causal relationship at all!
That is, it is entirely possible (and plausible) that a correlation exists. However I'd interpret it in the reverse way. That is, the study shows just that children born with autism are more likely to spend time watching TV (knowing the features of autism, this is entirely possible).
Uh oh, someone has critical reasoning abilities! Seriously, I think you're dead on. Let's see, a disease that affects a subject's ability to interact with others. What might they turn to for interaction? Perhaps something that doesn't require social skills? Like maybe TV?
Sheesh, next thing you'll tell me is that more people with autism use slashdot. ;)
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." Ok, so that isn't your zip code. Is there supposed to be somethin else there, or am I looking to hard? 90210? As in, the show? Beverly hills?
This article isn't credible. It must be a hoax. I mean, c'mon, you really expect me to believe someone wrote a 1,000 line perl script. And that it did what it was supposed to?
Sure, here's the source after I re-wrote it:
lyiyiy[]\][\[]'\;/\8768yhkj][[\][;'/.,.,,87897[] pedophiles.r.us[\][\][
LamenessLamenessLamenessLa menessLamenessLamenessLamenessLamenessLamenessLame nessLamenessLamenessLamenessLamenessLamenessLamene ssLameness
It's interesting to see the look of shock on a sales clerk's face when they ask "Can I have your phone number please?" as they begin to ring up my purchase, and I say "No." It's particularly fun when they clerk is a nice-looking woman and instead of saying "No." I'll ask, leeringly, "Can I have YOURS?". Point: A good first step is to stop giving out seemingly inoccuous information whenever asked. JUST SAY NO.
My phone number? 1-800-UP-YOURS. (Apologies to anyone who actually has that number).
I used to tell them my zip code was "nine-zero-two-one-zero." They never catch it. That was while the show was on, of course. For reference, I lived in the midwest.
They do seem somewhat startled when I rather pleasantly answer "no" to their requests for info.
Your point is well-taken, but I can't imagine Apple sending such bad wireless to market. When the wireless iPod comes, it will work better than Zune from Day One.
Can't argue there, since it's hard to imagine it working *worse*.
You're actually missing Steve's point. He's not saying wireless sharing of music isn't a useful feature, he's saying that it's too complicated to be useful right now. So yes, he'll change his tune but only after Apple finds a way to do it "right".
Yeah, I get his "point," which is that he's setting up for the doublespeak on the wireless issue. And yes, he did say in the speech that old-fashioned podjacking is better than wireless. So he's trying to have it both ways as usual.
Not that I don't look forward to wireless on my next iPod. But I don't have to buy the spin to enjoy his products.
*Sigh* Another victim of the Reality Distortion Field (TM).
You know, he's got a point. It might seem very impressive in a geeky way to Zuma a file across the room to the pretty girl (if you don't mind that I just used "Zuma" as a verb), but she is definitely not going to be impressed unless she's also a geek. You've also got the matter of the song being played in a vacuum, where your own thoughts and feelings on the tune are missing. Thus it holds no meaning. Besides, pod-jacking gives you a much better chance of being able to talk to that pretty girl. ;-)
You know damned well that when (not if) iPod comes out with wireless, his tune on that will change in a hurry. Kind of like Intel was slow until Apple was using it.
Of course, he'll have an answer about how impersonal wireless was until Apple did it. And he'll be partly right. But for now, wireless is a Zuma advangage - right now, the guy can podjack (zumajack?) the pretty girl, then when she likes the song, he can Zuma it to her. That would be pretty cool. MS should let users associate a text message with the song, that would be better. Also, would be even cooler if it didn't disappear immediately, but whatever.
I like my iPod and my powerbook, but Steve's just a little *too* slick for me. It makes me not trust anything he says, whether he's right or wrong, simply because if you let yourself get caught up in his spin, you *will* believe whatever he says.