Usually what happens is MirrorDot sees the page on Slashdot when *WE* see the page. By the time it runs off to index and leech it, the site is already down.
Can't MirrorDot or some other service be pre-warned or something, before the site is even "subscribers can see it early!!!"-worthy?
Down already, suuuucks. Now that we have cool stuff like Mirrordot, why don't you move all the links from the front page so they point there, instead of the original site?:)
> > Now I'm no prude, > > "But I don't want anyone to be able to look at any naked humans unless they are > in their own homes." Indeed.
Homes, or offices, or gardens or whatever. Why is it such a big deal NOT to be able to browse porn at a truck stop or prison?
In the latter case, please justify why convicts and death row inmates should be wasting more of my money in the already overcrowded prison system, surfing porn?
1) Tell me what content you need from a state-provided access, such as a camp site or truck stop, that is going to be erroneously filtered and cause problems for law-abiding citizens in not having that access?
2) I said "legal and illegal porn". You're debating a point I never made here? Well done.
This isn't about stopping people from getting porn, as defining the terms of access for using a service. If the state doesn't want people browsing porn or other "unsavory" content on a state-provided wireless connection, then it's their option to stop you: JUST like parents would in their own home, for their children.
Looking at porn at a truck stop or - if you read the bill also, ESPECIALLY IN A PRISON - is not exercising Freedom of Speech. Especially if you're in a prison:)
The bill doesn't "protect" anyone in it's wording, only the guy who posted the story here used that insane phrase. It simply options the ability of the state to filter OBSCENE MATERIAL. I for one approve; why would I want to pay for truckers and felons to have a wank, nor why would I want to walk through a park in Austin to find people drooling over their laptops? While there's the ability to see peoples' screens as you walk by and catch a glimpse of it, I think it's not really a fun idea to provoke or promote this kind of experience in Texas parks. Now I'm no prude, I'm into some fairly off-the-wall porn, but really that's something for my own private consumption on my own private internet connection, and not for a green grassy area or at a prison or at a truck stop:)
If a private company ran an internet cafe, and filtered such content, you would not cry foul of freedom of speech being hindered on your part; I don't see this bill as any different an action. If you want to browse "obscene material", get your own internet and quit using the state's, or the internet cafe in question, right? Exercise your freedom to choose any internet provider here:D
This is for state-provided wifi at truck stops and any other optioned facility (except Universities etc. for obvious reasons).
Tell me what content YOU really need at a truck stop, or some city building, which will marr your day by being filtered out erroneously? I would love to know how ignorant I really am.
I'm really sure you would fail to justify this to anyone who actually understands the constitution and the freedoms afforded in America, and not just a ranting hippy.
Here's a great couple of justifications for you;
"I want the State of Texas to provide free, high-bandwidth access to both legal and illegal porn at truck stops and highway service stations, because I pay for it and therefore I should be able to."
"I want the State of Texas to leave the internet open for any kid with a laptop to override their usual ISP proxies and filters (AOL etc.) at every highway service, and browse horse porn and look up bomb-making instructions sitting next to the forecourt of a gas station."
I'm sure your local candidate for government will agree to either.
As a soon-to-be taxpayer in Texas, I will say I don't give a shit if they block certain sites. So what if you want to browse porn on state time and money? I CERTAINLY don't pay taxes JUST so you can do that and I will gladly stump up the dough and elect individuals who make your life difficult in that regard. Buy a fucking GSM card if you want to look up dog-cum-guzzling self-harm-whores while you eat your waystation breakfast.
Municipal Wi-Fi as a way of getting an entire city online (mesh networks etc.) in terms of it's population's homes is bordering on impractical, costly and prone to trouble (like reception sucking ass behind someone's walls).
But Municipal Wi-Fi also includes Wi-Fi-ing up city centers etc. I think if you go to downtown Seattle or Austin or whatever (pick a city where there is a lot of tech industry, because the public uptake will be higher to start if they all work for Motorola or Microsoft:) then you should be able to get rudimentary wireless access to the net.
At home you may as well be wired and relay your own secured wireless inside your own 4+ walls.
Yeah they could. Anyone can fork the Linux kernel and produce a parallel operating system and "not care if stuff gets back to the vanilla kernel".
I'm sure there are 10s or 100s of these existing now because it's obviously such a great, workable idea with thousands of tertiary benefits besides losing Linus and his Generals.
I think it's quite self-explanatory in that this just ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS. Linux is not bigger than Linus, no software is bigger than it's authors. Linus exerts a fundamentally stable development model that no anarcho-syndicalist Free Software commune has matched in any other project.
Someone ALWAYS has to lead. I'd rather have Linus doing it than some lofty ideal of free/non-free which is crippling Debian, or the GNU philosophy of stripping authors of everything but their ability not to get ripped off by their employers.
As I said, Linus does do some stuff wrong of a time.
But Bruce is no man to criticise.
The BitKeeper license states that you cannot use BitKeeper to reverse engineer it and therefore create derivative products. Andrew Tridgell *DID* use it because he was prodding it to get the wire protocol. You don't have to be creating software with it to do that.
The fact is that he was working for OSDL, which licensed the software for obvious reasons, and the license states (and pretty much every law in every country in the world will uphold) that OSDL are responsible for upholding the license with respect to their employees or subcontractors.
BK definitely is suitable for Linux development at Linus' end, despite "concensus" of a bunch of hippies. "Linus uses it and doesn't listen to anyone else on the subject" kind of quotes piss me off - why shouldn't Linus dictate the development model and practise of HIS project? I don't see *ANY* part of the GPL or any other license that relinquishes project management to a free-not-beer committee rather than the original developer or stipulates that no commercial software ever be used to promote development of GPL software.
Linus is right in this instance. Bruce is wrong AS USUAL.
Yep, Linus has his bad days, but Bruce Perens you really take the biscuit by making it a career!:)
I also don't agree whatsoever with this "concensus" that BitKeeper was never suitable for use with a GPL project. What is this? Russia circa 1940? Bitkeeper is suitable for any project THE AUTHOR OF THE PROJECT CHOOSES. Linus may not have authored most of the code in Linux anymore but at the end of the day it's his trademark and his baby, and he can do what the hell he likes.
This assumption that GPL software MUST be developed at the expense of the wishes of the author (by other authors, no less) ALWAYS bewilders me. Linux is developed in a great development style by a guy who knows his shit when it comes to developing and managing the development of software. The upshot of this is that it's practically a military dictatorship (Linus even has "generals"); but this is good for the direction and development in so many ways.
Linus say, developers had better bloody well do. If it means using some proprietary software in order to get the job done, WHO CARES?
Bruce, shut your trap before you lose what little respect you had in the real world. You advocated IP theft *AND* called Linus an idiot, why would any business trust you anymore? You already screwed up Debian, OSI and UserLinux, 3 projects you did an immensely bad job on. It seems to be you're just just an ineffectual wuss, you're also GREEN WITH ENVY:)
They can always have this stuff built in to a settop or something.
But what hardware company would make it (no profit in selling shows, therefore no hardware subsidy, therefore $499 settops instead of $49 one-offs) and what content company would subsidise the bandwidth required to allow it?
Zero.
Really this kind of effort needs to be organised in cooperation with existing networks and NOT a hippy open-source movement. Public access cable is the PITS, people want Star Trek, they want Desperate Housewives, they want Queer Eye and The Apprentice, not "Neonazi Appreciation Society" or "John's DIY Show".
What self-respecting TV network would donate shows to it? Considering it's all GPL, what self-respecting cable network would risk throwing their entire cable settop firmware (including the PPV encryption stuff:) out to the public, in addition to a few lame-ass Wayne's Worlds?
This is no better than public access cable shows - your freedom to make shows and have them distributed is subordinate only to the freedom of the cable subscribers not to watch the inane bullshit that you produce.
Steve Jobs is CEO of Pixar Animation Studios, the Academy-Award® -winning computer animation pioneer which he co-founded in 1986. The Northern California studio has created six of the most successful and beloved animated films of all time: Toy Story (1995); A Bug's Life (1998); Toy Story 2 (1999); Monsters, Inc. (2001); Finding Nemo (2003); and The Incredibles (2004). Pixar's six films have earned more than $3 billion at the worldwide box office to date. Pixar's next film release is Cars (June 9, 2006). Steve grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as Silicon Valley, and still lives there with his wife and children.
I think the point was he worked for Apple for free, saving a million or two dollars he could plough into the iMac. That's a kind of dedication.
I must say the Google guys could do the same. How big are their salaries, beyond stock options? How much development could you do on ploughing that back into the company instead of it just gaining interest in their personal bank account?:)
Seriously why would you need a salary when you have the credit rating associated with owning Google?
Steve Jobs is in the same boat; he worked for the use of a private jet one year, he doesn't need a salary - he founded Apple, Pixar and continues to run both. I doubt his wallet is dusty dry after The Incredibles or the iPod.
This website plastering is just scaremongering, FUD of the worst order, to try and make people run off frightened and contact their local politicians about it.
Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit. If anyone wants to use the code commercially they will no doubt buy a license to do so, the advantage here is that there is a simple way to get some working code, which allows more people to get to a point where they need to license.
It's a distinct advantage to patent holders (no requirement to maintain their own source code base etc., and an entire market of willing customers which would otherwise not exist) and the patent holders know it.
I'm confused as to why they haven't shipped these disks already. Surely the technology was first announced years and years ago? Has GMR etc. head sensitivity really been that hard to improve?
Isn't the point of an Orwellian society that you don't really get to opt-out because conformance is required?
How can you opt out of a system which would be expanded to enforce security, money, identification for benefits etc. allowing you to do nothing without it?
The poster could have instead just said "given the choice between Orwellian societies I would rather live in a cave on a beach and my volleyball friend".
The flaws in the software patent system have spawned a whole new kind of patent filing; that with which to PROTECT things so that OTHER unscrupulous assholes don't patent them instead.
Imagine if a fairly original idea was had, but it was SO obviously done. Patent it. Patent it NOW. Otherwise when someone has the same idea in the same week and they patent it, they will f**k you in the ass in 9 years when you finally finish your software.
Case in point;
Apple, IBM and Motorola have patented many algorithms using AltiVec units in order to protect the vector unit from unscrupulous "inventors". If the vectorisation of an algorithm is patented by someone else, they may choose to charge extortionate fees for the licensing, at which point to effectively use a processor you first have to buy it and then pay some unrelated company a fee. This is obviously unacceptable.
IBM and Novell have been doing exactly the same for Linux in the past years too. SGI have patented a few things in OpenGL in order to protect the API.
These uses of software patent law IMPROVE matters, not "kill and inhibit" software and progress.
Microsoft here have basically repatented their own "AutoNet" idea (the use of a certain range of IP addresses to give to network cards if DHCP isn't there, no other address protocol can be found, and an ARP check tells it's not already in use). It's defined in prior-art style in RFC1971 for IPv6 (1995/1996) so the patent isn't "enforcable" per se by any company (Microsoft couldn't hope to use it to extort money).
This is so obviously a cheap legal protection tactic, which any IP lawyer worth is salt would suggest to the engineers defining the standard. Patent it now before some prick does it for us.
I don't mind as long as I get to listen to it how I want.
DRM might be useful in order to "Watermark" media to show that it is the original recording. It would be good for stopping lower-quality bootlegs from flooding the market (the "China" problem), just reencoded onto a DVD or a 2-channel audio stream for someone else to make a quick buck from a brand.
Apple's current usage to encrypt the media to stop you playing it on too many devices is a little OTT. Infinite iPods but what if you leave your iPod at home and want to play it on your laptop in another country?
DRM should be about protecting the interests of artists and consumers, and not restricting their rights. Remember it's meant to be rights MANAGEMENT, not removal. The suits just didn't catch on yet but they will.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually what happens is MirrorDot sees the page on Slashdot when *WE* see the page. By the time it runs off to index and leech it, the site is already down.
Can't MirrorDot or some other service be pre-warned or something, before the
site is even "subscribers can see it early!!!"-worthy?
Neko
Down already, suuuucks. Now that we have cool stuff like Mirrordot, why :)
don't you move all the links from the front page so they point there,
instead of the original site?
19th January 2038 half of us will be dead! Who needs to count the seconds after
that?
> > Now I'm no prude,
>
> "But I don't want anyone to be able to look at any naked humans unless they are
> in their own homes." Indeed.
Homes, or offices, or gardens or whatever. Why is it such a big deal NOT to be
able to browse porn at a truck stop or prison?
In the latter case, please justify why convicts and death row inmates should be
wasting more of my money in the already overcrowded prison system, surfing porn?
Neko
Since when is porn classified as a religion?
Neko
Let's pick at these comments;
:)
:)
:D
1) Tell me what content you need from a state-provided access, such as a camp site or truck stop, that is going to be erroneously filtered and cause problems for law-abiding citizens in not having that access?
2) I said "legal and illegal porn". You're debating a point I never made here?
Well done.
This isn't about stopping people from getting porn, as defining the terms of
access for using a service. If the state doesn't want people browsing porn or
other "unsavory" content on a state-provided wireless connection, then it's
their option to stop you: JUST like parents would in their own home, for their
children.
Looking at porn at a truck stop or - if you read the bill also, ESPECIALLY IN A
PRISON - is not exercising Freedom of Speech. Especially if you're in a prison
The bill doesn't "protect" anyone in it's wording, only the guy who posted
the story here used that insane phrase. It simply options the ability of the
state to filter OBSCENE MATERIAL. I for one approve; why would I want to pay
for truckers and felons to have a wank, nor why would I want to walk through
a park in Austin to find people drooling over their laptops? While there's the ability to see peoples' screens as you walk by and catch a glimpse of it, I
think it's not really a fun idea to provoke or promote this kind of experience in Texas parks. Now I'm no prude, I'm into some fairly off-the-wall porn, but really that's something for my own private consumption on my own private internet connection, and not for a green grassy area or at a prison or at a truck stop
If a private company ran an internet cafe, and filtered such content, you would
not cry foul of freedom of speech being hindered on your part; I don't see this
bill as any different an action. If you want to browse "obscene material", get
your own internet and quit using the state's, or the internet cafe in question,
right? Exercise your freedom to choose any internet provider here
Neko
This is for state-provided wifi at truck stops and any other optioned facility (except Universities etc. for obvious reasons).
Tell me what content YOU really need at a truck stop, or some city building,
which will marr your day by being filtered out erroneously? I would love to know
how ignorant I really am.
Neko
I'm really sure you would fail to justify this to anyone who actually
understands the constitution and the freedoms afforded in America, and
not just a ranting hippy.
Here's a great couple of justifications for you;
"I want the State of Texas to provide free, high-bandwidth access to
both legal and illegal porn at truck stops and highway service stations,
because I pay for it and therefore I should be able to."
"I want the State of Texas to leave the internet open for any kid with
a laptop to override their usual ISP proxies and filters (AOL etc.)
at every highway service, and browse horse porn and look up bomb-making
instructions sitting next to the forecourt of a gas station."
I'm sure your local candidate for government will agree to either.
As a soon-to-be taxpayer in Texas, I will say I don't give a shit if
they block certain sites. So what if you want to browse porn on state
time and money? I CERTAINLY don't pay taxes JUST so you can do that
and I will gladly stump up the dough and elect individuals who make
your life difficult in that regard. Buy a fucking GSM card if you
want to look up dog-cum-guzzling self-harm-whores while you eat your
waystation breakfast.
Neko
Municipal Wi-Fi as a way of getting an entire city online (mesh networks etc.)
in terms of it's population's homes is bordering on impractical, costly and
prone to trouble (like reception sucking ass behind someone's walls).
But Municipal Wi-Fi also includes Wi-Fi-ing up city centers etc. I think if you
go to downtown Seattle or Austin or whatever (pick a city where there is a lot
of tech industry, because the public uptake will be higher to start if they all
work for Motorola or Microsoft
wireless access to the net.
At home you may as well be wired and relay your own secured wireless inside your
own 4+ walls.
Neko
And you're too much of a pussy to get an account and show who you are.
And?
Neko
Yeah they could. Anyone can fork the Linux kernel and produce a parallel operating system and "not care if stuff gets back to the vanilla kernel".
I'm sure there are 10s or 100s of these existing now because it's obviously such a great, workable idea with thousands of tertiary benefits besides losing Linus and his Generals.
I think it's quite self-explanatory in that this just ISN'T WHAT HAPPENS. Linux
is not bigger than Linus, no software is bigger than it's authors. Linus exerts
a fundamentally stable development model that no anarcho-syndicalist Free Software commune has matched in any other project.
Someone ALWAYS has to lead. I'd rather have Linus doing it than some lofty ideal
of free/non-free which is crippling Debian, or the GNU philosophy of stripping authors of everything but their ability not to get ripped off by their employers.
Neko
As I said, Linus does do some stuff wrong of a time.
But Bruce is no man to criticise.
The BitKeeper license states that you cannot use BitKeeper to reverse engineer
it and therefore create derivative products. Andrew Tridgell *DID* use it because
he was prodding it to get the wire protocol. You don't have to be creating
software with it to do that.
The fact is that he was working for OSDL, which licensed the software for obvious
reasons, and the license states (and pretty much every law in every country in
the world will uphold) that OSDL are responsible for upholding the license with
respect to their employees or subcontractors.
BK definitely is suitable for Linux development at Linus' end, despite "concensus"
of a bunch of hippies. "Linus uses it and doesn't listen to anyone else on the
subject" kind of quotes piss me off - why shouldn't Linus dictate the development
model and practise of HIS project? I don't see *ANY* part of the GPL or any other
license that relinquishes project management to a free-not-beer committee rather
than the original developer or stipulates that no commercial software ever be
used to promote development of GPL software.
Linus is right in this instance. Bruce is wrong AS USUAL.
Neko
Yep, Linus has his bad days, but Bruce Perens you really take the
biscuit by making it a career!
I also don't agree whatsoever with this "concensus" that BitKeeper was
never suitable for use with a GPL project. What is this? Russia circa
1940? Bitkeeper is suitable for any project THE AUTHOR OF THE PROJECT
CHOOSES. Linus may not have authored most of the code in Linux anymore
but at the end of the day it's his trademark and his baby, and he can
do what the hell he likes.
This assumption that GPL software MUST be developed at the expense of
the wishes of the author (by other authors, no less) ALWAYS bewilders
me. Linux is developed in a great development style by a guy who knows
his shit when it comes to developing and managing the development of
software. The upshot of this is that it's practically a military
dictatorship (Linus even has "generals"); but this is good for the
direction and development in so many ways.
Linus say, developers had better bloody well do. If it means using
some proprietary software in order to get the job done, WHO CARES?
Bruce, shut your trap before you lose what little respect you had in
the real world. You advocated IP theft *AND* called Linus an idiot,
why would any business trust you anymore? You already screwed up
Debian, OSI and UserLinux, 3 projects you did an immensely bad job
on. It seems to be you're just just an ineffectual wuss, you're
also GREEN WITH ENVY
Neko
They can always have this stuff built in to a settop or something.
But what hardware company would make it (no profit in selling shows, therefore
no hardware subsidy, therefore $499 settops instead of $49 one-offs) and what
content company would subsidise the bandwidth required to allow it?
Zero.
Really this kind of effort needs to be organised in cooperation with existing
networks and NOT a hippy open-source movement. Public access cable is the PITS,
people want Star Trek, they want Desperate Housewives, they want Queer Eye and
The Apprentice, not "Neonazi Appreciation Society" or "John's DIY Show".
Neko
What self-respecting TV network would donate shows to it? Considering it's all
GPL, what self-respecting cable network would risk throwing their entire cable
settop firmware (including the PPV encryption stuff
addition to a few lame-ass Wayne's Worlds?
This is no better than public access cable shows - your freedom to make shows and
have them distributed is subordinate only to the freedom of the cable subscribers
not to watch the inane bullshit that you produce.
Therein lies the rub!
Neko
Hmm!
http://corporate.pixar.com/management.cfm?ShowBi o=Jobs
Steve Jobs is CEO of Pixar Animation Studios, the Academy-Award® -winning computer animation pioneer which he co-founded in 1986. The Northern California studio has created six of the most successful and beloved animated films of all time: Toy Story (1995); A Bug's Life (1998); Toy Story 2 (1999); Monsters, Inc. (2001); Finding Nemo (2003); and The Incredibles (2004). Pixar's six films have earned more than $3 billion at the worldwide box office to date. Pixar's next film release is Cars (June 9, 2006). Steve grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as Silicon Valley, and still lives there with his wife and children.
I think the point was he worked for Apple for free, saving a million or two dollars he could plough into the iMac. That's a kind of dedication.
:)
I must say the Google guys could do the same. How big are their salaries, beyond stock options? How much development could you do on ploughing that back into the company instead of it just gaining interest in their personal bank account?
neko
Seriously why would you need a salary when you have the credit rating associated
with owning Google?
Steve Jobs is in the same boat; he worked for the use of a private jet one year,
he doesn't need a salary - he founded Apple, Pixar and continues to run both.
I doubt his wallet is dusty dry after The Incredibles or the iPod.
Neko
This website plastering is just scaremongering, FUD of the worst order, to
try and make people run off frightened and contact their local politicians
about it.
Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit. If anyone wants to use
the code commercially they will no doubt buy a license to do so, the advantage
here is that there is a simple way to get some working code, which allows more
people to get to a point where they need to license.
It's a distinct advantage to patent holders (no requirement to maintain their
own source code base etc., and an entire market of willing customers which
would otherwise not exist) and the patent holders know it.
Neko
I'm confused as to why they haven't shipped these disks already. Surely the technology was first announced years and years ago? Has GMR etc. head sensitivity really been that hard to improve?
Isn't the point of an Orwellian society that you don't really get to opt-out because conformance is required?
How can you opt out of a system which would be expanded to enforce security, money, identification for benefits etc. allowing you to do nothing without it?
The poster could have instead just said "given the choice between Orwellian societies I would rather live in a cave on a beach and my volleyball friend".
Neko
Yes, but why donate it? Why not let MS bankroll it's upkeep?
The flaws in the software patent system have spawned a whole new kind of patent
filing; that with which to PROTECT things so that OTHER unscrupulous assholes
don't patent them instead.
Imagine if a fairly original idea was had, but it was SO obviously done. Patent
it. Patent it NOW. Otherwise when someone has the same idea in the same week
and they patent it, they will f**k you in the ass in 9 years when you finally
finish your software.
Case in point;
Apple, IBM and Motorola have patented many algorithms using AltiVec units in order
to protect the vector unit from unscrupulous "inventors". If the vectorisation of
an algorithm is patented by someone else, they may choose to charge extortionate
fees for the licensing, at which point to effectively use a processor you first
have to buy it and then pay some unrelated company a fee. This is obviously
unacceptable.
IBM and Novell have been doing exactly the same for Linux in the past years too.
SGI have patented a few things in OpenGL in order to protect the API.
These uses of software patent law IMPROVE matters, not "kill and inhibit" software
and progress.
Microsoft here have basically repatented their own "AutoNet" idea (the use of a certain range of IP addresses to give to network cards if DHCP isn't there, no
other address protocol can be found, and an ARP check tells it's not already in
use). It's defined in prior-art style in RFC1971 for IPv6 (1995/1996) so the patent isn't "enforcable" per se by any company (Microsoft couldn't hope to use
it to extort money).
This is so obviously a cheap legal protection tactic, which any IP lawyer worth
is salt would suggest to the engineers defining the standard. Patent it now before
some prick does it for us.
Neko
I don't mind as long as I get to listen to it how I want.
DRM might be useful in order to "Watermark" media to show that it is the original recording. It would be good for stopping lower-quality bootlegs from flooding the market (the "China" problem), just reencoded onto a DVD or a 2-channel audio stream for someone else to make a quick buck from a brand.
Apple's current usage to encrypt the media to stop you playing it on too many
devices is a little OTT. Infinite iPods but what if you leave your iPod at home
and want to play it on your laptop in another country?
DRM should be about protecting the interests of artists and consumers, and not
restricting their rights. Remember it's meant to be rights MANAGEMENT, not
removal. The suits just didn't catch on yet but they will.
Neko