Adding JavaScript to a product who's design goals was to preserve formatting equivalent to a printed page was probably one of the worst software decisions I've seen.
> I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it, it should be given to the public domain.
Who is to say what Plans are in my head at any given time?
And individual should have some time to develop commercial plans even if they did not originally set out to make money from their invention. The idea that they have to have a business plan in order to get a patent is sort of silly. You can download a business plan from the net, and submit it as proof of "Planning to make money".
After some low number of years the benefit to society that is stymied by the developer's dis-interest exceeds any value that be achieved by allowing the patent to stand.
Your argument would make far more sense if you suggested additional patent life be granted if the patent were being exercised (in production and being sold).
Typically states do not tax sales to citizens of other states or tax good purchased from other states because 1) its bad for business, driving mail-order companies out of state, and 2) The murky provisions of Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 have, in the past been seen as making such a tax illegal.
Therefore, most states will only tax transactions where the seller has a presence in the state.
*nix does well at addressing the need to control the operating system. It's horrible at addressing the need to control applications that are running on that operating system.
It may be possible but it sure as hell isn't easy or convenient.
Its not easy or convenient or cheap in windows either. Yet somehow you aim this criticism only at Nix? Whats up with that?
You might be able to fight this by Slipping provisions in privacy legislation to prevent record keeping beyond 3 months for this sort of thing. This catches the most egregious offenders, but works no "corruption of blood"
Why pose the question as if it is a failing of Linux/Unix that it can be opened up like dropped watermelon via a simple Knoppix disk? How would Windows fare?
Why not mention screw drivers. You can yank the drives out an take them home with a screw driver. Yup, this linux thing is never going to fly till the catch up with windows and provide a defense against the screw driver.
oh, wait...
Look, If your admins don't know how to lock your bios they deserve all the havoc you can inflict on the machine.
Oh, Adolf, I think I hear your pink slip calling....
How did we get from 300 desktops to 40,000 without so much as an explanation?
Why does the bar keep moving every time a reasonable method is pointed out?
And why is someone who pretends to be maintaining 40k desktops posting on slashdot unless they have already solved these problems? If they hadn't, they would still be applying patches from 2006 with no time to post.
Realistically, anyone running 40k desktops has their own repository, and simply puts the upgraded packages therein, and allows the automated scheduled update take care of it.
This is linux. You do it all remotely, and you can build clone the machines pre-set up exactly the way you want them.
This is not hard. But first you have to purge the microsoft mentality from your thinking. Forget Sneakernet. Think more Fat-Ass net. Like me sitting here on my fat ass managing a dozen machines for naive users located 1400 miles away.
You just never give users root access, and you set your permissions properly. You can use SeLinux, AppArmor, or any number of free management tools that all work remotely. You don't have to rely on everyone to act nice because you can lock it down just as tight as you want.
If its a business, why not start with a business solution like Novell SLED. Its made for the enterprise. And it locks down nicely.
None of this stuff is free in the windows world, but its all available for free in the Linux world, OR you can pay for it and still save money over Windows.
But there are free remote management utilities included with every Linux distro. Its called ssh.
> Did you know that if you stream your own music on the internet you have to pay a fee to one of the incumbents puppet companies created by the government?
I don't believe this.
Anyone can set up a Linux box and stream their own music (recorded by themselves, not under contract). The technology to do this is trivial. But somehow the guitarist who can re-wire his own amp, set up his own mics record, mix, and burn his own demo cd can't seem to take the next step, or find any company who will host his music for him for a reasonable fee.
Without copyright, every artist would simply resort to live performances, and we'd have a situation where hearing our favorite music was a matter of being in the right place at the right time and paying a hefty cover charge, *every time*.
I don't believe that for a second. And deep down, neither do you I suspect.
The problem isn't copyright.
Other than a few Cathedral/Bazaar types, few people advocate for the total abolishment of copyright. We don't mind paying a reasonable price for good recordings. We wouldn't even mind paying per-Listening if any suitable billing system could be contrived.
Music did not spontaneously arise upon the invention of copyright. People did, and still would, gladly pay the artists either directly OR for recordings. But we need not return to pre-copyright era to achieve a balance.
This is my only point. The sooner the artists "grow up" and take control of a modern private electronic distribution chain, the better for all concerned.
As for the "few" that get exploited, I think you would be surprised at the candid opinions of virtually every major recording artist on this issue. Yet, to date, they have had no real choice but to sign, sign, sign.
Apple is not UP Front with their application denial policy. It has never been explicitly publicized, and it is enforced with whimsy and capacious inconsistency. They disallow one app but allow another that does the exact same thing. They disallow competent email apps because they would "compete" with the built in Email app. Compete? (They mean "show up".)
Some apps they refuse to give because Steve Jobs says NO. No other reason. The Iphone Camera can take movies. (Most cell cameras can). Steve says NO. If you jailbreak you can take movies.
If you live in Apple's world, have a Mac at home, you probably think this is just the way it is. But if you come from a Linux or Windows environment you can not conceive of why one Fart app is denied while another is approved. Why you can't send MMS on the device.
And because you are from the Mac world this is ok by you, you are so used to being told exactly what you can and can't do by Apple you know no other way.
Apple are not a monopoly (or even remotely close), so they don't have to play by monopoly rules.
That remains to be seen.
Apple can not invite third party developers to their store and then impose arbitrary and inconsistent restrictions on one application which do not apply to all. Once you open your lunch counter for business you can no longer choose to let in Baptists but not Catholics, Whites but not Blacks and hide behind the fact that there are other lunch counters in town.
You would be first in line if Microsoft prevented you from running OpenOffice, or Apple locked Firefox off of the Mac. Yet for some reason you think Apple gets veto power over applications based on whimsy?!?
If the playing field were level there would be no reason for a third party store. But when Google can break the rules of iPhone development and other programmers can't there is something seriously wrong.
But if you buy a Ford, you have to by Exxon Gas only, and you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford, and you can only use Ford parts, and you can only use Ford windshield washer fluid, and the radio will only tune in the Ford Station.
If you put any item not approved by Ford and sold by Ford in the truckbed your warranty is void and you committed a DCMA violation.
It is not significant in my opinion that a not for profit government funded organization which has never charged for its content chooses to use someone else's band width and disk space to give away their content, when giving away content is exactly what they are mandated to do.
The clear focus of this thread is that this is a wake-up call for mainstream media. You need only read a few of the comments to realize that this is what the majority of the rush-to-post crowd is thinking.
But those with the faulty business model are not the record labels. They are simply doing what anyone handed an insanely lucrative monopoly would do. Milk it and Preserve it by all means possible.
No, it is "Those who have talent" (allegedly) who have the flawed model. It hasn't been working for them for 20 years, most bands see mere pennies from each CD sale. Young, penniless, and desperate, they sign ridiculous contracts only to be raped for the rest of their lives.
In the digital age, this failed model should break first, then the labels will disappear on their own.
I fervently hope the labels DON'T wake up to the true potential of digital distribution. That would merely condemns another few generations of musicians to enslavement.
New talent has to do what Doctors, Lawyers, Office Workers, Factory Workers, cops, and bus drivers have done. Embrace the technology.
My understanding is that dual (or any multiple) encryption provides no additional protection because brute forcing the product is no more difficult than brute forcing the first encryption.
Slashdot Mirror
> suing somebody for breaking the law is un-America. Just where the fuck do you get this shit from?
Why yes, it is unamerican.
Can you sue because some fool parallel parked too far from the curb?
Enforcement of law is not a job of civil courts.
Adding JavaScript to a product who's design goals was to preserve formatting
equivalent to a printed page was probably one of the worst software decisions
I've seen.
There are several.
Unless your definition of "decent" means bit-for-bit identical to Acrobat, in which case there are none.
See any competent linux distro.
If bands don't work for society then why the hell would they record music and sell it in stores?
They demand protection of Society. They sell to Society.
Have you thought this response thru in your rush to post?
Did music ONLY arise after the invention of Copyright?
> Lazy Pink Floyd, go and record another masterpiece, dammit!
Wouldn't society be better served by this than having them suck gin by the pool for the rest of their life?
just sayin...
> I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it, it should be given to the public domain.
Who is to say what Plans are in my head at any given time?
And individual should have some time to develop commercial plans even if they did not originally set out to make money from their invention. The idea that they have to have a business plan in order to get a patent is sort of silly. You can download a business plan from the net, and submit it as proof of "Planning to make money".
After some low number of years the benefit to society that is stymied by the developer's dis-interest exceeds any value that be achieved by allowing the patent to stand.
Your argument would make far more sense if you suggested additional patent life be granted if the patent were being exercised (in production and being sold).
Typically states do not tax sales to citizens of other states or tax good purchased from other states because 1) its bad for business, driving mail-order companies out of state, and 2) The murky provisions of Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 have, in the past been seen as making such a tax illegal.
Therefore, most states will only tax transactions where the seller has a presence in the state.
Mod parent insightful.
A browser designed for a netbook ought to run just fine on my aging laptop.
*nix does well at addressing the need to control the operating system. It's horrible at addressing the need to control applications that are running on that operating system.
It may be possible but it sure as hell isn't easy or convenient.
Its not easy or convenient or cheap in windows either.
Yet somehow you aim this criticism only at Nix?
Whats up with that?
You might be able to fight this by Slipping provisions in privacy legislation to prevent record keeping beyond 3 months for this sort of thing. This catches the most egregious offenders, but works no "corruption of blood"
What about Knoppix?
Why pose the question as if it is a failing of Linux/Unix that it can be opened up
like dropped watermelon via a simple Knoppix disk? How would Windows fare?
Why not mention screw drivers. You can yank the drives out an take them
home with a screw driver. Yup, this linux thing is never going to fly till
the catch up with windows and provide a defense against the screw driver.
oh, wait...
Look, If your admins don't know how to lock your bios they deserve all the havoc you can
inflict on the machine.
Oh, Adolf, I think I hear your pink slip calling....
How did we get from 300 desktops to 40,000 without so much as an explanation?
Why does the bar keep moving every time a reasonable method is pointed out?
And why is someone who pretends to be maintaining 40k desktops posting on
slashdot unless they have already solved these problems? If they hadn't, they
would still be applying patches from 2006 with no time to post.
Realistically, anyone running 40k desktops has their own repository, and simply
puts the upgraded packages therein, and allows the automated scheduled update take care of it.
Sneaker net?
This is linux. You do it all remotely, and you can build clone the machines pre-set up
exactly the way you want them.
This is not hard. But first you have to purge the microsoft mentality from your thinking.
Forget Sneakernet. Think more Fat-Ass net. Like me sitting here on my fat ass managing
a dozen machines for naive users located 1400 miles away.
You just never give users root access, and you set your permissions properly.
You can use SeLinux, AppArmor, or any number of free management tools that
all work remotely. You don't have to rely on everyone to act nice because
you can lock it down just as tight as you want.
If its a business, why not start with a business solution like Novell SLED.
Its made for the enterprise. And it locks down nicely.
None of this stuff is free in the windows world, but its all available
for free in the Linux world, OR you can pay for it and still save money
over Windows.
But there are free remote management utilities included with every Linux distro.
Its called ssh.
Yes, spawn of Santa, mothered by Dyslexia.
> Did you know that if you stream your own music on the internet you have to pay a fee to one of the incumbents puppet companies created by the government?
I don't believe this.
Anyone can set up a Linux box and stream their own music (recorded by themselves, not under contract).
The technology to do this is trivial. But somehow the guitarist who can re-wire his own amp, set up his own mics record, mix, and burn his own demo cd can't seem to take the next step, or find any company who will host his music for him for a reasonable fee.
Without copyright, every artist would simply resort to live performances, and we'd have a situation where hearing our favorite music was a matter of being in the right place at the right time and paying a hefty cover charge, *every time*.
I don't believe that for a second. And deep down, neither do you I suspect.
The problem isn't copyright.
Other than a few Cathedral/Bazaar types, few people advocate for the total abolishment of copyright. We don't mind paying a reasonable price for good recordings. We wouldn't even mind paying per-Listening if any suitable billing system could be contrived.
Music did not spontaneously arise upon the invention of copyright. People did, and still would, gladly pay the artists either directly OR for recordings. But we need not return to pre-copyright era to achieve a balance.
This is my only point. The sooner the artists "grow up" and take control of a modern private electronic distribution chain, the better for all concerned.
As for the "few" that get exploited, I think you would be surprised at the candid opinions of virtually every major recording artist on this issue. Yet, to date, they have had no real choice but to sign, sign, sign.
Apple is not UP Front with their application denial policy. It has never been explicitly publicized, and it is enforced with whimsy and capacious inconsistency. They disallow one app but allow another that does the exact same thing. They disallow competent email apps because they would "compete" with the built in Email app. Compete? (They mean "show up".)
Some apps they refuse to give because Steve Jobs says NO. No other reason. The Iphone Camera can take movies. (Most cell cameras can). Steve says NO. If you jailbreak you can take movies.
If you live in Apple's world, have a Mac at home, you probably think this is just the way it is. But if you come from a Linux or Windows environment you can not conceive of why one Fart app is denied while another is approved. Why you can't send MMS on the device.
And because you are from the Mac world this is ok by you, you are so used to being told exactly what you can and can't do by Apple you know no other way.
ssh, quiet, don't tell him...
Apple are not a monopoly (or even remotely close), so they don't have to play by monopoly rules.
That remains to be seen.
Apple can not invite third party developers to their store and then impose arbitrary and inconsistent restrictions on one application which do not apply to all. Once you open your lunch counter for business you can no longer choose to let in Baptists but not Catholics, Whites but not Blacks and hide behind the fact that there are other lunch counters in town.
You would be first in line if Microsoft prevented you from running OpenOffice, or Apple locked Firefox off of the Mac. Yet for some reason you think Apple gets veto power over applications based on whimsy?!?
Good apps are denied for no reason at all, the "pocket denial": http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/09/steve-jobs-please-approve-the-missing-children-app/?source=yahoo_quote
If the playing field were level there would be no reason for a third party store. But when Google can break the rules of iPhone development and other programmers can't there is something seriously wrong.
Mr BadAnalogyGuy, is that you?
You can buy any truck you want.
But if you buy a Ford, you have to by Exxon Gas only, and you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford, and you can only use Ford parts, and you can only use Ford windshield washer fluid, and the radio will only tune in the Ford Station.
If you put any item not approved by Ford and sold by Ford in the truckbed your warranty is void and you committed a DCMA violation.
It is not significant in my opinion that a not for profit government funded organization which has never charged for its content chooses to use someone else's band width and disk space to give away their content, when giving away content is exactly what they are mandated to do.
The clear focus of this thread is that this is a wake-up call for mainstream media. You need only read a few of the comments to realize that this is what the majority of the rush-to-post crowd is thinking.
NPR is a closer analog than is the BBC.
A very succinct statement of the entire industry.
But those with the faulty business model are not the record labels. They are simply
doing what anyone handed an insanely lucrative monopoly would do. Milk it and Preserve it by all means possible.
No, it is "Those who have talent" (allegedly) who have the flawed model. It hasn't been working for them for 20 years, most bands see mere pennies from each CD sale. Young, penniless, and desperate, they sign ridiculous contracts only to be raped for the rest of their lives.
In the digital age, this failed model should break first, then the labels will disappear on their own.
I fervently hope the labels DON'T wake up to the true potential of digital distribution. That would merely condemns another few generations of musicians to enslavement.
New talent has to do what Doctors, Lawyers, Office Workers, Factory Workers, cops, and bus drivers have done. Embrace the technology.
An additional layer of encryption can't be bad.
Probably not with different encryption schemes.
My understanding is that dual (or any multiple) encryption provides no additional
protection because brute forcing the product is no more difficult than brute forcing
the first encryption.
> if you were an agend of some government...
You wouldn't have to "tamper" with drives after manufacture.
You would already have your built in back door.
I don't see it that way. Its no worse than a password protected account on a machine.
Do you write down a password you use every day?
If this implemented on a wide scale, you wouldn't need any other passwords on a single user machine such as a laptop.
Clearly, on a corporate or multi-user machine, its a problem (additional password), because you end up having to give it to every user.