You want a better solution to the problems? Let's see, how about we search ALL baggage that's going on to an airplane with good, sound bomb, chemical, and weapons detection devices.
Strong agreement, with one provision: Anything found in such a search that is NOT a bomb (or other airplane-wrecker) MUST be ignored. If they find drugs, currency, kiddy porn, whatever, they can't do jack shit about it. No way can they be allowed to use the "terrorist threat" excuse as a fishing expedition for enforcing every law on the books. While I might be convinced to submit to a weapons search for the protection of the airplane (the airline's private property) and its passengers, I refuse to submit to a random search for "whatever we might find and decide to keep".
So far we've had no such guarantees. That's why I haven't been on an airplane in years, not because I'm afraid of some suicidal yahoo with a razor blade. (Of course I am afraid of razor-toting wackos, but they're rare enough that I don't let them rule my life.)
That's all fine and dandy but the problem with the Libertarians is that they do not have a realistic plan for running the country.
They have this idealistic notion involving minimizing governmental power and control, but you start asking the Libertarian
candidates how they'll handle situations that need to be mandated on a national level (pollution & environmental, business
monopolization, utility regulation, transportation, etc.) they give you a bunch of double-talk that indicates they have no plan, nor
a solid idea of what they're doing.
Yep, just like the Demopublicans.
Libertarian politicians suck, almost as much as other politicians.
Seriously, what's the Democrat plan for running the country? They have no plan, they just wing it. They don't even have ideals or principles to guide them.
What terrorist threat? Is anybody actually afraid of terrorists? When I first heard of the 9/11 attacks I was indeed terrified, but not of hijackers and bombers, or (somewhat later) snipers or poisoners -- I was afraid of police and soldiers, of the tyrrany and oppression that I knew would ensue.
his actions do not speak of someone trying to help BestBuy.
Uh, yes, that's exactly the point: If trying to help gets you in as much trouble as trying to blackmail, then you might as well skip "helping" and go straight for the blackmail, and at least [maybe] make some money before you eventually get caught and sent to prison. Either way you're treated like a criminal, so why not actually be a criminal?
MP3 frames are something like 25 ms in duration. That's 0.025 seconds for a complete frame. An extra partial frame to pad out the end of a track would be less. That is nowhere near 1/2 second -- if you have 1/2 second gaps between tracks it's your encoder (or maybe your player, or possibly your CD ripper) inserting the extra blank space.
You might hear a single 100% silent frame between songs as a "click" (maybe, if you listen carefully) but in reality there would never be a 100% silent frame inserted, and most decoders are pretty good at covering up inter-frame glitches.
I can't see how this applies to 2.2. In the new 2.4.24 patch to mremap, a new size of zero is explicitly allowed if new_addr==addr. In 2.2 there was no new_addr argument to mremap, so effectively new_addr==addr always. Is there a bug in 2.2's munmap that was fixed sometime in 2.3 or 2.4 but the fix never backported? That seems unlikely. I've examined 2.2.20 and 2.2.25 and they both look OK.
For those of us who can't upgrade to the latest 2.4 kernels here is the mremap patch by itself. This applies cleanly to 2.4.21 and 2.4.22 (and probably most other 2.4 kernels as well).
You might get a printer to work with older drivers, but are you really serious in saying that 16 bit Win3.1 drivers worked satisfactorily for you in Windows?
I've done that, sort of. MediaVision ProGraphics 1024 video card (very high-performance in its day) had no Win 95 driver, so I just used the Win 3.1 driver in Win 95. Didn't seem like it ought to work, but it did. It was approximately as fast as in 3.1. (At least, not enough slower to be annoying.)
I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming
"The same Slashdot crew"? You mean that monolithic, lock-step hive mind that posts millions of messages under hundreds of thousands of different names -- including, for example, yours? You find it hilarious that you (The Slahdot Crew) screamed about one thing then later screamed about something contrary? OK, I guess we agree that is pretty funny. That is, if "we" can really be considered to "agree" on anything, since you and I aren't really separate individuals, just two inseparable and indistinguishable components of The Slashdot Crew.
The original purpose of restricting derived works was to make it so that authors (companies or not) could not copy code from the public domain and claim it as private work, No?
That is one wacky misunderstanding of "public domain"! If a work is in the public domain, anyone can do whatever they want with it. I can take Shakespeare's Hamlet, delete the "Shakespeare" part and publish it with a "Copyright 2003 by me" notice, and I won't have broken any laws or opened myself to any legal action at all (just public ridicule). Of course that doesn't give me ownership of Hamlet; you could copy "my" Hamlet and just claim you also cribbed it from Shakespeare and there's nothing I could do about it.
Now, if you took Hamlet and added a few scenes, that would indeed be your work, and nobody could copy the "new" work without your permission. That's what the public domain is all about. In fact, that's where Disney make most of their money -- derive movies from public domain fairy tales and tightly control the resultant work.
I agree with you 100%, but... I can see a fairly good business reason for a company not to want to release their driver as Free software. Imagine you are FooCard manufacturer. Your FooCard uses the BarChip and is basically built to the BarChip company's reference board design. You write a driver for it and put a check in the init code to look for your card's special signature and abort if that isn't present. If the driver is Free, your competitors (also building cards using BarChip's reference board design) will just hack the signature part and, voila! they have full Linux support too. If you keep the source closed (and proprietary, no license) they have no driver (and can't use yours because of the signature check) so they have no Linux support and you have a competitive advantage.
But they are also supposed to have a detached objectivity so their own personal interest doesn't cloud their judgment. Remember the old saying, "A lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." Boies, by "partnering" with SCO has essentially become his own client.
Have you ever watched Star Wars and been amazed that Human beings could understand what R2D2 is saying?
Those people in Star Wars aren't human beings. Remember, "Long ago, in a Galaxy far away..."? Some of them are portrayed as humans so the audience will identify with them, that's all.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The only thing legislators can do is make laws. That's their solution to every problem: make a law. Doesn't help? Make another law!
The article was very vague about what this guy actually did, but my instinct tells me he didn't actually host or make copies of any unlicensed music. Kinda like Napster, or that US student who got hammered by the RIAA for his "music trading site".
What?! "Flash buffer"? Anyone with a tenth of a clue should know the friggin buffer is DRAM, not flash. You do not use flash memory for temporary volatile storage! Yes, I read TFA, the author is an idiot. I can't believe nobody else in this entire nit-picking fanboy discussion caught that blooper.
I've never had a worm or virus on any of my many PCs running Windows and Linux, and I don't even bother with patches or updates on the Windows machines. Just plain old factory default from-the-CD 98SE and 2000. Recently downloaded a virus scanner just out of curiosity and it reported all the machines 100% clean.
How is this possible???
I don't run any program without a very clear and trustworthy pedigree. I turn off all the ridiculous "auto-execute" crap. I don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook. I have a good NAT firewall between the Windows machines and the Internet.
Heavy Internet user since about 1990, no viruses or worms ever. Before about 1996 I never even used a firewall.
Infections are by no means inevitable. You just have to take some simple precautions, stuff that should be obvious to anyone with the most basic understanding of how computers work, the kind of thing they should be teaching in about sixth grade now. I.e., the difference between code and data, where code comes from, how it gets loaded and executed. Nothing a child couldn't understand.
He's wrong too: "you can have scores of software gurus scattered around the globe working completely independently build them for you FOR FREE."
They don't do it FOR FREE. They do it for better software. They do it with the understanding that any improvements made by others will come back to them. They are compensated for their work, just not with money. That's a hard concept for a devout capitalist to comprehend, I guess.
The plural of "apparatus" is "apparatus" or "apparatuses". As usual, don't try to be too clever when guessing the pluralization of an unusual word. Your best bet is to use the common English pluralization rules.
Slashdot Mirror
So far we've had no such guarantees. That's why I haven't been on an airplane in years, not because I'm afraid of some suicidal yahoo with a razor blade. (Of course I am afraid of razor-toting wackos, but they're rare enough that I don't let them rule my life.)
Libertarian politicians suck, almost as much as other politicians.
Seriously, what's the Democrat plan for running the country? They have no plan, they just wing it. They don't even have ideals or principles to guide them.
What terrorist threat? Is anybody actually afraid of terrorists? When I first heard of the 9/11 attacks I was indeed terrified, but not of hijackers and bombers, or (somewhat later) snipers or poisoners -- I was afraid of police and soldiers, of the tyrrany and oppression that I knew would ensue.
Update: 2.2 not affected.
Mod parent up! The problem is not AAC, the problem is encryption, and Jon has kindly fixed that problem for us. Thanks, Jon!
You might hear a single 100% silent frame between songs as a "click" (maybe, if you listen carefully) but in reality there would never be a 100% silent frame inserted, and most decoders are pretty good at covering up inter-frame glitches.
(2.4.22 and up break ACPI for me.)
For those of us who can't upgrade to the latest 2.4 kernels here is the mremap patch by itself. This applies cleanly to 2.4.21 and 2.4.22 (and probably most other 2.4 kernels as well).
Now, if you took Hamlet and added a few scenes, that would indeed be your work, and nobody could copy the "new" work without your permission. That's what the public domain is all about. In fact, that's where Disney make most of their money -- derive movies from public domain fairy tales and tightly control the resultant work.
I agree with you 100%, but... I can see a fairly good business reason for a company not to want to release their driver as Free software. Imagine you are FooCard manufacturer. Your FooCard uses the BarChip and is basically built to the BarChip company's reference board design. You write a driver for it and put a check in the init code to look for your card's special signature and abort if that isn't present. If the driver is Free, your competitors (also building cards using BarChip's reference board design) will just hack the signature part and, voila! they have full Linux support too. If you keep the source closed (and proprietary, no license) they have no driver (and can't use yours because of the signature check) so they have no Linux support and you have a competitive advantage.
The military doesn't have to turn a profit every quarter, or even ever. Any corporation that tried that would go bankrupt in a big hurry.
But they are also supposed to have a detached objectivity so their own personal interest doesn't cloud their judgment. Remember the old saying, "A lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." Boies, by "partnering" with SCO has essentially become his own client.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The only thing legislators can do is make laws. That's their solution to every problem: make a law. Doesn't help? Make another law!
The article was very vague about what this guy actually did, but my instinct tells me he didn't actually host or make copies of any unlicensed music. Kinda like Napster, or that US student who got hammered by the RIAA for his "music trading site".
How is this possible???
I don't run any program without a very clear and trustworthy pedigree. I turn off all the ridiculous "auto-execute" crap. I don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook. I have a good NAT firewall between the Windows machines and the Internet.
Heavy Internet user since about 1990, no viruses or worms ever. Before about 1996 I never even used a firewall.
Infections are by no means inevitable. You just have to take some simple precautions, stuff that should be obvious to anyone with the most basic understanding of how computers work, the kind of thing they should be teaching in about sixth grade now. I.e., the difference between code and data, where code comes from, how it gets loaded and executed. Nothing a child couldn't understand.
They don't do it FOR FREE. They do it for better software. They do it with the understanding that any improvements made by others will come back to them. They are compensated for their work, just not with money. That's a hard concept for a devout capitalist to comprehend, I guess.
The reposter's parent is also plagiarized repost! Could this be Anti-Slash at work?
But why guess? The definitive answer is trivial to find.