This kind of story gives us a flavor of the degree of vendor-locking we would have without free softwares or freewares written by non-corporate programmers.
Maybe I am a bit pessimistic, but I have the feeling all the "nuclear deterrence" theory is based on the idea that nuke owner acts are based on logic. Now, what is the percentage of leaders "insane enough" to use such a weapon, knowing that in the end it would hurt their country/interest more than doing nothing ?
Also, even reasonnable people can become sort of non-reasonnable when lost in the fog of war. The missile crisis gave us a flavor of that sort of things.
If I post that I am shocked some guy stabbed another one in the back and does not understand what it is bad, you will object that the victim was walking at night in a shitty neighborhood and should have known that this may happen ?
You should suggest this line of defence to Fortuny, the judge may like the "but Sir, they were big idiots! They should have known there are sociopath like me in the world!" argument.
If you are too embarrassed to have others know you do something, do not do it. If you will do it anyway, stop being embarrassed about it.
Why ? Where does this axiom come from ? Who decided it is better for the universe, or more "right" not to have secrets ?
You realize that this statement is your own idea of "how the world should be" ? It is orthogonal to what the vast majority of people think, and wanting to impose it like this guy did is pure fascism.
Actually, what would be nice would be that he faked the whole thing, and those people who supposedly responded are fake. As an experiment about respect of private life, and what people thing is right or wrong on the internet. This would be nice.
In his responses, the guy is arguing with a kind of rethoric that completely ignores the importance of social image, social relations, and more globally social existence. Because those concepts are alien to him, he can not grasp how much harm he has caused.
Hopefully he will be sued. Maybe he will still do not understand what he did wrong, but he at least will understand that he did something wrong that he should not do again.
The moral of all this is that to make the front page of/. it's better to have a conflict (which are unavoidable with any project the size of Debian) than to have thousands of hours of hard work.
In fact, I am not sure I clearly understand the DMCA. If you play a DVD and shoot the tv with a camera, is that violating the DMCA ? If they legally have a CSS key to read dvds and just transfer them to another support, is that against the DMCA ? What does the DMCA precisely states ?
Crap stuffed into firefox is not crap anymore ?
on
Firefox VoIP Client
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is a non-free windows VOIP application. There are zillions of similar things already on the market. Why is this one noticeable ? Because it was stuffed into firefox-the-free-software ?
The only way to prevent most of that kind of leak is the infamous trusted computing. How can you prevent somebody to walk out of the building with critical files on his USB key without "secure hardware" ?
If a wacko had said that, there would be nothing to be preocuppied with.
The fact that it is the chairman of a big corporation, someone probably neither
stupid nor crazy, who makes such a public proposal, thinking that it will not harm him (or even that it is in his interest) demonstrates that the standards of human rights, respect for
others, freedom, anything that matters to found a society have collapsed tremendously.
Do you think a theacher has to accept that a student tells him with a loud voice that he does not give a shit about his course ? Listening to a mp3 player is exactly that.
Your argument about "it does not disturb others" is typical of geeks: it totally ignores the social dimension.
Why don't blizzard and others create servers for players who prefere to play less than 1h a day ? Since they don't make money on the actual number of hours you play, they shouldn't care.
Knowing that I'd have to compete against hard-core players is definitely one reason I do not even try MMPORPG...
Okay, then I guess all debate is reduced to the meaning of recommended or principal context of use.
BTW, I am pretty clueless for the signing policy of RedHat & Co. those days, but can't an admin add whatever key he wants like what one can do with certification authorities in firefox ?
"Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile,"
"3. Digital Restrictions Management. [...] no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
As far as I understand, what the GPLv3 says is that as long as RedHat gives you a way to recompile the OS with your own signing keys (or without authentication at all) then they are allowed to distribute GPL software with whatever signature they want.
Your ``in other words, your program will only load signed code'' is not clear. By ``your program'', do you mean the one derived from another one under the GPL3 ? What the GPL3 says is that one should not be allowed to distribute a modified GPL3 program for a specific hardware or software platform, without providing the means to run other modified versions on that same plateform.
Now, that's sort off fuzzy. With such provision, if I create my own signed and secured OS (i.e. binaries have to be signed with a certain private key I have to run on that OS as I distribute it), can I distribute modified GPL3 softwares for that OS without giving away my signing key ? If I can, then why couldn't MS or CISCO or whoever wanting to do the same ? Or is it that if I also distribute everything needed to remake my secure OS with another private key, I qualify for the requirement ?
I guess it is the case, otherwise the GPL3 is far too restrictive.
Isn't this cornfield related to the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life" in which a kid with god-like powers send people "in the cornfield" to punish them ? The exact meaning of that "cornfield" is never given in the episode, though.
The "exercise" advice is first-grade bullshit. It may helps the guy a bit sad because he broke with his gf the week before, but it will NOT help somebody with a real depression. It may even worsen the situation.
When you start to have real depression syndromes, stop looking for grand-ma advices on the web and see a "modern" MD (and not one of the old school for who depression is nothing serious). Drugs can be the only way out, and taking drugs for a while does not mean you will be under prozac for the rest of your life.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of story gives us a flavor of the degree of vendor-locking we would have without free softwares or freewares written by non-corporate programmers.
Maybe I am a bit pessimistic, but I have the feeling all the "nuclear deterrence" theory is based on the idea that nuke owner acts are based on logic. Now, what is the percentage of leaders "insane enough" to use such a weapon, knowing that in the end it would hurt their country/interest more than doing nothing ?
Also, even reasonnable people can become sort of non-reasonnable when lost in the fog of war. The missile crisis gave us a flavor of that sort of things.
So to summarize your argument: he is not a sociopath because they are big idiots ?
If I post that I am shocked some guy stabbed another one in the back and does not understand what it is bad, you will object that the victim was walking at night in a shitty neighborhood and should have known that this may happen ?
You should suggest this line of defence to Fortuny, the judge may like the "but Sir, they were big idiots! They should have known there are sociopath like me in the world!" argument.
If you are too embarrassed to have others know you do something, do not do it. If you will do it anyway, stop being embarrassed about it.
Why ? Where does this axiom come from ? Who decided it is better for the universe, or more "right" not to have secrets ?
You realize that this statement is your own idea of "how the world should be" ? It is orthogonal to what the vast majority of people think, and wanting to impose it like this guy did is pure fascism.
Actually, what would be nice would be that he faked the whole thing, and those people who supposedly responded are fake. As an experiment about respect of private life, and what people thing is right or wrong on the internet. This would be nice.
In his responses, the guy is arguing with a kind of rethoric that completely ignores the importance of social image, social relations, and more globally social existence. Because those concepts are alien to him, he can not grasp how much harm he has caused.
Hopefully he will be sued. Maybe he will still do not understand what he did wrong, but he at least will understand that he did something wrong that he should not do again.
The moral of all this is that to make the front page of /. it's better to have a conflict (which are unavoidable with any project the size of Debian) than to have thousands of hours of hard work.
--Go Debian!
See the subject.
It's how I understand that too, but how can M. Torvald have such a misunderstanding ?
In fact, I am not sure I clearly understand the DMCA. If you play a DVD and shoot the tv with a camera, is that violating the DMCA ? If they legally have a CSS key to read dvds and just transfer them to another support, is that against the DMCA ? What does the DMCA precisely states ?
This is a non-free windows VOIP application. There are zillions of similar things already on the market. Why is this one noticeable ? Because it was stuffed into firefox-the-free-software ?
The huge defensive patent portfolio is great against another gorilla like Sun, Apple or Google who. But against an individual, how could it help ?
--Go Debian!
The only way to prevent most of that kind of leak is the infamous trusted computing. How can you prevent somebody to walk out of the building with critical files on his USB key without "secure hardware" ?
So what happens when one drinks diet coke while eating mentos ? The father of all burps ? Or he explodes and dies with horrible suffering ?
--Go Debian!
If a wacko had said that, there would be nothing to be preocuppied with.
The fact that it is the chairman of a big corporation, someone probably neither stupid nor crazy, who makes such a public proposal, thinking that it will not harm him (or even that it is in his interest) demonstrates that the standards of human rights, respect for others, freedom, anything that matters to found a society have collapsed tremendously.
This is actually chocking.
--Go Debian!
Do you think a theacher has to accept that a student tells him with a loud voice that he does not give a shit about his course ? Listening to a mp3 player is exactly that.
Your argument about "it does not disturb others" is typical of geeks: it totally ignores the social dimension.
Why don't blizzard and others create servers for players who prefere to play less than 1h a day ? Since they don't make money on the actual number of hours you play, they shouldn't care.
Knowing that I'd have to compete against hard-core players is definitely one reason I do not even try MMPORPG ...
Okay, then I guess all debate is reduced to the meaning of recommended or principal context of use.
BTW, I am pretty clueless for the signing policy of RedHat & Co. those days, but can't an admin add whatever key he wants like what one can do with certification authorities in firefox ?
Linus said
"Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own versions of the modules they recompile,"
when the (draft of the) GPLv3 says
"3. Digital Restrictions Management. [...] no permission is given [...] for modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
As far as I understand, what the GPLv3 says is that as long as RedHat gives you a way to recompile the OS with your own signing keys (or without authentication at all) then they are allowed to distribute GPL software with whatever signature they want.
Where did I miss something ?
--Go Debian!
Then it would be okay to make a guild of straights pretending to be gay in WoW ?
Your ``in other words, your program will only load signed code'' is not clear. By ``your program'', do you mean the one derived from another one under the GPL3 ? What the GPL3 says is that one should not be allowed to distribute a modified GPL3 program for a specific hardware or software platform, without providing the means to run other modified versions on that same plateform.
Now, that's sort off fuzzy. With such provision, if I create my own signed and secured OS (i.e. binaries have to be signed with a certain private key I have to run on that OS as I distribute it), can I distribute modified GPL3 softwares for that OS without giving away my signing key ? If I can, then why couldn't MS or CISCO or whoever wanting to do the same ? Or is it that if I also distribute everything needed to remake my secure OS with another private key, I qualify for the requirement ?
I guess it is the case, otherwise the GPL3 is far too restrictive.
Would my Debian work our of the box ? Soon ?
Isn't this cornfield related to the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life" in which a kid with god-like powers send people "in the cornfield" to punish them ? The exact meaning of that "cornfield" is never given in the episode, though.
The "exercise" advice is first-grade bullshit. It may helps the guy a bit sad because he broke with his gf the week before, but it will NOT help somebody with a real depression. It may even worsen the situation.
When you start to have real depression syndromes, stop looking for grand-ma advices on the web and see a "modern" MD (and not one of the old school for who depression is nothing serious). Drugs can be the only way out, and taking drugs for a while does not mean you will be under prozac for the rest of your life.
Check this and this.