There is no excuse for such filtering software in a corporate environment. It should be opposed there as a criminal restraint. Companies and sites that are excluded by this ridiculous piece of software should sue. Just having the users "vote" says that it is a debatable issue in the first place whether site X should be blocked and worse, it legitimizes such blockage in such environments in the first place.
Keep asinine comments about "militia" to yourself when people are simply attempting to get some action out of the apathy that surronds us.
To me the situation is the same as a bidding war between potential employers/contracts except you are already ensconced at one of them. If everything else at your current job is ok or better then there would be a strong argument to stay. If you have a project near and dear to your heart that you are in the midst of then definitely stay. Unless of course, your current employer begrudges the money. But usually in these situations they offer it because they know they need you and it is worth it to them to keep you.
I had this happen to me once. The offer was for a consulting gig and thus had a bit more risk as well as monetary opportunity. But the work itself did not enthuse me but most anything would have enthused me more than what the incumbent company was doing. I took the counter-offer though on the basis of security, being already known and respected, and promises to fix, esp. allow me to fix, a lot of the brokeness. The money came through, the promises did not so the next offer (a real dream offer at that) was enough to say goodbye.
If the software is not seen as a huge direct advantage (the secret sauce) and is not sold by the company, then there is a big advantage in having the source open if it is a generally useful set of functionality. In this case it is likely the company will benefit from ongoing free maintenance and debugging. They also get often more talented and interesting programmers involved if the result is OS than they would get to come do maintenance on a piece of proprietary code. If it is fairly popular they can also more likely find talent when needed that already knows that code.
We already pay more than sufficient taxes for any State run space program if the money wasn't squandered on other things. Slapping other taxes on top of the over half our incomes we actually pay when you add everything up is asinine and insulting. The guy should be run out of office.
Actually, unless I borrow someone else's cell phone, the government knows exactly where I am through the phone at all times. That is just a bit 1984-ish in my book. The point is not how much more tapable the phone is but the rules under which they can be tapped, which have now been extended.
I heard about this underwater city being discovered at least three months ago. The question in my mind is why the official news about it is moving so slowly as is (apparently) the archaeology community. Perhaps it could have something to do with the early estimates I saw that this city is over 9.000 years old. If so then a lot of theories about the history of early civilization come into question. Stay tuned.
What the heck kind of bus do the expect to drop this wad of data onto? Or are they planning to just map it directly into some memory array? Something like this could change a lot of software - having offline storage faster than main memory is a big deal for many algorithms. The implications are huge! When can I get one and how many lotteries do I need to win?
Microsoft would just LOVE this. Exactly why is only Open Source software being singled out? Most of the security problems are in Micro$oft products. Why not simply disable any of *their* software than isn't up-to-date on security patches.
In my opinion ISPs should only cache email and perhaps home web pages and should not be in the software business at all. They should support open standards and not insist on their own or any other package at the client end as long as it interacts with those standards.
I was around when Apple was two guys in a garage with a silly looking prototype in a wooden box. In those days a lot of the best hackers were either very young (one outfit was run by a 13 yr old out of his bedroom), on SSI, on drugs or some combination of the above. Apple used to have hippies in vans camped in their parking lot for weeks in hopes of getting an interview. For them to act like a bunch of stiff suits now and particularly on such stupid legalistic grounds is utterly disgusting.
Do I need to quote pointing out the thousands of scientists who are not convinced than manmade causes are resulting in global warming or even that global warming is occurring? Or are you capable of researching a bit first yourself?
Are we sure that big chunks like this don't occassionally break loose regardless of any alleged warming trends? Are we sure what part of real warming trends are and are not man-made? I think, in any case, that this event is a poor excuse to act as if all the "the earth is warming up and it spells your DOOM!" people were right-on all along and all others are blowing smoke.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps you could try just a little harder. What really is needful is to fund the scarce resources in the equation, the dedicated, skilled and relatively rare developers of the projects. The software itself, once produced, need not have any price tag associated with it as it is infinitely divisible without loss. But developers and their time is not.
I agree with some voting power or other weighing being useful to determine where that which is actually scarce is allocated. But this in no wise justifies closing the source and selling the software itself. Software is not "pretty much all other goods and services". It is pretty damn unique.
If we grant the fundamental premise of copyright and other so-called IP rights enforced by code then we have left the door open for the endless degradation of freedom and for the monitoring and control of the internet. Why? Because any architecture that supports these things completely in the code deep enough in the architecture of our networks and computers will also be code that enables all that we most abhor.
I don't see how there can be any other answer for freedom than the full support of absolute anonymity and thus code supported full freedom. Will we need to adjust the way content providers get paid and protected? Yes. But we cannot afford to do it by building in chokeholds on freedom.
Lessig is much to be applauded for shining the light on the implications of what is done and the vulnerabilities of the net to those who would control it and us all. However, I think he is largely off-base when he puts down libertarianism and supports the power and right of governents to control these increasingly vital aspects of our lives and freedom. I don't think you can have it both ways. If you grant the right of the government to monitor and control then you have automatically failed to support freedom, especially at the level of code.
What cynical tripe! Not ONE OF US is safe as long as the courts act this way and the laws are stacked like this. The "Patriot" Act has made it much worse. Now the prosecution can, at its discretion, claim you are a cyber-terrorist! Wake up and stop sniping at the victims before you become one of them.
These dinosaurs can sit on all their obsolete little eggs for all I care. The industry could have given people choice and still made reasonable money. But instead they insist on protecting obsolete packaging and business models. I won't be buying any such CDs that I can't even play.
I don't really see you have a problem with LGPL in this case. But if you do you might consider the Mozilla Public License which simply states that all changes to files within the covered code must be made public. It has no restrictions on linking with any such files or libraries built on them that I am aware of. Also a dual LGPL/MPL license is fairly common. BSD on the other hand provides no production at all for continued software freedom.
I believe we should call an immediate boycott of all companies producing anti-virus software who refuse to detect and tell the end-user of any viruses whatsoever that the user has not ok'd to be on his/her computer. Let these companies and the government learn that we will not simply accept whatever they wish to do to us and give us with no say whatsoever.
Regardless what you think of @home users generally, it is a great tragedy for millions of people to lose internet access. It is at least as bad as millions of people losing phone and mail service at once. Wireheads like us should reasonably feel it is even more tragic.
Something is wrong with our models and system when infrastructure is that fragile.
I think a lot of confusion and hot air has risen because of mixed meanings of the word "free" or "freedom" once again. It is perfectly valid to say that "Free Softward" does not include the freedom to make the software not free in the sense of removing the freedoms of users and developers. This makes perfect sense.
The freedom vs. power thing is much more confusing and muddling. Even the GPL is a choosing by the developers and implicit within it is the right to choose. The choice made may be more or less moral, amoral or immoral but there is still choice.
Saying choice itself is wrong has nothing to do with freedom in its fullest sense.
The US has defined terrorism as taking illegal acts that may be life threatening for the purpose of coercing or forcing a government to change its policies. Here we are destroying international businesses, seizing assets, pressuring governments with no legal grounds, no trials, no proof. Will the world believe our actions are just? Much of it will not. I don't believe they are just.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no excuse for such filtering software in a corporate environment. It should be opposed there as a criminal restraint. Companies and sites that are excluded by this ridiculous piece of software should sue. Just having the users "vote" says that it is a debatable issue in the first place whether site X should be blocked and worse, it legitimizes such blockage in such environments in the first place.
Keep asinine comments about "militia" to yourself when people are simply attempting to get some action out of the apathy that surronds us.
To me the situation is the same as a bidding war between potential employers/contracts except you are already ensconced at one of them. If everything else at your current job is ok or better then there would be a strong argument to stay. If you have a project near and dear to your heart that you are in the midst of then definitely stay. Unless of course, your current employer begrudges the money. But usually in these situations they offer it because they know they need you and it is worth it to them to keep you.
I had this happen to me once. The offer was for a consulting gig and thus had a bit more risk as well as monetary opportunity. But the work itself did not enthuse me but most anything would have enthused me more than what the incumbent company was doing. I took the counter-offer though on the basis of security, being already known and respected, and promises to fix, esp. allow me to fix, a lot of the brokeness. The money came through, the promises did not so the next offer (a real dream offer at that) was enough to say goodbye.
If the software is not seen as a huge direct advantage (the secret sauce) and is not sold by the company, then there is a big advantage in having the source open if it is a generally useful set of functionality. In this case it is likely the company will benefit from ongoing free maintenance and debugging. They also get often more talented and interesting programmers involved if the result is OS than they would get to come do maintenance on a piece of proprietary code. If it is fairly popular they can also more likely find talent when needed that already knows that code.
We already pay more than sufficient taxes for any State run space program if the money wasn't squandered on other things. Slapping other taxes on top of the over half our incomes we actually pay when you add everything up is asinine and insulting. The guy should be run out of office.
Microsoft is really running scared. They get more goofy every time they talk about GPL and Open Source. It is probably a good sign.
Actually, unless I borrow someone else's cell phone, the government knows exactly where I am through the phone at all times. That is just a bit 1984-ish in my book. The point is not how much more tapable the phone is but the rules under which they can be tapped, which have now been extended.
I heard about this underwater city being discovered at least three months ago. The question in my mind is why the official news about it is moving so slowly as is (apparently) the archaeology community. Perhaps it could have something to do with the early estimates I saw that this city is over 9.000 years old. If so then a lot of theories about the history of early civilization come into question. Stay tuned.
What the heck kind of bus do the expect to drop this wad of data onto? Or are they planning to just map it directly into some memory array? Something like this could change a lot of software - having offline storage faster than main memory is a big deal for many algorithms. The implications are huge! When can I get one and how many lotteries do I need to win?
Microsoft would just LOVE this. Exactly why is only Open Source software being singled out? Most of the security problems are in Micro$oft products. Why not simply disable any of *their* software than isn't up-to-date on security patches.
In my opinion ISPs should only cache email and perhaps home web pages and should not be in the software business at all. They should support open standards and not insist on their own or any other package at the client end as long as it interacts with those standards.
I was around when Apple was two guys in a garage with a silly looking prototype in a wooden box. In those days a lot of the best hackers were either very young (one outfit was run by a 13 yr old out of his bedroom), on SSI, on drugs or some combination of the above. Apple used to have hippies in vans camped in their parking lot for weeks in hopes of getting an interview. For them to act like a bunch of stiff suits now and particularly on such stupid legalistic grounds is utterly disgusting.
What the hell is Open Source about their process?
Do I need to quote pointing out the thousands of scientists who are not convinced than manmade causes are resulting in global warming or even that global warming is occurring? Or are you capable of researching a bit first yourself?
Are we sure that big chunks like this don't occassionally break loose regardless of any alleged warming trends? Are we sure what part of real warming trends are and are not man-made? I think, in any case, that this event is a poor excuse to act as if all the "the earth is warming up and it spells your DOOM!" people were right-on all along and all others are blowing smoke.
Trust the science, verify the corporations.
This actually made Ask Slashdot? Why?
And the talent to create great software doesn't exactly grow on trees either.
Perhaps you could try just a little harder. What really is needful is to fund the scarce resources in the equation, the dedicated, skilled and relatively rare developers of the projects. The software itself, once produced, need not have any price tag associated with it as it is infinitely divisible without loss. But developers and their time is not.
I agree with some voting power or other weighing being useful to determine where that which is actually scarce is allocated. But this in no wise justifies closing the source and selling the software itself. Software is not "pretty much all other goods and services". It is pretty damn unique.
If we grant the fundamental premise of copyright and other so-called IP rights enforced by code then we have left the door open for the endless degradation of freedom and for the monitoring and control of the internet. Why? Because any architecture that supports these things completely in the code deep enough in the architecture of our networks and computers will also be code that enables all that we most abhor.
I don't see how there can be any other answer for freedom than the full support of absolute anonymity and thus code supported full freedom. Will we need to adjust the way content providers get paid and protected? Yes. But we cannot afford to do it by building in chokeholds on freedom.
Lessig is much to be applauded for shining the light on the implications of what is done and the vulnerabilities of the net to those who would control it and us all. However, I think he is largely off-base when he puts down libertarianism and supports the power and right of governents to control these increasingly vital aspects of our lives and freedom. I don't think you can have it both ways. If you grant the right of the government to monitor and control then you have automatically failed to support freedom, especially at the level of code.
What cynical tripe! Not ONE OF US is safe as long as the courts act this way and the laws are stacked like this. The "Patriot" Act has made it much worse. Now the prosecution can, at its discretion, claim you are a cyber-terrorist! Wake up and stop sniping at the victims before you become one of them.
These dinosaurs can sit on all their obsolete little eggs for all I care. The industry could have given people choice and still made reasonable money. But instead they insist on protecting obsolete packaging and business models. I won't be buying any such CDs that I can't even play.
I don't really see you have a problem with LGPL in this case. But if you do you might consider the Mozilla Public License which simply states that all changes to files within the covered code must be made public. It has no restrictions on linking with any such files or libraries built on them that I am aware of. Also a dual LGPL/MPL license is fairly common. BSD on the other hand provides no production at all for continued software freedom.
I believe we should call an immediate boycott of all companies producing anti-virus software who refuse to detect and tell the end-user of any viruses whatsoever that the user has not ok'd to be on his/her computer. Let these companies and the government learn that we will not simply accept whatever they wish to do to us and give us with no say whatsoever.
Regardless what you think of @home users generally, it is a great tragedy for millions of people to lose internet access. It is at least as bad as millions of people losing phone and mail service at once. Wireheads like us should reasonably feel it is even more tragic.
Something is wrong with our models and system when infrastructure is that fragile.
I think a lot of confusion and hot air has risen because of mixed meanings of the word "free" or "freedom" once again. It is perfectly valid to say that "Free Softward" does not include the freedom to make the software not free in the sense of removing the freedoms of users and developers. This makes perfect sense.
The freedom vs. power thing is much more confusing and muddling. Even the GPL is a choosing by the developers and implicit within it is the right to choose. The choice made may be more or less moral, amoral or immoral but there is still choice.
Saying choice itself is wrong has nothing to do with freedom in its fullest sense.
The US has defined terrorism as taking illegal acts that may be life threatening for the purpose of coercing or forcing a government to change its policies. Here we are destroying international businesses, seizing assets, pressuring governments with no legal grounds, no trials, no proof. Will the world believe our actions are just? Much of it will not. I don't believe they are just.