The problem with Services contracts for Linux boxes is that you're allowed to install as many machines as you want (obviously - its GPL software).
Well, that's what everybody belives.. But then there is THIS clause in the RedHat's EULA:
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server."
For me, this means that you can't have a installed server without a service contract.. Or at least the meaning of this is not clear..
If you break the support agreement, you do not loose your rights to use or distribute the software. You loose your support contact.
I do not know what there case may be against Red Hat etc.
If the distributions contain SCO IP because IBM transferred it to the "public project" then the claims against Red Hat etc will be straight royalty claims.
I didn't know you could sue (and win) a third party because the second party disclosed the first party's trade secret. Trade secrets do not have the same protections that Copyrights,Patents and Trademarks hold.
With multiple antennae you can use signal processing to separate signals from different directions, just like we do
with our ears when listening to people.
Um, if you have enough of these types of devices in the same area and on the same band, you will saturate the front end of the receiver. No amount of front to back ratio on your directional antenna is going to stop that because there will be transmitters behind whatever you are pointing at.
This article is has some points, it is promoting spread spectrum. But the idea that we can change everything to SS and not get interference, won't work in the real word. I will bet this guy got his information from someone that has never had to deal with real world implementations of radio equipment in a RF rich environment.
There will always be a need to frequency allocation and coordnation.
KE4PJW
OK, that's/. for you. I write a serious response being pissed off at liberals.
I guess it's because the idea that "some liberals" at NASA changed the foam because CFCs were released in to the atmosphere during the fabrication process is laughable. The logic does not follow. That FoxNews/JunkScience.com article was biased crap.
I'm a fairly conservative person, but the article was so over the top, that it was unbelievable.
We know who put the unsafe foam there.
Eco-"aware" liberals did, because old, reliable one contains miniscule amount of the stuff that the Holy Ones of
Enviromental Protection Order deemed too unsafe to exist. I'm too tired to go find the actual reference but you
can dig up on Google news, I'm sure, if you want the details.
Yea, I saw that Fox News article too. I'm sorry, but the guy who wrote that article has his own political agenda as well. Besides that, with all the evil shit that is dumped into that atmosphere, why in the FUCK would any environmental wacko care about the little bit of CFCs produced during the fabrication of the foam insulation on the ET?
I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a gun with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of shooting them with a gun.
That's why you don't shoot anyone unless you are justified in killing them.
In the same light "who invented wireless ?"
The most common answer would be Marconi.
This is completely incorrect.
The first wireless communication was invented by an Indian scientist named Jagadish Chandra Bose in 1899 (recognised now by IEEE). Of course he wasn't savvy enough to get patents and all and as in those times it was easy to suppress a scientific achievement from a thirld world colonial rules state. He is very respected in part of the country who studied science as a gift to mankind.
Didn't see the film, it's in some strange video format I can't play, but let me make a few notes.
By equating Al Qaeda with Islam, and the actions of terrorists with those of muslims, many in positions of responsibility in
government (specifically, the clip shows Bush and his aides, Jean Chretien, Tony Blair, et al) and especially the media are
pushing the views of the public toward a mindset last seen, with catastrophic outcomes, in the crusades.
I agreed with this administration, Al Qaeda Hi-Jacked Islam to suite it's own purposes. To destroy America. It was stated on more than one occasion in plain english that we are not attacking Muslems because they are Muslems, we are attacking Al Qaeda and their allies because they funded and trained the 9/11 mass murders. They all just happen to be Muslem
According to Bush, because "they" hate "us", we must beat them until they change their minds. Christianity == good, Islam ==
bad. "Either you're with us, or with the terrorists", declared Bush.
That last quote is about what nations were going to help us hunt down and kill the people that killed thousands of our citizens. I see nothing wrong with throwing our weight around in that situation. It has nothing to do with Islam vs Christianity and everything to do with removing the threat of future terror attacks.
Hehe, I remember some of those stories from that Sunday:) I can only remember one specific story that was WAY OUT OF LINE as far as politics go. Comments were turned off, it was some anti-US story. IIRC Michel posted/Updated the story.
I don't mind the left leaning politics on/., even though I mostly vote Republican. It's always fun to attempt to follow the logic of the anarchists:)
With a motto of News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters., it really surprises me just how few actual news pieces are posted and
discussed on this blog.
I have been/.ing for about 5 years, I can tell you that this place hasn't really changed that much. If you want "real" news, go to CNN, CNET and MSNBC.
What the hell is a blog anyway? I have always thought of/. as a BBS.
Huh? So now you accuse me of lying. To tell you the truth, I don't remember exactly the reasons why the NSA was upset about
the GPL, but they WERE. They had some plans for their secure distro, and they realized that those plans were going to be
incompatible with the GPL. I'm not making the story up. So you tell me what they were upset about, and if it doesn't apply here,
you have won the argument. But I think it does (from what I do remember), and thus my argument stands.
Well, since you didn't look it up yourself, I guess I will do it for you.
To quote the article, "Despite the intense battle surrounding the open source, the NSA will still fund research on secure
operating systems based on Linux as well as work with U.S. companies to create better security in
their own operating systems."
Two camps were primarily pissed off about it.
1) Microsoft, because the NSA was funding their competitor.
2) Ultra Nationalist who didn't want the benefits of the GPL to go outside the US.
I guess I thought you would have done a little research before blindly posting. Sorry, I was wrong to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance.
First, I think some people actually do wake up and say... For example, the NSA with the secure Linux distro. They realized that
they couldn't use it the way they wanted due to the GPL. So in effect, they perhaps are proof that some people don't understand
the GPL and perhaps need to understand it better before making decisions. This is probably especially true of management. And
this is what MS is trying to do. Obviously, they will explain the GPL from their perspective, but in some cases this might be
closer to the perspective of the manager in charge.
The NSA didn't have to release the source to their distro. As far as I know, they never distributed a binary only version of it. To simply USE OR MODIFY GPL software does not require you to provide source. Somehow I think you knew that all ready, but made the false claim that they HAD to release the source anyway.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 2
The law just assumes that that right exists for all persons, individual and corporate alike.
A coroperation is not a person. They do not have rights.
A corporation is a group of people that do have individual rights. They can choose to exercise those rights as a group.
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to
circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Did you know it makes for bad law to afford Copyright holders patent like protection on devices that display their content?
And unless you know exactly what you're doing (which new users don't), you're stuck staring at a monitor refreshing at 60 Hz -
welcome to headache heaven!
Sure, I can just blah blah blah - no I can't! I'm not a power user, and I'm not going to modify my X config file! Give me a fucking
graphical tool for it! Windows can do it - so why can't I do it in X?
Damn dude, get out of the 90's. Run a modern distro and you would know better than to make such an incorrect statement.
Just because Saddam can shoot at us in the no fly zones despite his agreement not to does NOT imply that he's a clear and
present danger of using weapons of mass destruction.
If they are breaking the cease fire agreement, What else are they doing. Gee, let's send in inspectors to see. If they won't allow the inspector's to do their job, the cease fire is off. Let's make _sure_ they don't posses such weapons.
They are not logically linked, idiot.
Ah, but yes they are. It's called credibility. You know, the thing your argument lost when it devolved into an ad hominem attack.
Several members of congress agreed that there was "no new information indicating a new threat".
Oh that's right. Well forget then. If a "several members of Congress" think that he's not a threat, he must not be a threat. It's not like they singed a cease fire agreement yet still fires on our aircraft in the no-fly zone.
The point is, Bush is just trying to distract the country from the fact that he failed to get Bin Laden and can't manage the economy to save his life.
Oh, so your are simply paying politics. Nevermind.
If we needed to bomb every place that was that kind of a threat, why the double standard for Korea and Iran?
Because Iran is not a threat and Korea has not been defeated by the U.S. and signed a cease fire agreement.
No, but it would be stealing if you had a device that stripped the commercials from the program, and sent an e-mail to the advertisers letting them know so that the networks got paid less money.
No, it's not. You just made that up to justify your position.
The difference between TV and the net is that with TV, no one knows if you don't watch the commercials, but with the internet, by blocking the ad the advertiser doesn't know you exist, and the site spends money serving you your content but doesn't get compensated by serving you an ad.
Hey, if it's that big of a problem, charge for the content. And yes, the advertisers know that some people don't watch the commercials. You don't see ABC,NBC and CBS wanting to charge Pay Per View fees do ya?
The analogy to not watching TV commercials is ignoring internet ads, not blocking them. There is no way to "block" TV commercials that prevents the TV network from being paid.
Sure there is, it's called changing the channel.
In a lot of ways the website is the middleman, almost like a salesman who gets commissions. We get paid for you looking at a page of content, which contains an ad. If you look at the page but block the ad, you're taking the content without paying for it. I know that people who block ads don't think of it that way, but that is what is happening in reality.
If I take the content without looking at the ad, I am taking the content without looking at the ad, not stealing. There is no law that state's I must view the ad, unless you create a EULA for your site. Good luck attempting to get compensated.
I don't see what the big deal is. If your website is that good and all you care about is the bottom line, why don't you simply charge for the content. Ah, I see. Your ego is preventing you from doing this, isn't it. If you closed the site up, your customer base would be so small that you would no longer have bragging rights and no longer be the big fish in the big pond, but you would be the big fish in the small pond.
I don't mind ads. I DO mind pop-up ads. They are annoying.
Get over it. People are going to block ads on their browsers and their is _NOTHING_ you can do about it.
There's no sign on the turnstyle that says "if you circumvent the payment system, you're stealing". There's no sign on the cable wire that says "if you view this cable without paying us, you're stealing". But it is stealing, and people know it.
Is it stealing to NOT watch TV commercials? Do I have to watch them instead of going and taking a dump? Your logic is simply flawed. If you want to force people to listen to the cermon, give it to them before they get the soup.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with Services contracts for Linux boxes is that you're allowed to install as many machines as you want (obviously - its GPL software).
.. Or at least the meaning of this is not clear..
Well, that's what everybody belives.. But then there is THIS clause in the RedHat's EULA:
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server."
For me, this means that you can't have a installed server without a service contract
If you break the support agreement, you do not loose your rights to use or distribute the software. You loose your support contact.
We (the British) do, for a start. That term didn't seem out of place at all to me.
Have none of you guys seen Real Genius?
Someone please change the moderation on this. This is exactly what Dayton is like. It's a big geekfest, and that's not a bad thing! I love it.
If anyone reading this is going to be there, drop by booth 3560 and say "Hi"!
KE4PJW
I do not know what there case may be against Red Hat etc.
If the distributions contain SCO IP because IBM transferred it to the "public project" then the claims against Red Hat etc will be straight royalty claims.
I didn't know you could sue (and win) a third party because the second party disclosed the first party's trade secret. Trade secrets do not have the same protections that Copyrights,Patents and Trademarks hold.
With multiple antennae you can use signal processing to separate signals from different directions, just like we do with our ears when listening to people.
Um, if you have enough of these types of devices in the same area and on the same band, you will saturate the front end of the receiver. No amount of front to back ratio on your directional antenna is going to stop that because there will be transmitters behind whatever you are pointing at.
This article is has some points, it is promoting spread spectrum. But the idea that we can change everything to SS and not get interference, won't work in the real word. I will bet this guy got his information from someone that has never had to deal with real world implementations of radio equipment in a RF rich environment.
There will always be a need to frequency allocation and coordnation. KE4PJW
OK, that's /. for you. I write a serious response being pissed off at liberals.
I guess it's because the idea that "some liberals" at NASA changed the foam because CFCs were released in to the atmosphere during the fabrication process is laughable. The logic does not follow. That FoxNews/JunkScience.com article was biased crap.
I'm a fairly conservative person, but the article was so over the top, that it was unbelievable.
Woops, that should have read "with all the evil shit that is dumped into the atmosphere at launch".
We know who put the unsafe foam there. Eco-"aware" liberals did, because old, reliable one contains miniscule amount of the stuff that the Holy Ones of Enviromental Protection Order deemed too unsafe to exist. I'm too tired to go find the actual reference but you can dig up on Google news, I'm sure, if you want the details.
Yea, I saw that Fox News article too. I'm sorry, but the guy who wrote that article has his own political agenda as well. Besides that, with all the evil shit that is dumped into that atmosphere, why in the FUCK would any environmental wacko care about the little bit of CFCs produced during the fabrication of the foam insulation on the ET?
I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a gun with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of shooting them with a gun.
That's why you don't shoot anyone unless you are justified in killing them.
In the same light "who invented wireless ?" The most common answer would be Marconi. This is completely incorrect. The first wireless communication was invented by an Indian scientist named Jagadish Chandra Bose in 1899 (recognised now by IEEE). Of course he wasn't savvy enough to get patents and all and as in those times it was easy to suppress a scientific achievement from a thirld world colonial rules state. He is very respected in part of the country who studied science as a gift to mankind.
As all good Southerners know, you and others are wrong. Nathan B. Stubblefield invented radio.
(Being from the south, I just love blind siding people with that one, even if it really was only induction and not radio.)
Didn't see the film, it's in some strange video format I can't play, but let me make a few notes.
By equating Al Qaeda with Islam, and the actions of terrorists with those of muslims, many in positions of responsibility in government (specifically, the clip shows Bush and his aides, Jean Chretien, Tony Blair, et al) and especially the media are pushing the views of the public toward a mindset last seen, with catastrophic outcomes, in the crusades.
I agreed with this administration, Al Qaeda Hi-Jacked Islam to suite it's own purposes. To destroy America. It was stated on more than one occasion in plain english that we are not attacking Muslems because they are Muslems, we are attacking Al Qaeda and their allies because they funded and trained the 9/11 mass murders. They all just happen to be Muslem
According to Bush, because "they" hate "us", we must beat them until they change their minds. Christianity == good, Islam == bad. "Either you're with us, or with the terrorists", declared Bush.
That last quote is about what nations were going to help us hunt down and kill the people that killed thousands of our citizens. I see nothing wrong with throwing our weight around in that situation. It has nothing to do with Islam vs Christianity and everything to do with removing the threat of future terror attacks.
Hehe, I remember some of those stories from that Sunday :) I can only remember one specific story that was WAY OUT OF LINE as far as politics go. Comments were turned off, it was some anti-US story. IIRC Michel posted/Updated the story.
/., even though I mostly vote Republican. It's always fun to attempt to follow the logic of the anarchists :)
I don't mind the left leaning politics on
I don't remember a time when /. would "go for days" without postig a story, but I was a late comer in 1998.
With a motto of News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters., it really surprises me just how few actual news pieces are posted and discussed on this blog.
/.ing for about 5 years, I can tell you that this place hasn't really changed that much. If you want "real" news, go to CNN, CNET and MSNBC.
What the hell is a blog anyway? I have always thought of /. as a BBS.
I have been
Huh? So now you accuse me of lying. To tell you the truth, I don't remember exactly the reasons why the NSA was upset about the GPL, but they WERE. They had some plans for their secure distro, and they realized that those plans were going to be incompatible with the GPL. I'm not making the story up. So you tell me what they were upset about, and if it doesn't apply here, you have won the argument. But I think it does (from what I do remember), and thus my argument stands.
Well, since you didn't look it up yourself, I guess I will do it for you.
To quote the article, "Despite the intense battle surrounding the open source, the NSA will still fund research on secure operating systems based on Linux as well as work with U.S. companies to create better security in their own operating systems."
Two camps were primarily pissed off about it.
1) Microsoft, because the NSA was funding their competitor.
2) Ultra Nationalist who didn't want the benefits of the GPL to go outside the US.
The project is still alive and being developed.
I guess I thought you would have done a little research before blindly posting. Sorry, I was wrong to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance.
First, I think some people actually do wake up and say... For example, the NSA with the secure Linux distro. They realized that they couldn't use it the way they wanted due to the GPL. So in effect, they perhaps are proof that some people don't understand the GPL and perhaps need to understand it better before making decisions. This is probably especially true of management. And this is what MS is trying to do. Obviously, they will explain the GPL from their perspective, but in some cases this might be closer to the perspective of the manager in charge.
The NSA didn't have to release the source to their distro. As far as I know, they never distributed a binary only version of it. To simply USE OR MODIFY GPL software does not require you to provide source. Somehow I think you knew that all ready, but made the false claim that they HAD to release the source anyway.
The law just assumes that that right exists for all persons, individual and corporate alike.
A coroperation is not a person. They do not have rights.
A corporation is a group of people that do have individual rights. They can choose to exercise those rights as a group.
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Did you know it makes for bad law to afford Copyright holders patent like protection on devices that display their content?
So tell me one more time how it is that Iran and Korea don't get the same war threats?
Because they are not breaking a cease fire treaty that was singed when we defeated them in a war.
"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?
Yes, but they are both in prison for fraud.
And unless you know exactly what you're doing (which new users don't), you're stuck staring at a monitor refreshing at 60 Hz - welcome to headache heaven!
Sure, I can just blah blah blah - no I can't! I'm not a power user, and I'm not going to modify my X config file! Give me a fucking graphical tool for it! Windows can do it - so why can't I do it in X?
Damn dude, get out of the 90's. Run a modern distro and you would know better than to make such an incorrect statement.
Funny, the same argument can be used against 'if Bush says he is a threat' that you used against my congress quote. Hm. Funny that.
Too bad for your arguement, Congress agrees with him.
Just because Saddam can shoot at us in the no fly zones despite his agreement not to does NOT imply that he's a clear and present danger of using weapons of mass destruction.
If they are breaking the cease fire agreement, What else are they doing. Gee, let's send in inspectors to see. If they won't allow the inspector's to do their job, the cease fire is off. Let's make _sure_ they don't posses such weapons.
They are not logically linked, idiot.
Ah, but yes they are. It's called credibility. You know, the thing your argument lost when it devolved into an ad hominem attack.
Several members of congress agreed that there was "no new information indicating a new threat".
Oh that's right. Well forget then. If a "several members of Congress" think that he's not a threat, he must not be a threat. It's not like they singed a cease fire agreement yet still fires on our aircraft in the no-fly zone.
The point is, Bush is just trying to distract the country from the fact that he failed to get Bin Laden and can't manage the economy to save his life.
Oh, so your are simply paying politics. Nevermind.
If we needed to bomb every place that was that kind of a threat, why the double standard for Korea and Iran?
Because Iran is not a threat and Korea has not been defeated by the U.S. and signed a cease fire agreement.
No, but it would be stealing if you had a device that stripped the commercials from the program, and sent an e-mail to the advertisers letting them know so that the networks got paid less money.
No, it's not. You just made that up to justify your position.
The difference between TV and the net is that with TV, no one knows if you don't watch the commercials, but with the internet, by blocking the ad the advertiser doesn't know you exist, and the site spends money serving you your content but doesn't get compensated by serving you an ad.
Hey, if it's that big of a problem, charge for the content. And yes, the advertisers know that some people don't watch the commercials. You don't see ABC,NBC and CBS wanting to charge Pay Per View fees do ya?
The analogy to not watching TV commercials is ignoring internet ads, not blocking them. There is no way to "block" TV commercials that prevents the TV network from being paid.
Sure there is, it's called changing the channel.
In a lot of ways the website is the middleman, almost like a salesman who gets commissions. We get paid for you looking at a page of content, which contains an ad. If you look at the page but block the ad, you're taking the content without paying for it. I know that people who block ads don't think of it that way, but that is what is happening in reality.
If I take the content without looking at the ad, I am taking the content without looking at the ad, not stealing. There is no law that state's I must view the ad, unless you create a EULA for your site. Good luck attempting to get compensated.
I don't see what the big deal is. If your website is that good and all you care about is the bottom line, why don't you simply charge for the content. Ah, I see. Your ego is preventing you from doing this, isn't it. If you closed the site up, your customer base would be so small that you would no longer have bragging rights and no longer be the big fish in the big pond, but you would be the big fish in the small pond.
I don't mind ads. I DO mind pop-up ads. They are annoying.
Get over it. People are going to block ads on their browsers and their is _NOTHING_ you can do about it.
There's no sign on the turnstyle that says "if you circumvent the payment system, you're stealing". There's no sign on the cable wire that says "if you view this cable without paying us, you're stealing". But it is stealing, and people know it.
Is it stealing to NOT watch TV commercials? Do I have to watch them instead of going and taking a dump? Your logic is simply flawed. If you want to force people to listen to the cermon, give it to them before they get the soup.