The AC mentioned something that seems unusual on Slashdot. I write something that gets up *and* down modded, but nobody chimes in with why I'm right or wrong? Am I living in alternate-reality-land?
It's not that people don't think that global warming is happening, it's that nobody (and I mean *nobody*) is sure that humans play a significant role.
If someone can explain how we caused the samephenomenon 100,000 years ago (said phenomenon being the current near-peak in global temp, on pretty much that cycle), then I'll agree that we are both to blame and can stop it. Otherwise, I'll remain highly aggravated that we don't have a substantial colony on the moon and aren't honestly exploring space.
It does mean that, if you're talking about the old ISA slots that we've just established that we're *not*, in fact, talking about.
If, however, you're taking about an extension allowing the issuance of commands to a processor (which we are), then the acronym stands for Instruction Set Architecture.
You must have missed that article a week or two ago where WalMart sold out all of it's online preorders in 2 minutes (or the one before that where Amazon? shut down it's preorder system online way ahead of schedule).
People are already excited about it...the major news outlets are all shouting "PS3!!!" because Sony is a big name, and the cry across the internet is "Wii!!!", because people have seen the demos and the controller and the launch titles and the price.
Long lines are one thing, but you only get to sell as many PS3s as you have blue lasers. Having people wait in long lines *and* actually be able to buy what they're waiting for will be a big factor, I think.
For everyone who has made the comment that began this "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" subthread, scroll up to my "Yes it was a typo" response.
s/use/distribute or modify/g; reparse();
I do understand and appreciate the distinction between use and distribution, but sometimes I type carelessly. Trying to grok the thought process of the poster I was replying to helped me to not pay enough attention to that particular phrase. The whole contract/license/support jumble had my head a bit foggy from trying to detangle it.
They absolutely need to agree to a license (not sign a contract) to use the software. The terms of the license say that you have the traditional rights granted by copyright (which means you're not allowed to copy someone else's original work), but that *if* you comply with the terms of the license, they'll grant you the right to redistribute, modify, etc.
One of the conditions in the terms of the license is that you aren't allowed to *change* the terms of the license in a number of ways. If you do, then those rights are rescinded, and you go back to only having the rights granted under copyright law (which means, you have to ask my permission to do anything with it).
You said (in part):
"...If the licenser wasn't making an exclusive agreement with you and gave you redistribution rights, then I've done nothing wrong, you've done nothing wrong and I'm in no way bound by any contract you might have with the licenser..."
You're bound by the terms of the license that the software is distributed under. The person who distributed the software to you did so with the knowledge that there were certain things that had to be done to be in compliance with the license. One of those things is to make sure that the license is distributed with the software, so that it's clear what's allowed and what's not.
If you received the software without the license (i.e. the person who distributed it failed in their duties to comply with the licensing requirements), then that doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore copyright law or that your copy is magically license free. Just ask the folks at the BSA about that. Millions of illegally-licensed copies of Windows are installed and used every year, and there are very real penalties for knowingly doing so.
You also said:
"...You signed a contract with them to receive support. If you were to give me a copy of your software, that wouldn't entitle me to receive support, would it?..."
If the contract was for support, then they paid for support. The license is a separate thing...it covers under what conditions you may use the software under, not whether you will receive support.
You mentioned that you wouldn't be bound by that agreement (the support one) any more than redhat would be bound to give you support. True, since you didn't enter into a support contract with them (although you could do so very easily). You then mentioned that:
"...It's clear that I can have a license to distribute Redhat Linux but not be bound by any contract to Redhat..."
This almost true, since you would be bound by the terms of the license of the software you received, not by a contract signed directly with a particular company or person. Traditionally, copyright was the only legal condition allowed for distributing a work, but the GPL is becoming common, and allows more freedom. The GPL says (in part):
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The only reason you are *ever* allowed to redistribute is because of the license. If you don't accept the terms of the license, there isn't anything else that magically gives you distribution rights. It doesn't matter if you got it direct from RedHat, or from some guy in a van behind a seedy building, the only rights you have are copyright and the license the work is distributed under. Copyright gives you certain fair-use rights, none of which would apply to you distributing someone else's software.
two words from the article: "air cushion" apply deductive reasoning as to how much more those two words matter when coupled with a flexible platter. There's actually plenty to read in the article, and I have lots of specific questions, but shock scenarios were something that cringley specifically addressed (like not having to park the heads or use "uh-oh" sensors to detect imminent shock, etc).
Not sure who the multiple HDD vendors are that will be introducing it next year, but I'm sure they asked a lot of questions about that, too.
Just read the article then...there are a few patents involved, and a few engineers who already have globally-used patents on things like drive heads. There was mention of the head setup maintaining an air cushion (which is a lot easier with a less-rigid platter) and of the design keeping dust away from the gap, meaning assembly doesn't require traditional clean-room techniques.
The article is admittedly short on specifics, but I imagine they'll be forthcoming, since he also mentioned that we'd actually be seeing the drives from numerous manufacturers next year.
If they managed to prove the tech to drive manufacturers, I'd imagine the dimensional stability of glass didn't trump the tech they're introducing.
FTA: "I've never taken three explosive rounds to my crotch, but I don't think I'm being unmanly when I say I'd at least fall down and scream like a bitch."
Maybe that's the "graphics created by the customer" part. Not that he deserves a pass on anything else, but it seemed as if he mentioned that for a reason...
...oh, I'm not saying it's a problem per-se (the quantity of political articles), just commenting on the situation...kind of like talking about the weather, I guess.
Well, of course it does! Hardly any famous pirates were American, after all. I knew there was a reason they talked like that (beyond the legacy of artistic license taken by a key actor in the vintage Treasure Island movie).
I wasn' meanin' ta get yer dander up, Senior Pirate Healey (just a guess) ARRRR!!!
...It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative
Right. Point out that there's a grain-of-salt aspect to it since the reporting organization is right-wing. I wonder if a similar comment would have survived to the slashdot front page if moveon.org complained that YouTube was blocking access to a video that criticized Bush's policy on Saudi Arabia (and was bereft of nudity, violence, etc)...
It *must* be election season. Between slashdot and digg I can hardly browse without stepping in politics.
...and updating a frame with javascript is an idea dating back to the later part of the last decade (a terrible idea even back then).
Not that I doubt your analytical abilities (whoever you may be), but what makes updating a frame (or div, or whatever else you might need to update) with javascript a terrible idea? What's the better alternative?
If you're specifically talking about frames, I'd tend to say that frames are a bad idea in and of themselves, but I'm wondering what you mean specifically.
If you're a teacher of physics at a University and a student (presumably one of your students) asks a question as simple as "Why are things dropping to the ground" then I hope that it's because there's an earthquake or because there's a serious enough question about physics being asked that "I don't know" is an appropriate answer.
The students will think either "Ahhhh!!! Earthquake!!!" or "Dude, do you *seriously* not know what gravity is? How did he get into college?" or "Hey...where does gravity really come from?".
With the exception of the earthquake scenario, I think most college students would accept "I don't know" as a reasonable (and possibly smart-assed) answer.
Switching to non-pedant mode, I'll say this; the circumstance in which the respondents answered "I don't know" is not remotely similar to the one in your example. Becasue of that, it's difficult to read your comment without feeling as if you think the ability to admit that you don't know something is unimportant.
I would tend to agree with the post you are responding to and say that (in general) stupid people don't know that they don't know anything, smart people think that they know everything, and *really* smart people know that they don't know everything. Really smart people get that way because they seek new knowledge to fill the gaps, and the ability to say "I don't know" to yourself as well as others is central to that.
What I don't get is why some people feel that connecting the dots is only a good idea for *some* national-security-related events. Her we have the intelligence guys saying "we connected the dots, do something", and (quite reasonably), folks are nodding their heads and saying "Yes, yes, we should have done something!".
However, when faced with another instance when the intelligence guys say "we connected the dots, do something" (think "slam dunk", and I'm sure you can figure out what I'm talking about), those folks are shaking their heads and saying "you don't act preemptively!".
Let us imagine that Tenet (who seems to be doing some ass-covering, or at least blame-spreading) and Black convinced Condi that action should be taken. Let us further assume that action was taken and bombs were dropped overseas and 19 unnamed arab men were killed in apparent assasinations in the US. What do you suppose the reaction and fallout from that would have been?
I agree that there were mistakes made...I think we all agree on that. I note (as others have noted) that there is an election looming. What I desperately wish is that these types of issues were addressed much sooner so that they might provide the maximum benefit, as opposed to them being addressed at politically opportune times.
Will somebody tell me *why* Mr. Tenet did not disclose this incredibly important piece of information until five years after he was ostensibly brushed off? Did he honestly not think it was important until just now? I call bullshit...not sure what type (is it inaccurate, is it political, is it personal), but something smells.
If nothing else, I'd like an accounting from Condi *and* Tenet about why this wasn't disclosed during the investigation. Hell, if Tenet thought it was the most important thing going, and was leading our intelligence community, I'd say the lion's share of blame for "failure to mention" belongs to him.
I maintain that this whole thing is way overblown and that geting the government (note correct spelling) involved in regulation based on speculation is not a good idea.
Okay, then, to pick a nit, what is your logical basis (founded in solid evidence, of course) for maintaining that this whole thing is overblown?
It's one thing to say that you don't believe that it's likely, but a statement like that reads as if countless hours of research and/or thought had gone into solidifying it into a personal faith.
There are two basic ways to approach it, one tends to presuppose a lack of action, and one tends to presuppose a certain action of a certain type. Given that the industry lobbying against Net Neutrality is the telecom industry (who would be in a position to generate more revenue from existing services if there is no such legislation), is it reasonable to assume that there would be a lack of action on their part without net neutrality legislation to halt it?
I propose that the answer to that question is "No, it is not reasonable to assume that", and there is, indeed a fair bit of thought and research behind my thinking.
There is ample evidence that telecom companies actively lobby for legislation and/or regulation that furthers their business interests. Most notably, in recent years, against CLECs and Cable operators that wanted to offer similar services to those offered by the telecom companies.
Alongside those types of activities has been a moving-target push to get more revenue from internet services. First, internet service was expensive, DSL and T-1 lines made significant revenue for the telcos, along with local loop charges on top of the actual bandwidth charges. The unrelenting push of the internet closer and closer to the customer drove down prices for consumer and commercial broadband connections (and pretty much killed frame relay), and forced some communications companies into actual fights over previously amicable peering arrangements (Level 3 and Cogent being the prime example). With it becoming obvious that cutting off service completely to other networks mainly serves to anger your customers, and not your peering partner, there became fewer viable opportunities to generate new revenue.
Next, came the idea that Net Neutrality is meant to address, which is that of degrading service to certain portions of the internet unless an additional fee is paid by a company or companies with sites connected to that portion of the internet. "Tiered" internet service can also be called "selective" internet service, since the telco gets to select which parts of the internet will work best for their customers.
The last option, and the one that telcos don't want to use, is that of raising subscription prices. It's unattractive because it forces real competition, and because doing so will raise some pointed quiestions about Fiber-To-The-Premises and the large amount of money every single phone and internet bill contributes to the FUSF (or FUCR) fee that goes back to the telcos to build high speed connections to every neighborhood. That's government money lobbied for by them and paid by you and I.
Not having to do that means less questions about those fees, and more time to dip into the federal money supply to support their businesses.
That's a lot to think about, and it's certainly all researchable. There are plenty of reasons to think that the telcos *will* implement service degradation, if it's seen as being okay. A survey like this, while obvious to many who are paying attention, is fodder for the PR machines of those telcos to say "Net Neutrality is bad, and everyone thinks so", even if it's based on the answers of 800 people who mostly haven't heard the term.
One that I particularly wish was less tersely answered (or where I wish some speculation as to meaning had occurred) was this one:
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
. a. Are the.mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?
I understand that there is no "listening right" per-se, but the question seems to stem from a typical understanding of the concept of fair-use.
If I have a right to make archival copies of copyrighted material that I have purchased a copy of on CD, and I use MP3 files on my computer as that archival copy, am I allowed to listen to the MP3 files themselves if the original CD is stolen, or has the right to do so passed on to the theif?
Assuming that's a reasonable paraphrasing of the original question, (or even if it isn't), are there answers to thaose questions, or has the issue yet to come before a judge?
I understand the reason for the answer to the original question, I think (I suspect it has something to do with being a legal professional and giving a public answer to a legal question), but I am also curious as to what the answer to it (rephrased) might be.
You and I haven't seen the details of the analysis, true. DO you suppose that someone would go through the trouble of finding all of those bugs and writing such a relatively glowing review of the software (imagine the tenor of the writeup, had it been a microsoft-funded expedition through the code) without giving the details to the developers?
To me, this looks like a classic example of responsible disclosure...find bugs, inform devs specifically and the public generally and see what happens.
With 611 defects and 71 security bugs, do you really think the developers can fix this in a timely manner? Do you really think they're going to fix them all?
Well, with the line, file, and type of defect spelled out, I'd imagine it shouldn't take too long. If you've ever programmed before, you are probably familiar with building and then fixing based on the errors you run across. This is like writing a functioning Perl script and then adding "use strict;"...the problems noted might not break anything, but fixing them usually isn't too hard, and you know where they are.
I guess, to answer your questions, I'd respond first by saying "Yes, I think they can probably fix this in a timely manner", and secondly by saying "If they don't fix them all, they'll give a list of reasons for leaving certain ones alone that we can argue about all over again".
That's the beauty of open source, it works just like public works projects: put up a "Men at Work" sign in the summer and watch the years roll by.
For minor projects, maybe so. I don't think Firefox is an example of an Open Source project that's languishing or lacking in development effort. You may have a different opinion, but then, you're an Anonymous Coward, so it's not as if it really matters.
Slashdot Mirror
...or hit [ctrl]+[alt]+[backspace] and restart X...
The AC mentioned something that seems unusual on Slashdot. I write something that gets up *and* down modded, but nobody chimes in with why I'm right or wrong? Am I living in alternate-reality-land?
If someone can explain how we caused the same phenomenon 100,000 years ago (said phenomenon being the current near-peak in global temp, on pretty much that cycle), then I'll agree that we are both to blame and can stop it. Otherwise, I'll remain highly aggravated that we don't have a substantial colony on the moon and aren't honestly exploring space.
If, however, you're taking about an extension allowing the issuance of commands to a processor (which we are), then the acronym stands for Instruction Set Architecture.
People are already excited about it...the major news outlets are all shouting "PS3!!!" because Sony is a big name, and the cry across the internet is "Wii!!!", because people have seen the demos and the controller and the launch titles and the price.
Long lines are one thing, but you only get to sell as many PS3s as you have blue lasers. Having people wait in long lines *and* actually be able to buy what they're waiting for will be a big factor, I think.
s/use/distribute or modify/g; reparse();
I do understand and appreciate the distinction between use and distribution, but sometimes I type carelessly. Trying to grok the thought process of the poster I was replying to helped me to not pay enough attention to that particular phrase. The whole contract/license/support jumble had my head a bit foggy from trying to detangle it.
That was, indeed, a typo... s/use/redistribute/
There's a post I wish I had mod points for...well said.
They absolutely need to agree to a license (not sign a contract) to use the software. The terms of the license say that you have the traditional rights granted by copyright (which means you're not allowed to copy someone else's original work), but that *if* you comply with the terms of the license, they'll grant you the right to redistribute, modify, etc.
One of the conditions in the terms of the license is that you aren't allowed to *change* the terms of the license in a number of ways. If you do, then those rights are rescinded, and you go back to only having the rights granted under copyright law (which means, you have to ask my permission to do anything with it).
You said (in part):
You're bound by the terms of the license that the software is distributed under. The person who distributed the software to you did so with the knowledge that there were certain things that had to be done to be in compliance with the license. One of those things is to make sure that the license is distributed with the software, so that it's clear what's allowed and what's not.
If you received the software without the license (i.e. the person who distributed it failed in their duties to comply with the licensing requirements), then that doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore copyright law or that your copy is magically license free. Just ask the folks at the BSA about that. Millions of illegally-licensed copies of Windows are installed and used every year, and there are very real penalties for knowingly doing so.
You also said:
If the contract was for support, then they paid for support. The license is a separate thing...it covers under what conditions you may use the software under, not whether you will receive support.
You mentioned that you wouldn't be bound by that agreement (the support one) any more than redhat would be bound to give you support. True, since you didn't enter into a support contract with them (although you could do so very easily). You then mentioned that:
This almost true, since you would be bound by the terms of the license of the software you received, not by a contract signed directly with a particular company or person. Traditionally, copyright was the only legal condition allowed for distributing a work, but the GPL is becoming common, and allows more freedom. The GPL says (in part):
The only reason you are *ever* allowed to redistribute is because of the license. If you don't accept the terms of the license, there isn't anything else that magically gives you distribution rights. It doesn't matter if you got it direct from RedHat, or from some guy in a van behind a seedy building, the only rights you have are copyright and the license the work is distributed under. Copyright gives you certain fair-use rights, none of which would apply to you distributing someone else's software.
...just to be clear, you went out and bought a Blu-ray player or a tickle-me-elmo? I haven't heard of any TMX-enabled blu-ray players...
Not sure who the multiple HDD vendors are that will be introducing it next year, but I'm sure they asked a lot of questions about that, too.
The article is admittedly short on specifics, but I imagine they'll be forthcoming, since he also mentioned that we'd actually be seeing the drives from numerous manufacturers next year.
If they managed to prove the tech to drive manufacturers, I'd imagine the dimensional stability of glass didn't trump the tech they're introducing.
Damn, that's funny...
Maybe that's the "graphics created by the customer" part. Not that he deserves a pass on anything else, but it seemed as if he mentioned that for a reason...
...oh, I'm not saying it's a problem per-se (the quantity of political articles), just commenting on the situation...kind of like talking about the weather, I guess.
I wasn' meanin' ta get yer dander up, Senior Pirate Healey (just a guess) ARRRR!!!
This is decidedly off-topic, but I had to try three times before I managed to get past "Microsoft were a..." and "Google have constantly...", etc.
As it's not talk like a pirate day, I am left with two possible explanations:
I'm hoping you be a pirate, mainly because I be lookin fer some software on the cheap...err, I mean booty, ARRRRR!!!
That isn't a Troll, that's an opinion...then again "-1 Troll" is an opinion, too.
Right. Point out that there's a grain-of-salt aspect to it since the reporting organization is right-wing. I wonder if a similar comment would have survived to the slashdot front page if moveon.org complained that YouTube was blocking access to a video that criticized Bush's policy on Saudi Arabia (and was bereft of nudity, violence, etc)...
It *must* be election season. Between slashdot and digg I can hardly browse without stepping in politics.
Not that I doubt your analytical abilities (whoever you may be), but what makes updating a frame (or div, or whatever else you might need to update) with javascript a terrible idea? What's the better alternative?
If you're specifically talking about frames, I'd tend to say that frames are a bad idea in and of themselves, but I'm wondering what you mean specifically.
The students will think either "Ahhhh!!! Earthquake!!!" or "Dude, do you *seriously* not know what gravity is? How did he get into college?" or "Hey...where does gravity really come from?".
With the exception of the earthquake scenario, I think most college students would accept "I don't know" as a reasonable (and possibly smart-assed) answer.
Switching to non-pedant mode, I'll say this; the circumstance in which the respondents answered "I don't know" is not remotely similar to the one in your example. Becasue of that, it's difficult to read your comment without feeling as if you think the ability to admit that you don't know something is unimportant.
I would tend to agree with the post you are responding to and say that (in general) stupid people don't know that they don't know anything, smart people think that they know everything, and *really* smart people know that they don't know everything. Really smart people get that way because they seek new knowledge to fill the gaps, and the ability to say "I don't know" to yourself as well as others is central to that.
What I don't get is why some people feel that connecting the dots is only a good idea for *some* national-security-related events. Her we have the intelligence guys saying "we connected the dots, do something", and (quite reasonably), folks are nodding their heads and saying "Yes, yes, we should have done something!".
However, when faced with another instance when the intelligence guys say "we connected the dots, do something" (think "slam dunk", and I'm sure you can figure out what I'm talking about), those folks are shaking their heads and saying "you don't act preemptively!".
Let us imagine that Tenet (who seems to be doing some ass-covering, or at least blame-spreading) and Black convinced Condi that action should be taken. Let us further assume that action was taken and bombs were dropped overseas and 19 unnamed arab men were killed in apparent assasinations in the US. What do you suppose the reaction and fallout from that would have been?
I agree that there were mistakes made...I think we all agree on that. I note (as others have noted) that there is an election looming. What I desperately wish is that these types of issues were addressed much sooner so that they might provide the maximum benefit, as opposed to them being addressed at politically opportune times.
Will somebody tell me *why* Mr. Tenet did not disclose this incredibly important piece of information until five years after he was ostensibly brushed off? Did he honestly not think it was important until just now? I call bullshit...not sure what type (is it inaccurate, is it political, is it personal), but something smells.
If nothing else, I'd like an accounting from Condi *and* Tenet about why this wasn't disclosed during the investigation. Hell, if Tenet thought it was the most important thing going, and was leading our intelligence community, I'd say the lion's share of blame for "failure to mention" belongs to him.
I maintain that this whole thing is way overblown and that geting the government (note correct spelling) involved in regulation based on speculation is not a good idea.
Okay, then, to pick a nit, what is your logical basis (founded in solid evidence, of course) for maintaining that this whole thing is overblown?
It's one thing to say that you don't believe that it's likely, but a statement like that reads as if countless hours of research and/or thought had gone into solidifying it into a personal faith.
There are two basic ways to approach it, one tends to presuppose a lack of action, and one tends to presuppose a certain action of a certain type. Given that the industry lobbying against Net Neutrality is the telecom industry (who would be in a position to generate more revenue from existing services if there is no such legislation), is it reasonable to assume that there would be a lack of action on their part without net neutrality legislation to halt it?
I propose that the answer to that question is "No, it is not reasonable to assume that", and there is, indeed a fair bit of thought and research behind my thinking.
There is ample evidence that telecom companies actively lobby for legislation and/or regulation that furthers their business interests. Most notably, in recent years, against CLECs and Cable operators that wanted to offer similar services to those offered by the telecom companies.
Alongside those types of activities has been a moving-target push to get more revenue from internet services. First, internet service was expensive, DSL and T-1 lines made significant revenue for the telcos, along with local loop charges on top of the actual bandwidth charges. The unrelenting push of the internet closer and closer to the customer drove down prices for consumer and commercial broadband connections (and pretty much killed frame relay), and forced some communications companies into actual fights over previously amicable peering arrangements (Level 3 and Cogent being the prime example). With it becoming obvious that cutting off service completely to other networks mainly serves to anger your customers, and not your peering partner, there became fewer viable opportunities to generate new revenue.
Next, came the idea that Net Neutrality is meant to address, which is that of degrading service to certain portions of the internet unless an additional fee is paid by a company or companies with sites connected to that portion of the internet. "Tiered" internet service can also be called "selective" internet service, since the telco gets to select which parts of the internet will work best for their customers.
The last option, and the one that telcos don't want to use, is that of raising subscription prices. It's unattractive because it forces real competition, and because doing so will raise some pointed quiestions about Fiber-To-The-Premises and the large amount of money every single phone and internet bill contributes to the FUSF (or FUCR) fee that goes back to the telcos to build high speed connections to every neighborhood. That's government money lobbied for by them and paid by you and I.
Not having to do that means less questions about those fees, and more time to dip into the federal money supply to support their businesses.
That's a lot to think about, and it's certainly all researchable. There are plenty of reasons to think that the telcos *will* implement service degradation, if it's seen as being okay. A survey like this, while obvious to many who are paying attention, is fodder for the PR machines of those telcos to say "Net Neutrality is bad, and everyone thinks so", even if it's based on the answers of 800 people who mostly haven't heard the term.
Idontagreewithyou, I don't agree with you.
One that I particularly wish was less tersely answered (or where I wish some speculation as to meaning had occurred) was this one:
1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?
.mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?
. a. Are the
I understand that there is no "listening right" per-se, but the question seems to stem from a typical understanding of the concept of fair-use.
If I have a right to make archival copies of copyrighted material that I have purchased a copy of on CD, and I use MP3 files on my computer as that archival copy, am I allowed to listen to the MP3 files themselves if the original CD is stolen, or has the right to do so passed on to the theif?
Assuming that's a reasonable paraphrasing of the original question, (or even if it isn't), are there answers to thaose questions, or has the issue yet to come before a judge?
I understand the reason for the answer to the original question, I think (I suspect it has something to do with being a legal professional and giving a public answer to a legal question), but I am also curious as to what the answer to it (rephrased) might be.
To me, this looks like a classic example of responsible disclosure...find bugs, inform devs specifically and the public generally and see what happens.
With 611 defects and 71 security bugs, do you really think the developers can fix this in a timely manner? Do you really think they're going to fix them all?
Well, with the line, file, and type of defect spelled out, I'd imagine it shouldn't take too long. If you've ever programmed before, you are probably familiar with building and then fixing based on the errors you run across. This is like writing a functioning Perl script and then adding "use strict;"...the problems noted might not break anything, but fixing them usually isn't too hard, and you know where they are.
I guess, to answer your questions, I'd respond first by saying "Yes, I think they can probably fix this in a timely manner", and secondly by saying "If they don't fix them all, they'll give a list of reasons for leaving certain ones alone that we can argue about all over again".
That's the beauty of open source, it works just like public works projects: put up a "Men at Work" sign in the summer and watch the years roll by.
For minor projects, maybe so. I don't think Firefox is an example of an Open Source project that's languishing or lacking in development effort. You may have a different opinion, but then, you're an Anonymous Coward, so it's not as if it really matters.