Did I miss something? You say they removed it? Err?
The grandparent is mistaken--they (obviously, since you use it) did not remove it. However, you can DISABLE the requirement to press ctrl-alt-del to login in a local or domain security policy.
The key sequence is still trapped by windows after login, and presents a menu to logoff, shutdown, change password, etc.
Trading stocks with other stockholders doesn't give any money to the company. It's like trading baseball cards. Sure there are some side effects of having stock prices go up for a company, but usually a high stock price doesn't give any financial benefit to a company (except for subsequent stock issues, which don't happen that often).
It certainly has a financial benefit when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. Example, AOL purchased Time Warner based solely on the strength of their market cap--they gave TW shareholders AOL stock.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.
If a compiler isn't available to the recipient, than it isn't machine readable, and should be a GPL violation.
In this context, I believe "machine readable" means I can't hand you six thousand single spaced pages of code and say "have fun typing them in."
Take it a step further--if I were distributing code that only one computer on earth could compile, would I be required to make that resource available for you to build with? Of course not.
Proof of the fact that all commercial players are using scare tactics to sell kit, that is. Those vendors that offer "indemnification" provided you use their hardware or whatever catch there is, are just as bad as SCO
Err... what exactly are you looking for HP to do? Indemnify EVERYONE who runs linux?
Of COURSE they're limiting this to people who have HP hardware--thats what makes them HP customers!
So this makes the spammers' work more expensive through higher fees from people like yourself who are actually running the bulk mail servers. More expensive == less incentive to do this crap.
Actually, I think the parent was trying to point out that it makes it LESS expensive, because he doesn't have to deal with a flood of non-existant domain replies.
People can argue that those terms are too long, or too short, without arguing that the concepts of copyright and IP are invalid.
I agree with you on this completely. I believe the current sentiment about ALL IP being invalid can be traced to some of the downright stupid things the government is granting protection to. Business method patents, or "one click shopping" patents, or "doing the same thing that's been done for centuries on the internet" patents have created a massive backlash against IP rights, as have things like the DMCA, Sonny Bono, etc.
Most people are fairly honest and willing to pay a fair price for something they use/enjoy--but the current move in the industry seems to be toward "you didn't really BUY that, you're only licensing it" in a bald attempt to do away with the doctrine of first sale. This, I think we can all agree, is bad.
It seems to be a common practice of many to attack people who defend copyright and IP law by claiming that ideas can't be owned, and that, therefore, copyright and patents are evil capitalists notions that merit elimination
Under our system, ideas CAN'T be owned--only specific implementations of those ideas. At least that was the case until recently. I notice that you say later that you agree with me on this, so I won't continue.:)
FWIW, I agree with you--it is a red herring. There needs to be a balance between the rights of creators, and the rights of the people.
Nothing in that clause states that someone who creates a work ever loses ownership of it if he or she chooses not to distribute copies. The original work remains the only work, and if the creator of that work does not give it to someone else, ownership does not transfe.
That's true, and more than a little obvious--it is impossible for ownership to be transferred if no one knows it exists.
The clause does that by protecting the natural rights of creators to benefit from their creations, thereby ensuring that they have an incentive to invent and create.
Incorrect--that clause does not protect anything--it merely gives the Congress the power to do so.
their intent was not to manaufacture a "healty public domain".
Progress requires a healthy public domain to draw from. There are very few truly original ideas--it is the ability to build upon the work of others that truly guarantees the advancement of science and the useful arts.
Ask yourself this question: If the intent is merely to enable creators to profit from their work, giving them incentive to create, why the requirement of limited terms? Wouldn't it be an even greater incentive if creators knew that their heirs would profit in perpetuity?
I was about half-sure that is what you were TRYING to say, but you said it quite poorly. Don't use the present tense to describe something that happened in the past. (i.e. "Allchin has announced it many times" implies you believe he is still doing it.)
Strange, you must be reading a different copy of the Constitution. I don't see an assertion that "the people" own what someone makes in my copy
I infer that "the people" own those works based on Article I, section 8 of the constitution, which states in part:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The purpose of this is to ensure a rich public domain--you encourage creators to create by giving them exclusive rights over their works--FOR A LIMITED TIME. After that limited time, there are no exclusive rights--the works are owned by the people.
Remember Windows NT 5.0? That was supposed to come out in 1997 (Allchin has announced it many times - shifting the release date a few months in the future, every time)
Err... you do realize that NT5 was renamed "Windows 2000," right?
Intellectual property is as real as the chair I'm sitting on. If someone makes something, they own it until they decide otherwise. If a make a chair, it's my property. If I write a book, it's my property.
In the United States, the above is untrue--at least Constitutionally.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents "in order to promote the advancement of the useful arts" or, in other words, to ensure a rich public domain.
Creators of "intellectual property" exploit that property at the sufferance of the People, who are the actual owners of the work--the creators just have a limited time exclusive license to it.
There have been semi-successful email viruses where the user had to download a.zip attachment, decompress, run the executable, and click "yes" to install.
Sure, we can remove capabilities in order to increase safety, but with users like that... I'm really not sure what we should do.
The fact of the matter is, if everyone who disagreed with what SCO is doing resigned (and those not currently working for them refuse to apply), then SCO wouldn't be able to do what it's doing. The coders *DO* have a say in the matter, because if they quit, and other responsible coders refuse to take the position, SCO can't do what they're doing.
Now THAT is a steaming pantload!
Are you really suggesting that unless they release the next version of OSR or UnixWare, SCO's lawsuits will magically go away?
Spam catchers should be combined with anti virus solutions, to ensure that authentic messages do generate some sort of response, either to the sender or receiving, informing them of the infection. The technologies would mesh well in this case.
Take a look at Inflex by Paul Daniels. Supports sendmail and postfix, and does spam blocking, virus scanning, filename/filetype blocking, text blocking, etc.
A "your message was filtered" is maybe 2-3K including all headers (more likely under 1k), so responding to messages with Virus' in them adds 1-3% not 100% to the traffic.
First off, disclaimer: My mail servers have been (until SoBig) configured to send "Hey, you sent us a virus" messages. We stopped this practice because SoBig is so damn prolific that it proved to us this was absolutely worthless and harmful.
That said, there are some REALLY stupid people out there that not only bounce to the "sender," but are also kind enough to INCLUDE A COPY OF THE DAMN ATTACHMENT.
These, ahem, "virus scanners" really DO increase the load by 100%, and worse yet, are actually SPREADING the virus!
All of this is because they feel they have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interests of the US.
I would submit to you that the leaders of the United States actually do have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interest of the US.
The US government serving US interests?! Stop the fucking presses!
Final Fantasy is the closest we've come, but it was still clearly CG.
Final Fantasy looked like CG because it was supposed to. I recall reading an interview a few years ago from someone at Square who said the initial renders looked TOO realistic, and was against the "spirit" (pardon the pun) of the movie.
I can't see a lot of people "pirating" books that are in the public domain and available on numerous sites around the web, most notably the Gutenberg Project.
Slashdot Mirror
omfg... even if they work with 600 programmers, that's still a whopping $100.000 per programmer in one single year
VU is Valve's parent company, not Valve itself.
Did I miss something? You say they removed it? Err?
The grandparent is mistaken--they (obviously, since you use it) did not remove it. However, you can DISABLE the requirement to press ctrl-alt-del to login in a local or domain security policy.
The key sequence is still trapped by windows after login, and presents a menu to logoff, shutdown, change password, etc.
Trading stocks with other stockholders doesn't give any money to the company. It's like trading baseball cards. Sure there are some side effects of having stock prices go up for a company, but usually a high stock price doesn't give any financial benefit to a company (except for subsequent stock issues, which don't happen that often).
It certainly has a financial benefit when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. Example, AOL purchased Time Warner based solely on the strength of their market cap--they gave TW shareholders AOL stock.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.
I wouldn't think of the "X" in "Mac OS X" as a letter version. Mac OS X is the whole name of the operating system, as I understand it
The X in OS X is the roman numeral for ten (which makes quite a bit of sense, as OS X followed OS9.)
If a compiler isn't available to the recipient, than it isn't machine readable, and should be a GPL violation.
In this context, I believe "machine readable" means I can't hand you six thousand single spaced pages of code and say "have fun typing them in."
Take it a step further--if I were distributing code that only one computer on earth could compile, would I be required to make that resource available for you to build with? Of course not.
Not anymore.
Let the server errors commence!
'We have an elite team'.
'On a scale of one to ten, all our developers are at least a nine.'
'We hire only the top two percent.'
Makes you think of Dr. Klahn, doesn't it?
"We are building a programming team of extraordinary magnitude!"
The reality is though, that "1 in 7" users have problems with the power button.
I once worked for an engineer who was very fond of quoting that, by definition, 50% of the population has an IQ below 100.
Proof of the fact that all commercial players are using scare tactics to sell kit, that is. Those vendors that offer "indemnification" provided you use their hardware or whatever catch there is, are just as bad as SCO
Err... what exactly are you looking for HP to do? Indemnify EVERYONE who runs linux?
Of COURSE they're limiting this to people who have HP hardware--thats what makes them HP customers!
So this makes the spammers' work more expensive through higher fees from people like yourself who are actually running the bulk mail servers. More expensive == less incentive to do this crap.
Actually, I think the parent was trying to point out that it makes it LESS expensive, because he doesn't have to deal with a flood of non-existant domain replies.
People can argue that those terms are too long, or too short, without arguing that the concepts of copyright and IP are invalid.
:)
I agree with you on this completely. I believe the current sentiment about ALL IP being invalid can be traced to some of the downright stupid things the government is granting protection to. Business method patents, or "one click shopping" patents, or "doing the same thing that's been done for centuries on the internet" patents have created a massive backlash against IP rights, as have things like the DMCA, Sonny Bono, etc.
Most people are fairly honest and willing to pay a fair price for something they use/enjoy--but the current move in the industry seems to be toward "you didn't really BUY that, you're only licensing it" in a bald attempt to do away with the doctrine of first sale. This, I think we can all agree, is bad.
It seems to be a common practice of many to attack people who defend copyright and IP law by claiming that ideas can't be owned, and that, therefore, copyright and patents are evil capitalists notions that merit elimination
Under our system, ideas CAN'T be owned--only specific implementations of those ideas. At least that was the case until recently. I notice that you say later that you agree with me on this, so I won't continue.
FWIW, I agree with you--it is a red herring. There needs to be a balance between the rights of creators, and the rights of the people.
Nothing in that clause states that someone who creates a work ever loses ownership of it if he or she chooses not to distribute copies. The original work remains the only work, and if the creator of that work does not give it to someone else, ownership does not transfe.
That's true, and more than a little obvious--it is impossible for ownership to be transferred if no one knows it exists.
The clause does that by protecting the natural rights of creators to benefit from their creations, thereby ensuring that they have an incentive to invent and create.
Incorrect--that clause does not protect anything--it merely gives the Congress the power to do so.
their intent was not to manaufacture a "healty public domain".
Progress requires a healthy public domain to draw from. There are very few truly original ideas--it is the ability to build upon the work of others that truly guarantees the advancement of science and the useful arts.
Ask yourself this question: If the intent is merely to enable creators to profit from their work, giving them incentive to create, why the requirement of limited terms? Wouldn't it be an even greater incentive if creators knew that their heirs would profit in perpetuity?
That was the whole point of my post, Einstein.
I was about half-sure that is what you were TRYING to say, but you said it quite poorly. Don't use the present tense to describe something that happened in the past. (i.e. "Allchin has announced it many times" implies you believe he is still doing it.)
I infer that "the people" own those works based on Article I, section 8 of the constitution, which states in part:
The purpose of this is to ensure a rich public domain--you encourage creators to create by giving them exclusive rights over their works--FOR A LIMITED TIME. After that limited time, there are no exclusive rights--the works are owned by the people.
Remember Windows NT 5.0? That was supposed to come out in 1997 (Allchin has announced it many times - shifting the release date a few months in the future, every time)
Err... you do realize that NT5 was renamed "Windows 2000," right?
Intellectual property is as real as the chair I'm sitting on. If someone makes something, they own it until they decide otherwise. If a make a chair, it's my property. If I write a book, it's my property.
In the United States, the above is untrue--at least Constitutionally.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents "in order to promote the advancement of the useful arts" or, in other words, to ensure a rich public domain.
Creators of "intellectual property" exploit that property at the sufferance of the People, who are the actual owners of the work--the creators just have a limited time exclusive license to it.
There have been semi-successful email viruses where the user had to download a .zip attachment, decompress, run the executable, and click "yes" to install.
Sure, we can remove capabilities in order to increase safety, but with users like that... I'm really not sure what we should do.
Have you considered a cattle prod?
The fact of the matter is, if everyone who disagreed with what SCO is doing resigned (and those not currently working for them refuse to apply), then SCO wouldn't be able to do what it's doing. The coders *DO* have a say in the matter, because if they quit, and other responsible coders refuse to take the position, SCO can't do what they're doing.
Now THAT is a steaming pantload!
Are you really suggesting that unless they release the next version of OSR or UnixWare, SCO's lawsuits will magically go away?
Spam catchers should be combined with anti virus solutions, to ensure that authentic messages do generate some sort of response, either to the sender or receiving, informing them of the infection. The technologies would mesh well in this case.
Take a look at Inflex by Paul Daniels. Supports sendmail and postfix, and does spam blocking, virus scanning, filename/filetype blocking, text blocking, etc.
A "your message was filtered" is maybe 2-3K including all headers (more likely under 1k), so responding to messages with Virus' in them adds 1-3% not 100% to the traffic.
First off, disclaimer: My mail servers have been (until SoBig) configured to send "Hey, you sent us a virus" messages. We stopped this practice because SoBig is so damn prolific that it proved to us this was absolutely worthless and harmful.
That said, there are some REALLY stupid people out there that not only bounce to the "sender," but are also kind enough to INCLUDE A COPY OF THE DAMN ATTACHMENT.
These, ahem, "virus scanners" really DO increase the load by 100%, and worse yet, are actually SPREADING the virus!
All of this is because they feel they have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interests of the US.
I would submit to you that the leaders of the United States actually do have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interest of the US.
The US government serving US interests?! Stop the fucking presses!
Final Fantasy is the closest we've come, but it was still clearly CG.
Final Fantasy looked like CG because it was supposed to. I recall reading an interview a few years ago from someone at Square who said the initial renders looked TOO realistic, and was against the "spirit" (pardon the pun) of the movie.
They want back and made them look more CGIish.
Anybody who goes there volluntarily is nuts, but in a library!!!???
I wonder where the Goatse guy fits in the Dewey Decimal System... (Or, "In Soviet Russia," the Dewey Decimal System fits in the Goatse guy.)
I can't see a lot of people "pirating" books that are in the public domain and available on numerous sites around the web, most notably the Gutenberg Project.
Err, I kinda think that was his point...
I've yet to see a good rebutal of Darls Open Letter, but I suspect ESR or Bruce is typing one up as we speak..
The previous SCO story included this comment which, I believe, is exactly what you're looking for.
It addresses the McBride letter point by point, and is well written.