The press as a whole does not have it in for Linux. What they have is a desire to sell advertizing. To that end many "news stories" are written and published simply to generate traffic. The news that they printed something wrong is not traffic generating, so you never see that story (or, you see it like the old time newspapers used to report -- Monday's headline, page A1: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INVESTIGATED FOR CORRUPTION......Thursday followup, page G34, Government official cleared by panel.)
Many (most?) news services are not in the business of reporting fair and balanced news. They are in the business of reporting "news" that boosts advertizement. And by the way, this applies to stories that you may even agree with. Read accordingly.
This conversation is getting funny. I appreciate you point of view and I think our differences is illustrated here: You can't standardize and have choice.
I believe you can. Linux as a system needs to standardize the basics and provide choice where it means something.
Choice in desktops: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the desktop: Bad.
Choice in applications: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the applications: Bad.
Choice in hardware supported: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the hardware supported: Bad.
In short, choice where choice means something, not choice for it's own sake.
Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact
Actually, the lawsuit would be invalid if for that cause alone. If astrology is truly predictive, where the celestrial bodies are located would not matter, since astrology is suppose to read the positions and determine the effect. In this case, she would have to prove that the shift was not beneficial, else she could not show harm and therefore would not have a case. In truth, her ability to sell her services as an astrology interpreter hasn't been affected, by that reasoning alone she may not have standing (it will depend on how the suit is worded).
I disagree. It's one thing to say that all Linux distros should be the same (I am not saying that) and it is entirely different to say that Linux should have a universal method to maintain and extend (I am saying that). If it can't happen because of technical reasons or political reasons then Linux will never be what it should be.
Your argument "Every "Linux" app can be compiled to run on some other OS. If that is true, then they really aren't part of "Linux" at all. KDE, GNOME, Apache, Firefox, Gimp, etc. I have run all of them on Solaris and Windows" glosses over the issue and ignores just how well that analogy points out Linux's flaws. I have run many of them on many different platforms as well. To run them on any version of Windows I double-click the app's installer. The installer manages the Windows "kernel's" requirements. There's no telling what hoops I may have to jump through to istall them on different Linux distros or versions.
Another common excuse from the typical Linux geek worded in various ways "If you are so focused on turning "Linux" into something that will destroy MS that you want to turn it into Windows, then you don't really know why you use "Linux"." Wake up...is Linux as a whole trying to supplant Windows or not? I know it's not going to do so by trying to turn every clueless Windows user into a computer geek. Say it another way, if you have to be a computer geek to use Linux then Linux has already lost the desktop war. You might as well stop advertising Linux as a replacement for Window because for the vast majority of people out there it will never be anything of the sort.
Linux zealots argue simply to argue. On one hand they would say Linux is as easy as Windows and ready to replace Windows for the masses. When someone disagrees and points out the many inconsistencies that make Linux a poor choice to replace Windows, the argument becomes Linux should be free to be different and it's about choice. It's circular arguments like these that lets Bill Gates sleep well at night.
Oh yeah, let's distinguish that Linux isn't a complete system. That will set them straight. Linux zealots out there, please note, Linux being just the kernel is one of the primary problems with Linux -- no consistency, no single direction, every distribution on the planet set out to compete with other Linux distributions instead of Windows. The statement "Linux is just the kernel" should be the poster child statement for what is wrong with Desktop Linux. When's the last time anyone ran the kernel with nothing else on the computer? Linux as just a kernel isn't much use to anyone.
How about the Linux community getting past the thing about Linux being only the kernel and give the world a single, unified approach to the basics? Give us a universal method to maintain the kernel and all of the apps. How hard can that be? And if it is hard then Linux (as a kernel or a system, take your pick) is NOT ready for the desktop. And oh, by the way, as long as Linux is "just a kernel" then it can never compete with a full system.
I understand your point, however, I believe it can still be argued as an admission because 1) Sony's copyright notice doesn't explicitly state this use and 2) Sony isn't requiring a license for the information. If Sony (the copyright owner) gives anyone information about a method allowing a song to be copied that contradicts their copyright statement then you can argue that you had the right all along. Otherwise, Sony would risk losing their copyright (they would be taking actions that contradicted their own copyright requirements).
Unfortunately, if you look at the Internet Archive of the website, and make your way though the various broken links to find the different vesions of the agenda, you'll see that this "parody" is not labeled as such until recently....
Yes, I surmised this as well. Could be a "chink" in his armor...
[..] copyright infringement laws only effect the people that are infringing on someone else's copyright
Again, not true. Nothing exists in a vaccuum. The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons. Another way to say it, copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes. It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government.
Actually, not true. There are plenty of forms of protest that both interfere with commerce and are related to free speech. A strike picket line is one obvious example.
The 60's were full of examples of protest that were a form of free speech and definitely interrupted commerce. Of course, it's also true that you have to be willing to risk arrest while staying true to your ideology. The biggest problem for resorting to civil disobedience against the current "intellectual property" regime is that the general public may not even understand the importance of the protest (you have to gain some amount of public support or sympathy to achieve any meaningful goals).
From Bram Cohen's website: [This was written in late 1999, and is a parody of a cypherpunk's manifesto, which struck me as very dishonest manifesto claiming to solely be concerned about privacy. This screed is written in the exaggerated voice of a 'prototypical' cypherpunk, making much more direct declarations of his intent.]
I am a technological activist. I have a political agenda. I am in favor of basic human rights: to free speech, to use any information and technology, to purchase and use recreational drugs, to enjoy and purchase so-called 'vices', to be free of intruders, and to privacy.
I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable.
Technology is not a panacea. I refuse to work on technology to track users, analyze usage patterns, watermark information, censor, detect drug use, or eavesdrop. I am not naive enough to think any of those technologies could enable a 'compromise'.
Despite my emphasis on technology, I do not view laws as inherently evil. My goals are political ones, even if my techniques are not. The only way to fundamentally succeed is by changing existing laws. If I rejected all help from the political arena I would inevitably fail.
-Bram Cohen
***
Assuming Cohen actually ascribed to this parody of the "'prototypical' cypherpunk manifesto", it sounds like bittorrent would be an expression of free speech and a form of political protest to me.
It will be interesting to say the least to see what effect the decision has on both innovation in general and the subsequent to be expected abuses by [insert your favorite copyright holder here].
In the course of the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against the software giant, the government claimed that IBM suffered from Microsoft's discriminatory pricing and overcharging practices, according to a Microsoft statement released Friday.
And what software competitor didn't suffer from Microsoft's discriminatory pricing and overcharging practices?
Speaking of the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against Microsoft, what I want to know is: Has the Microsoft approved penalties for the antitrust trial they lost fulfilled the requirements of antitrust law?
The law requires that a remedy:
Stops The Unlawful Conduct
Prevents Recurrence Of Unlawful Conduct
Restores Competitive Conditions To The Market
In defense of Microsoft (damn, never thought I'd say that), of course it is a bandaid fix. However, given that XP is as it is, applying a bandaid is all you can do. One of my long standing gripes about Windows as a system is that it's way too complicated to manage the simplest of things (such as permissions). The permission options for the home user is laughable. You're either a full blown admin or are severely restricted to the point that most Windows programs don't function properly. In other words, no control at all. And I can imagine the typical home user trying to figure out group policies. Hopefully, this tool will help make securing user accounts with a reasonable amount of functionality less of a challenge for the home user (I reserve judgement until I try it).
[...] and of course, we're helping developers build games that can take advantage of the huge power of the next generation of hardware, both Xbox 360 and Longhorn
Longhorn isn't next generation hardware. Longhorn will probably require next generation hardware to run well. Quote from I, Cringely, "For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn."
You may not agree with Cringely's conspiracy theories but it's been fairly obvious that the Windows/Intel duopoly has long been a mechanism to drive unnecessary computer upgrades under the guise of "innovation". Looks like Chris Donahue agrees that we'll be seeing more of the same.
Works best for new computer buyers looking at a machine in the store side-by-side. Linspire machine $400 vs. Windows machine $600. If they both run the same games, more people will buy the Linspire machine. Of course, TransGaming would have to allow a time limited subscription to be bundled with the system along with some popular and free Windows only games. From the article, it doesn't sound like this is what they plan to do.
The US economy is still too tied to the automobile and individuals still demand the convenience of private transportation.
There are some places that have a practical passenger train system, mostly subways and light rail systems inside a few of the very large cities. I used to ride a train to work in Philadelphia. It was rather slow (an hour by train vs. 35 minutes by car). The only thing which made it practical was the cost ($100 a month by train vs. $400 by car, after you consider tolls, gas, and parking).
Unfortunately, trains between cities are almost non-existant in the US, especially when compared to the automobile and airplane volume. And now that gas prices are rising (and like to keep rising until we pass $3 per gallon or more) the US is in a bind because you don't build a nation-wide mass transit infrastructure overnight.
The silver lining is that the more expensive gas becomes the cheaper alternatives become (relatively speaking), which might even bring about a revolution in energy production and consumption (have faith -- it could happen). But don't look for passenger train expansion in the US...probably won't be able to overcome the public nor corporate resistance at this late stage.
That just points out the stupidity (yes, stupidity!) of trying to define a complex environment in simple terms. Just as the cable companies can now provide telephone service, the phone companies are now starting to provide video services with the fiber-to-the-door backbone now being brought online.
The word predestination itself is an interesting word whose definition no one can really agree on, especially when it is used in the biblical context. Not to be rude but I don't think at this point we've been talking about predestination. The time paradox/free will discussion is more related to the illusion (or not) of choice. Predestination is more of an end goal or state. Many different choices in many different orders can lead to the same end state.
You are saying that because you can choose to do something that is impossible to do, and then not do it, that proves you can have limited free will, which would provide a mechanism for an unchangable past but free will in the present. However, your analogy is faulty. Free will by definition is the choice between two possible actions. Impossible actions have no bearing on free will choices.
Given the possibility of time travel back to the past, then either you can still make the same choices you have access to in the present or you can't. If you can make choices, you have free will as we currently define it and the possibility of introducing paradoxes is real. If you cannot make choices, then the past is unchangable, so is the present, so is the future, and we have no free will.
Good advice. If you are routinely required to do something you know is illegal, your first stop should be at an attorney's office.
By the way, I'm not an attorney but I am married to one and I get a layman's explanation on lots of interesting legal subjects (my wife requires me to say that I have NOT asked her for and she has NOT given me advice to pass on the Slashdot on any subject, past or present).
In general, being incorporated, or working for a corporation, limits your risk in that a corporation's bad choices cannot risk your personal property, etc. But this doesn't protect you from the consequences of your own illegal actions, whether or not you were directed to perform the action by the corporation.
If that were possible, everyone would form a corporation and then commit all of the illegal actions they wanted. Once caught, they'd fall back on the corporation guilty, individual innocent defense.
Slashdot Mirror
The press as a whole does not have it in for Linux. What they have is a desire to sell advertizing. To that end many "news stories" are written and published simply to generate traffic. The news that they printed something wrong is not traffic generating, so you never see that story (or, you see it like the old time newspapers used to report -- Monday's headline, page A1: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INVESTIGATED FOR CORRUPTION......Thursday followup, page G34, Government official cleared by panel.)
Many (most?) news services are not in the business of reporting fair and balanced news. They are in the business of reporting "news" that boosts advertizement. And by the way, this applies to stories that you may even agree with. Read accordingly.
This conversation is getting funny. I appreciate you point of view and I think our differences is illustrated here: You can't standardize and have choice.
I believe you can. Linux as a system needs to standardize the basics and provide choice where it means something.
Choice in desktops: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the desktop: Bad.
Choice in applications: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the applications: Bad.
Choice in hardware supported: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the hardware supported: Bad.
In short, choice where choice means something, not choice for it's own sake.
Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact
Actually, the lawsuit would be invalid if for that cause alone. If astrology is truly predictive, where the celestrial bodies are located would not matter, since astrology is suppose to read the positions and determine the effect. In this case, she would have to prove that the shift was not beneficial, else she could not show harm and therefore would not have a case. In truth, her ability to sell her services as an astrology interpreter hasn't been affected, by that reasoning alone she may not have standing (it will depend on how the suit is worded).
Obviously at least one Russian citizen has wholeheartedly embraced the US style of democracy.
I disagree. It's one thing to say that all Linux distros should be the same (I am not saying that) and it is entirely different to say that Linux should have a universal method to maintain and extend (I am saying that). If it can't happen because of technical reasons or political reasons then Linux will never be what it should be.
Your argument "Every "Linux" app can be compiled to run on some other OS. If that is true, then they really aren't part of "Linux" at all. KDE, GNOME, Apache, Firefox, Gimp, etc. I have run all of them on Solaris and Windows" glosses over the issue and ignores just how well that analogy points out Linux's flaws. I have run many of them on many different platforms as well. To run them on any version of Windows I double-click the app's installer. The installer manages the Windows "kernel's" requirements. There's no telling what hoops I may have to jump through to istall them on different Linux distros or versions.
Another common excuse from the typical Linux geek worded in various ways "If you are so focused on turning "Linux" into something that will destroy MS that you want to turn it into Windows, then you don't really know why you use "Linux"." Wake up...is Linux as a whole trying to supplant Windows or not? I know it's not going to do so by trying to turn every clueless Windows user into a computer geek. Say it another way, if you have to be a computer geek to use Linux then Linux has already lost the desktop war. You might as well stop advertising Linux as a replacement for Window because for the vast majority of people out there it will never be anything of the sort.
Linux zealots argue simply to argue. On one hand they would say Linux is as easy as Windows and ready to replace Windows for the masses. When someone disagrees and points out the many inconsistencies that make Linux a poor choice to replace Windows, the argument becomes Linux should be free to be different and it's about choice. It's circular arguments like these that lets Bill Gates sleep well at night.
Oh yeah, let's distinguish that Linux isn't a complete system. That will set them straight. Linux zealots out there, please note, Linux being just the kernel is one of the primary problems with Linux -- no consistency, no single direction, every distribution on the planet set out to compete with other Linux distributions instead of Windows. The statement "Linux is just the kernel" should be the poster child statement for what is wrong with Desktop Linux. When's the last time anyone ran the kernel with nothing else on the computer? Linux as just a kernel isn't much use to anyone.
How about the Linux community getting past the thing about Linux being only the kernel and give the world a single, unified approach to the basics? Give us a universal method to maintain the kernel and all of the apps. How hard can that be? And if it is hard then Linux (as a kernel or a system, take your pick) is NOT ready for the desktop. And oh, by the way, as long as Linux is "just a kernel" then it can never compete with a full system.
I understand your point, however, I believe it can still be argued as an admission because 1) Sony's copyright notice doesn't explicitly state this use and 2) Sony isn't requiring a license for the information. If Sony (the copyright owner) gives anyone information about a method allowing a song to be copied that contradicts their copyright statement then you can argue that you had the right all along. Otherwise, Sony would risk losing their copyright (they would be taking actions that contradicted their own copyright requirements).
Hey, let's open a web site for those addicted to the internet!
Unfortunately, if you look at the Internet Archive of the website, and make your way though the various broken links to find the different vesions of the agenda, you'll see that this "parody" is not labeled as such until recently....
Yes, I surmised this as well. Could be a "chink" in his armor...
[..] copyright infringement laws only effect the people that are infringing on someone else's copyright
Again, not true. Nothing exists in a vaccuum. The ridiculous perpetual extensions of copyright expiration has essentially eliminated any passage of the expression of an idea into the public commons. Another way to say it, copyright holders have stolen the future content of the public commons with the recent law changes. It is proper that civil disobedience work to reverse this illegal act by our government.
How about April 1, 2005 in Des Moines, Iowa? Not sure if having it on April Fool's Day in significant :)
Actually, not true. There are plenty of forms of protest that both interfere with commerce and are related to free speech. A strike picket line is one obvious example.
The 60's were full of examples of protest that were a form of free speech and definitely interrupted commerce. Of course, it's also true that you have to be willing to risk arrest while staying true to your ideology. The biggest problem for resorting to civil disobedience against the current "intellectual property" regime is that the general public may not even understand the importance of the protest (you have to gain some amount of public support or sympathy to achieve any meaningful goals).
From Bram Cohen's website:
[This was written in late 1999, and is a parody of a cypherpunk's manifesto, which struck me as very dishonest manifesto claiming to solely be concerned about privacy. This screed is written in the exaggerated voice of a 'prototypical' cypherpunk, making much more direct declarations of his intent.]
I am a technological activist. I have a political agenda. I am in favor of basic human rights: to free speech, to use any information and technology, to purchase and use recreational drugs, to enjoy and purchase so-called 'vices', to be free of intruders, and to privacy.
I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable.
Technology is not a panacea. I refuse to work on technology to track users, analyze usage patterns, watermark information, censor, detect drug use, or eavesdrop. I am not naive enough to think any of those technologies could enable a 'compromise'.
Despite my emphasis on technology, I do not view laws as inherently evil. My goals are political ones, even if my techniques are not. The only way to fundamentally succeed is by changing existing laws. If I rejected all help from the political arena I would inevitably fail.
-Bram Cohen
***
Assuming Cohen actually ascribed to this parody of the "'prototypical' cypherpunk manifesto", it sounds like bittorrent would be an expression of free speech and a form of political protest to me.
It will be interesting to say the least to see what effect the decision has on both innovation in general and the subsequent to be expected abuses by [insert your favorite copyright holder here].
In the course of the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against the software giant, the government claimed that IBM suffered from Microsoft's discriminatory pricing and overcharging practices, according to a Microsoft statement released Friday.
And what software competitor didn't suffer from Microsoft's discriminatory pricing and overcharging practices?
Speaking of the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against Microsoft, what I want to know is: Has the Microsoft approved penalties for the antitrust trial they lost fulfilled the requirements of antitrust law?
The law requires that a remedy:
Stops The Unlawful Conduct
Prevents Recurrence Of Unlawful Conduct
Restores Competitive Conditions To The Market
Has this happened? What's your opinion?
In defense of Microsoft (damn, never thought I'd say that), of course it is a bandaid fix. However, given that XP is as it is, applying a bandaid is all you can do. One of my long standing gripes about Windows as a system is that it's way too complicated to manage the simplest of things (such as permissions). The permission options for the home user is laughable. You're either a full blown admin or are severely restricted to the point that most Windows programs don't function properly. In other words, no control at all. And I can imagine the typical home user trying to figure out group policies. Hopefully, this tool will help make securing user accounts with a reasonable amount of functionality less of a challenge for the home user (I reserve judgement until I try it).
[...] and of course, we're helping developers build games that can take advantage of the huge power of the next generation of hardware, both Xbox 360 and Longhorn
Longhorn isn't next generation hardware. Longhorn will probably require next generation hardware to run well. Quote from I, Cringely, "For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn."
You may not agree with Cringely's conspiracy theories but it's been fairly obvious that the Windows/Intel duopoly has long been a mechanism to drive unnecessary computer upgrades under the guise of "innovation". Looks like Chris Donahue agrees that we'll be seeing more of the same.
Because anyone with half a brain would realize that a general purpose computer can do much more than just run games.
Works best for new computer buyers looking at a machine in the store side-by-side. Linspire machine $400 vs. Windows machine $600. If they both run the same games, more people will buy the Linspire machine. Of course, TransGaming would have to allow a time limited subscription to be bundled with the system along with some popular and free Windows only games. From the article, it doesn't sound like this is what they plan to do.
The US economy is still too tied to the automobile and individuals still demand the convenience of private transportation.
There are some places that have a practical passenger train system, mostly subways and light rail systems inside a few of the very large cities. I used to ride a train to work in Philadelphia. It was rather slow (an hour by train vs. 35 minutes by car). The only thing which made it practical was the cost ($100 a month by train vs. $400 by car, after you consider tolls, gas, and parking).
Unfortunately, trains between cities are almost non-existant in the US, especially when compared to the automobile and airplane volume. And now that gas prices are rising (and like to keep rising until we pass $3 per gallon or more) the US is in a bind because you don't build a nation-wide mass transit infrastructure overnight.
The silver lining is that the more expensive gas becomes the cheaper alternatives become (relatively speaking), which might even bring about a revolution in energy production and consumption (have faith -- it could happen). But don't look for passenger train expansion in the US...probably won't be able to overcome the public nor corporate resistance at this late stage.
That just points out the stupidity (yes, stupidity!) of trying to define a complex environment in simple terms. Just as the cable companies can now provide telephone service, the phone companies are now starting to provide video services with the fiber-to-the-door backbone now being brought online.
Only security improvements are subject to being dropped...
The word predestination itself is an interesting word whose definition no one can really agree on, especially when it is used in the biblical context. Not to be rude but I don't think at this point we've been talking about predestination. The time paradox/free will discussion is more related to the illusion (or not) of choice. Predestination is more of an end goal or state. Many different choices in many different orders can lead to the same end state.
You are saying that because you can choose to do something that is impossible to do, and then not do it, that proves you can have limited free will, which would provide a mechanism for an unchangable past but free will in the present. However, your analogy is faulty. Free will by definition is the choice between two possible actions. Impossible actions have no bearing on free will choices.
Given the possibility of time travel back to the past, then either you can still make the same choices you have access to in the present or you can't. If you can make choices, you have free will as we currently define it and the possibility of introducing paradoxes is real. If you cannot make choices, then the past is unchangable, so is the present, so is the future, and we have no free will.
Good advice. If you are routinely required to do something you know is illegal, your first stop should be at an attorney's office.
By the way, I'm not an attorney but I am married to one and I get a layman's explanation on lots of interesting legal subjects (my wife requires me to say that I have NOT asked her for and she has NOT given me advice to pass on the Slashdot on any subject, past or present).
In general, being incorporated, or working for a corporation, limits your risk in that a corporation's bad choices cannot risk your personal property, etc. But this doesn't protect you from the consequences of your own illegal actions, whether or not you were directed to perform the action by the corporation.
If that were possible, everyone would form a corporation and then commit all of the illegal actions they wanted. Once caught, they'd fall back on the corporation guilty, individual innocent defense.