I would recommend Mandrake or something similar for the clueless n00b. I started off with it several years ago: it detected hardware well and set itself up (mount points, LILO kernel options, etc.) accordingly.
After a while, when I felt more confident, I switched to Debian, which I'm now extremely happy with. But it isn't (IMHO) suitable for the new Linux user. I had to figure out how to set a lot of things up manually, but now I know how to change those things myself.
Copyright infringement is not stealing: it is merely copyright infringement and nothing more. There is no such thing as "intellectual property"---this is a misleading term that certain industries throw around to deceive the public.
Copyrights are not even rights at all but privileges granted by the state for limited times, subject to fair use, in order to get more ideas and expressions into the public domain in the long run.
I think trademark law should be redefined solely as a matter of consumer protection. For example, trademark law should ensure that when I buy an appliance or power tool with the Bosch logo, I'm getting the genuine article because I trust that brand's product quality. Prosecuting counterfeiters in this area protects me as a consumer.
If two pairs of jeans are made in the same sweatshop with the same material quality, however, and the only difference between them is licensing payments, the branding does not protect the consumer and there is no public interest that the state needs to defend.
I think we need to make some careful distinctions about holding ISPs responsible for their customers' activities. Do we want them to have to censor web content, monitor P2P traffic, etc.?
I would say that they should be responsible only for customers' activites that "push" unwanted data to unwilling parties: sending spam
and death threats but possibly nothing else. ISPs should not be held responsible for what their customers' allow others to "pull" (web pages, P2P, etc.).
Similarly, there was no mention of blocking email where the from address doesn't match the ISP.
Why should the From-address match the ISP? I work from home a lot so I send out e-mails with my work address in From and Bcc (so I can refer to them when I'm at the office).
My personal e-mails have a From-address that happens to match my ISP, but that isn't the case for many people who use a vanity domain or have different suppliers for e-mail and connectivity.
I agree completely. I run my own MTA for outbound mail because my ISP's mailrouters, although reliable most of the time, occasionally go horribly wrong and delay outgoing mail for up to a day.
I get my incoming mail by POP3 and I can generally tell if it is getting delayed. But the only way I can be sure my outgoing mail is working is to run my own MTA and check the mail spool. Unfortunately there are an increasing number of asinine admins using dynablock-type blacklists, forcing me to "dumbhost" (as I prefer to call it) mail to certain domains.
One thing that must be repeated over and over is that copyright infringement is not stealing, because copyright is not property. It's a temporary restriction imposed on everybody except the copyright holder. Copyright holders don't "own" anything, and copyright doesn't give them any extra rights, it takes rights away from everybody else for a limited time.
Yes, exactly! And "intellectual property" is a deliberately misleading term that certain industries throw around in order to deceive the public into believing in the ownership of ideas and expressions.
Copyrights and patents are not rights but privileges granted by the state in order to encourage more stuff into the public domain in the long run. Any law that doesn't respect that principle is a betrayal of the basis of copyright.
The ISPs and related companies don't want to monitor their customers' traffic and interfere with it except to the extent that traffic is too high for their networks: they certainly don't want to have to police content. But the DMCA conscripts them into the copyright army. In this area, their financial interest coincides with the users' interest in privacy.
Unfortunatly, the primary effect of the attacks has made americans willing to give up many, previously cherished, rights so that they may benefit from the security that follows.
I think you mean "the security that the state leads them to believe will follow."
Small pad of paper in your back pocket and a Space Pen (not because they can write in boiling water but because they fit conveniently in the "watch pocket" of jeans).
I think the film and TV aspects are definitely a grey area. We agree that for a tribute band to play more or less the same notes and sing more or less the same words is a creative or at least interesting act that benefits the public interest; so is a cover song that constitutes a different interpretation of the same score and lyrics.
Copying someone's novel in a different font or in handwriting, however, is not.
But what those kids made certainly seems to me to be a tribute film, and (IMHO) deserves the same treatment as a tribute band's performance of a famous band's live album. (For example, I haven't seen Limehouse Lizzy, but I've been told by a relative that they do an excellent performance, song by song, of Thin Lizzy's "Live and Dangerous" album).
The important thing to remember is that copyrights and patents are not rights (as our ??AA masters would have us believe) but privileges granted temporarily by the state in order to encourage more expressions of ideas to enter the public domain in the long run.
There's no good reason why one creative artist can completely remake the work of another without permission. There's a compulsory license for music as a special case: any artist can cover another artist's musical works. But I'd argue that has something to do with interpretation: music is a special case because music is a special case.
That's an interesting point, but I don't see much difference between the kids' film and tribute bands' performances.
Where I live (UK) we have blue bins that the city's contractor empties every 4 weeks---for cardboard and paper only. I can recycle other things (glass, plastic bottles) by driving to the supermarket (which I'm doing regularly anyway).
But I doubt that CDs and DVDs can be recycled in their plastic receptacles---they are certainly not on the list of things to put in.
You can only recycle something if there's a facility near you that handles it. If you drive out of your way to recycle your DVDs, you're doing more harm than good.
Recycling still consumes energy and resources and produces pollution---just at a lower level than manufacturing from scratch. Manufacturing durable goods is better than manufacturing recyclable disposable goods.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the people who enter the country on a forged passport are in the database---under their assumed identity, of course.
My answer to that would be: don't use Outlook either, since it's as bad as IE.
I've heard good things about Knoppix but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
After a while, when I felt more confident, I switched to Debian, which I'm now extremely happy with. But it isn't (IMHO) suitable for the new Linux user. I had to figure out how to set a lot of things up manually, but now I know how to change those things myself.
I agree. I prefer to download software and donate money to worthwhile projects and organizations (e.g. Debian, FSF).
I agree with your reasoning. I've just never seen a $1500 office chair! What do you get for that?
Copyrights are not even rights at all but privileges granted by the state for limited times, subject to fair use, in order to get more ideas and expressions into the public domain in the long run.
If two pairs of jeans are made in the same sweatshop with the same material quality, however, and the only difference between them is licensing payments, the branding does not protect the consumer and there is no public interest that the state needs to defend.
I would say that they should be responsible only for customers' activites that "push" unwanted data to unwilling parties: sending spam and death threats but possibly nothing else. ISPs should not be held responsible for what their customers' allow others to "pull" (web pages, P2P, etc.).
Good grief! Is that for a massaging recliner?
Why should the From-address match the ISP? I work from home a lot so I send out e-mails with my work address in From and Bcc (so I can refer to them when I'm at the office).
My personal e-mails have a From-address that happens to match my ISP, but that isn't the case for many people who use a vanity domain or have different suppliers for e-mail and connectivity.
I get my incoming mail by POP3 and I can generally tell if it is getting delayed. But the only way I can be sure my outgoing mail is working is to run my own MTA and check the mail spool. Unfortunately there are an increasing number of asinine admins using dynablock-type blacklists, forcing me to "dumbhost" (as I prefer to call it) mail to certain domains.
Yes, exactly! And "intellectual property" is a deliberately misleading term that certain industries throw around in order to deceive the public into believing in the ownership of ideas and expressions.
Copyrights and patents are not rights but privileges granted by the state in order to encourage more stuff into the public domain in the long run. Any law that doesn't respect that principle is a betrayal of the basis of copyright.
The ISPs and related companies don't want to monitor their customers' traffic and interfere with it except to the extent that traffic is too high for their networks: they certainly don't want to have to police content. But the DMCA conscripts them into the copyright army. In this area, their financial interest coincides with the users' interest in privacy.
I think you mean "the security that the state leads them to believe will follow."
If that's the case, Bill, you won't mind handing the source over to the community to patch, port and recompile freely, will you?
Small pad of paper in your back pocket and a Space Pen (not because they can write in boiling water but because they fit conveniently in the "watch pocket" of jeans).
Copying someone's novel in a different font or in handwriting, however, is not.
But what those kids made certainly seems to me to be a tribute film, and (IMHO) deserves the same treatment as a tribute band's performance of a famous band's live album. (For example, I haven't seen Limehouse Lizzy, but I've been told by a relative that they do an excellent performance, song by song, of Thin Lizzy's "Live and Dangerous" album).
The important thing to remember is that copyrights and patents are not rights (as our ??AA masters would have us believe) but privileges granted temporarily by the state in order to encourage more expressions of ideas to enter the public domain in the long run.
You need to install a shift key!
That's an interesting point, but I don't see much difference between the kids' film and tribute bands' performances.
But I doubt that CDs and DVDs can be recycled in their plastic receptacles---they are certainly not on the list of things to put in.
That strengthens my claim that "Manufacturing durable goods is better than manufacturing recyclable disposable goods."
Recycling still consumes energy and resources and produces pollution---just at a lower level than manufacturing from scratch. Manufacturing durable goods is better than manufacturing recyclable disposable goods.
I'd like to thank the people who modded my post up, but I feel obligated to admit that it wasn't original---I saw it on alt.religion.emacs.
M-x all-hail-emacs