The RIAA is going overboard with their subpoenas... $150000 per song??? They're blaming something for their economic woes (and i've seen the statistics- they don't have many) that can make them more money when they exploit it. It's no different than when they claimed home radio taping was killing music in the 80's. Hmmm... they seemed to have survived that, didn't they?
both Microsoft and Phoenix are involved in plans to integrate digital rights management (DRM) technology at the operating system and hardware level. so basically, these people want to control not only the market, but also the computers after they are bought. Microsoft said integration should mean simpler and more reliable computers. The stability of Linux on the SAME COMPUTERS THAT RUN WINDOWS has already proved the current system to be reliable. While Microsoft does indeed need to simplify and stabalize its operating systems, pulling direct links to the hardware is not the way to do it. Personally, I don't want Windows using my hardware directly. This is nothing more than a way to make computer makers more afraid not to include Windows on their machines, and there is no way anyone can cover that up.
Ah ha!!! Finally, the belief that Linux can run on anything more powerful than a toaster will be proven wrong... when they make toasters with Linux embedded!!!! I can't wait for the "cat./toast1./toast2 > waffle" feature!
Basically, the article is accusing the state, not the OS of being socialist. My next point is best brought up with this quote:
People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive.
Since when does it cost a dime to upgrade Linux??? IT'S ALL AVAILABLE OFF THE INTERNET FOR FREE!... unless, of course, you will only accept official releases, in which case, you may as well settle for some Microsoft OS that you can set to a nice screen saver to look at while you wait for it to crash again.
I guess this would be okay as long as I can use P2P file-sharing software on my toaster. Wouldn't that be nice? I've heard that Linux can run on anything more powerful than a toaster, but if Microsoft begins running NT on toasters, maybe somebody should produce a similar device based on Linux. Put speakers on it. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Will the new toasters/fridges/alarm clocks/cyborgs/zombies be vulnerable to virus attacks? And what exactly (If MS beats Linux to the toaster) does a blue toaster of death look like?
this isn't really a technical thing... but it's good. I know this topic is old by now, but if you're reading it regardless- hi! Ok, so duct tape the lever on the adjustible height chair so that it lets the seat all the way up and will sink when weight is applied. Now hide where you can watch your co-worker starts to sink as s/he takes a seat.
JUMP SHIP? When ever was the movement toward freedom and equality abandoned for a more popular brand of slavery? Odysseus never said, "screw it, death is easier than this." George Washington never said, "You know what guys, freedom is good and all, but boy do those Brits have snappy uniforms." So why should our fight for freedom be abandoned because the latest version of Windows may be a little more appealing? Open Source will improve Linux ad infinitum, but proprietary development hinders the betterment of Windows. Where is your faith?
This horribly parsed passage is an email I received forwarded to me:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it
deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny
iprmoetnt tihng is taht
> the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
>
> The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it
wouthit
> porbelm.
>
> Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef,
> but the wrod as a wlohe.
>
> amzanig huh?
I like the idea of a change, but it's probably not necessary. I've rarely had problems with X, but nothing that couldn't be cured with a "killall -9." Well, there was this one time... I accidentally fricked up all my config scritps and files for X, and it took me forever to figure it all out from the command line, which brings me to two other points:
1) if Y has a better way to configure itself than X (perhaps allowing the use of a mouse or a more advanced autodetection kind of thing?), I'd definitely switch- but only after I got my new *n*x system.
2) nevermind- it wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be.
if instead of using the different pitches for 1 and 0, they converted the packet into trinary and used a timing system so they could count the two pitches as well as a period of silence, then the process could in theory be sped up. 64 --> 1000000 --> 2101
I think we can all agree that SCO's lawsuits are the wretched spasms of a dying corporation, grasping at life any way it can in its final moments. Perhaps this sounds too biased, but I must admit that I am extremely offended by SCO's actions. Although Linux is, in the long run, not as important as the Open Source concept, the principle of the thing must be defended. I will never give up my operating system, and neither should you.
My disagreement was with the previous post, which argued for software patents.
First of all, a fully compiled program (NOT assembly code, because we're not talking about assembly code for the most part, and that off-tangent argument is irrelevant to the debate at hand) cannot be decompiled into the original programing language (though it can be decompiled into hexadecimal, which is only a more convenient way to show the binary nature of it). Secondly, this whole language metaphor is misleading. It implies that two programs written in different languages that are alike in every other way are the same, which may or may not be true, but it also implies that two programs written in the same language to do the same thing are exactly the same, or that there is only one "recipe" for the "chocolate cake." This is untrue. If you sat seven programers at seven computers and told them to program the same thing in the same language, you would have seven very differently written programs.
You said that sourcecode is directly runnable on a properly configured system. What does that have to do with companies distributing binaries without any source code to all kinds of systems? This is a moot point.
A book says the exact same thing no matter what language language it is written in, or how easy or hard it is for me to read that language. This is true, but can't two books written in the same language be written in entirely different ways?
We seem to agree that software patents are harmful, but we do so in different ways, so really, this entire conversation about semantics is alltogether less important than the overall discussion.
Like writing a recipe for chocolate cake in English and having someone else translate it into Chineese. In either language it is still just a recipe with essentially the same set of instructions in it. I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The case is more like a person from China seeing a chocolate cake, then figuring out how to make it him/herself. The directions just happen to be written in Chinese.
The problem with patenting software is that software is similar to other works that take copyrights, like books. The words used are very different, but the overall plot may be similar (IE: a murder mystery or an encyclopedia). The main fear is that companies would patent things like the word processor or the internet browser.
This is not to imply that "software patents are bad for Linux" because it's not simply a matter of writing the exact same program in another programing language or for another operating system, although it does apply there. Just think of how many essentially similar programs there are for Windows alone, which may have been written in any number of programing languages for the same OS. Now imagine that there can only be one of each basic kind of program because somebody patented the idea.
Alsee, your examples of programing without compiling remind me of shell scripts that rely on already compiled programs, but you have to realize that most computer applications could never be made this way due to the time it would take for the computer to get it running. Convenience is huge overstatement. This is like comparing a tent to a house. A tent may be quick to set up and useful for smaller purposes, but a house could never be used the same way.
Compiling is where things get messy, because it hides the source code. It's like watching a movie of a book; all the real words are hidden and all you see is the result of reading it.
I understand that one can patent a process for doing something, but one can also patent an end-product. A program is an end-product of the source code used to compile it, so wouldn't software patents, in effect, cause the much feared "functionality similarity" disputes to become more substantive in the legal system?
I've never wanted to become one of those conspiracy-theorists who thinks that any new thing Microsoft is an evil plot contrived for the purpose of making more money while at the same time screwing customers, using an already established near-monopoly to crush competition and screw customers, or just screwing customers. Unfortunately, one of these is usually the case.
1) Use a screenname that's a name and then a number like bob123 or andy78. 2) Register for things at places like AOL and MSN. I have no proof that they sell out their customers, but my experiences with both are strong indications.
Very few things are really necessities (ie: water, air, food, etc.). I've always thought of the internet as a gigantic (uncensored) library of human knowledge. It's definitely a necessity if you're counting things like books and education. Just yesterday, I downloaded all 12 books of Vergil's Aeneid... in the original Latin! I'd say the internet is a pretty useful thing for just about any reason you can find.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA is going overboard with their subpoenas... $150000 per song??? They're blaming something for their economic woes (and i've seen the statistics- they don't have many) that can make them more money when they exploit it. It's no different than when they claimed home radio taping was killing music in the 80's. Hmmm... they seemed to have survived that, didn't they?
technically, you have the OPTION to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows, but have you ever tried?
both Microsoft and Phoenix are involved in plans to integrate digital rights management (DRM) technology at the operating system and hardware level.
so basically, these people want to control not only the market, but also the computers after they are bought.
Microsoft said integration should mean simpler and more reliable computers.
The stability of Linux on the SAME COMPUTERS THAT RUN WINDOWS has already proved the current system to be reliable. While Microsoft does indeed need to simplify and stabalize its operating systems, pulling direct links to the hardware is not the way to do it. Personally, I don't want Windows using my hardware directly. This is nothing more than a way to make computer makers more afraid not to include Windows on their machines, and there is no way anyone can cover that up.
Ah ha!!! Finally, the belief that Linux can run on anything more powerful than a toaster will be proven wrong... when they make toasters with Linux embedded!!!! I can't wait for the "cat ./toast1 ./toast2 > waffle" feature!
Basically, the article is accusing the state, not the OS of being socialist. My next point is best brought up with this quote:
... unless, of course, you will only accept official releases, in which case, you may as well settle for some Microsoft OS that you can set to a nice screen saver to look at while you wait for it to crash again.
People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive.
Since when does it cost a dime to upgrade Linux??? IT'S ALL AVAILABLE OFF THE INTERNET FOR FREE!
...and I thought that evolution had weeded out these kinds of people.
I guess this would be okay as long as I can use P2P file-sharing software on my toaster. Wouldn't that be nice? I've heard that Linux can run on anything more powerful than a toaster, but if Microsoft begins running NT on toasters, maybe somebody should produce a similar device based on Linux. Put speakers on it. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Will the new toasters/fridges/alarm clocks/cyborgs/zombies be vulnerable to virus attacks? And what exactly (If MS beats Linux to the toaster) does a blue toaster of death look like?
WOW- this'll be great for all those new magnatune CD's I'm going to buy, rip, and put on a cd in ogg format!
this isn't really a technical thing... but it's good. I know this topic is old by now, but if you're reading it regardless- hi! Ok, so duct tape the lever on the adjustible height chair so that it lets the seat all the way up and will sink when weight is applied. Now hide where you can watch your co-worker starts to sink as s/he takes a seat.
I commend your ability to insult Microsoft in a seemingly unrelated topic! Good work!
Can I hook my computer up to it? QUAKE!!! CUBE!!! DOOM!!! that would be so awesome!
JUMP SHIP? When ever was the movement toward freedom and equality abandoned for a more popular brand of slavery? Odysseus never said, "screw it, death is easier than this." George Washington never said, "You know what guys, freedom is good and all, but boy do those Brits have snappy uniforms." So why should our fight for freedom be abandoned because the latest version of Windows may be a little more appealing? Open Source will improve Linux ad infinitum, but proprietary development hinders the betterment of Windows. Where is your faith?
This horribly parsed passage is an email I received forwarded to me: Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer > in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht > the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. > > The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit > porbelm. > > Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, > but the wrod as a wlohe. > > amzanig huh?
I like the idea of a change, but it's probably not necessary. I've rarely had problems with X, but nothing that couldn't be cured with a "killall -9." Well, there was this one time... I accidentally fricked up all my config scritps and files for X, and it took me forever to figure it all out from the command line, which brings me to two other points:
1) if Y has a better way to configure itself than X (perhaps allowing the use of a mouse or a more advanced autodetection kind of thing?), I'd definitely switch- but only after I got my new *n*x system.
2) nevermind- it wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be.
if instead of using the different pitches for 1 and 0, they converted the packet into trinary and used a timing system so they could count the two pitches as well as a period of silence, then the process could in theory be sped up. 64 --> 1000000 --> 2101
good points!
I used to read and write programs directly in numeric language.
That's impressive.
I wonder if we can get the "chocolate cake recipe" metaphor to become standard.
I think we can all agree that SCO's lawsuits are the wretched spasms of a dying corporation, grasping at life any way it can in its final moments. Perhaps this sounds too biased, but I must admit that I am extremely offended by SCO's actions. Although Linux is, in the long run, not as important as the Open Source concept, the principle of the thing must be defended. I will never give up my operating system, and neither should you.
My disagreement was with the previous post, which argued for software patents.
First of all, a fully compiled program (NOT assembly code, because we're not talking about assembly code for the most part, and that off-tangent argument is irrelevant to the debate at hand) cannot be decompiled into the original programing language (though it can be decompiled into hexadecimal, which is only a more convenient way to show the binary nature of it). Secondly, this whole language metaphor is misleading. It implies that two programs written in different languages that are alike in every other way are the same, which may or may not be true, but it also implies that two programs written in the same language to do the same thing are exactly the same, or that there is only one "recipe" for the "chocolate cake." This is untrue. If you sat seven programers at seven computers and told them to program the same thing in the same language, you would have seven very differently written programs.
You said that sourcecode is directly runnable on a properly configured system. What does that have to do with companies distributing binaries without any source code to all kinds of systems? This is a moot point.
A book says the exact same thing no matter what language language it is written in, or how easy or hard it is for me to read that language. This is true, but can't two books written in the same language be written in entirely different ways?
We seem to agree that software patents are harmful, but we do so in different ways, so really, this entire conversation about semantics is alltogether less important than the overall discussion.
Like writing a recipe for chocolate cake in English and having someone else translate it into Chineese. In either language it is still just a recipe with essentially the same set of instructions in it.
I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The case is more like a person from China seeing a chocolate cake, then figuring out how to make it him/herself. The directions just happen to be written in Chinese.
The problem with patenting software is that software is similar to other works that take copyrights, like books. The words used are very different, but the overall plot may be similar (IE: a murder mystery or an encyclopedia). The main fear is that companies would patent things like the word processor or the internet browser.
This is not to imply that "software patents are bad for Linux" because it's not simply a matter of writing the exact same program in another programing language or for another operating system, although it does apply there. Just think of how many essentially similar programs there are for Windows alone, which may have been written in any number of programing languages for the same OS. Now imagine that there can only be one of each basic kind of program because somebody patented the idea.
Alsee, your examples of programing without compiling remind me of shell scripts that rely on already compiled programs, but you have to realize that most computer applications could never be made this way due to the time it would take for the computer to get it running. Convenience is huge overstatement. This is like comparing a tent to a house. A tent may be quick to set up and useful for smaller purposes, but a house could never be used the same way.
Compiling is where things get messy, because it hides the source code. It's like watching a movie of a book; all the real words are hidden and all you see is the result of reading it.
I understand that one can patent a process for doing something, but one can also patent an end-product. A program is an end-product of the source code used to compile it, so wouldn't software patents, in effect, cause the much feared "functionality similarity" disputes to become more substantive in the legal system?
I've never wanted to become one of those conspiracy-theorists who thinks that any new thing Microsoft is an evil plot contrived for the purpose of making more money while at the same time screwing customers, using an already established near-monopoly to crush competition and screw customers, or just screwing customers. Unfortunately, one of these is usually the case.
1) Use a screenname that's a name and then a number like bob123 or andy78.
2) Register for things at places like AOL and MSN. I have no proof that they sell out their customers, but my experiences with both are strong indications.
I think that's all I have for now.
Very few things are really necessities (ie: water, air, food, etc.). I've always thought of the internet as a gigantic (uncensored) library of human knowledge. It's definitely a necessity if you're counting things like books and education. Just yesterday, I downloaded all 12 books of Vergil's Aeneid... in the original Latin! I'd say the internet is a pretty useful thing for just about any reason you can find.
ok so i guess somebody on the other side of the world just happened to try what I jokingly said. Does that truly warrant a point deduction?!
I've often wondered if I could patent the wheel and axle... of the inclined plane- that was mine too.