There's really nothing wrong with the foundations at all. The problem has been (1) the shell and its various subsystems (particularly IE), (2) programmer practices, and (3) user practices. Microsoft is of course fully responsible for (1), and, in fairness, security for these is free even to pirates. For (2) and (3), though, while they have encouraged best practices, they have made the decision not to enforce them. Enforcement of best practices, though, would not be IMO a good idea - the user should always have ultimate control over their machine.
but with my understanding of broadcast law, I see no way you could get into trouble for it.
I'm just going to go waaaay out on a limb here and guess that you are not, in fact, a lawyer.
The issue is pretty cut-and-dried: generally, they that own the copyright can prohibit any and/or all copying and distribution of the material, excepting copying made for fair use purposes.
Is that really applicable here? We're talking about free-form content. What can you do, allow users only to use whitespace and alphanumeric characters? Completely disable using angle brackets? The "badness" you are trying to prevent is distinguishable from the "goodness" only by the patterns that it occurs in. So you say, don't clean it? The real problem here is even identifying that it needs to be cleaned at all. You can't even reject bad input outright if you can't identify that it has a problem.
It's not a strawman, because you were never clear on what you did expect the US to do (as opposed to leaving them "twisting in the wind.") When pressed for clarification, you alluded to international support given to the colonies during the American revolution, the most important of which came in the form of military and logistical support - to which I responded that similar support to the Tianemen democracy activists would not have been practical. So, I believe the question still stands. If we should have done something and failed to do it because it would upset business interests, what was that something? We lent moral support, but moral support does not stop bullets.
And even if I was wrong about all of that, and it's not a legitimate question, you are wrong about the personal attacks. The bedrock of civil society is common courtesy and politeness, yes, even towards those you feel are idiots. It is entirely possible to respond to wrong arguments with right arguments, and not invective.
That interdependence seems like exactly the kind of help freedom fighters might expect.
But that was clearly impractical and unreasonable. The Chicom government may be despicable, but it is both large and in charge, and like it or not, we have to play nice with them. The idea that we could provide logisitical or military support to what the Chinese considered insurgents in their own capital city is utterly ridiculous, and I hope to god that you never insinuated to them that such support would be forthcoming. Personally, I feel that the Iraqi situation was different, in that we explicitly promised support and almost certainly could have weathered a confrontation with Hussein. But I don't see it as terribly relevant, except as an example of a mistake which should not be repeated.
P.S. The gratuitous namecalling and personal attacks are totally uncalled for.
helping Chinese expats conduct the Tiannamen uprising. Which your boys left twisting in the wind, because it's bad for (their) business.
What the...WTF did you EXPECT?!? Did you think the Marines would invade China? That we'd threaten nuclear retaliation? That Navy Seals would infiltrate the Chinese army and blow up all their tanks? You say you helped make this happen. What plan did you have to prevent this atrocity, other than relying on the U.S. to bail you out? Or did you plan to rely on the good nature and generosity towards dissent traditionally shown by the Chicoms?
Is there some reason why FOSS audio tools will not work in Windows? I'm just puzzled, because I don't understand the jump from "here are some great FOSS audio tools" to "this is why Linux>Windows." I used FOSS on Windows all the time; it it was coded well it works perfectly fine. Or are these FOSS-tools platform-dependent on some specific distro of Linux?
Who is building the walls in this dispute? The US is changing nothing with the internet. It is the "allies" who are talking about breaking a working system, just to spite the US.
Nice rhetoric, though. Propose hostile changes, then blame the other side for degraded relations.
This is not true. You are a FUD victim. What Vista will include is the ability to play DRM'ed files that require a secure channel between the video adapter and the monitor. It will not, however, require the use of such to play unencumbered files.
What's missing is (a) the standard, and (b) the infrastructure, either in the form of power outlets in the wall (or inductive devices like this on your desk) and/or multi-port adapters optimized for that standard DC voltage.
You can sort of hack such a system together, using Radio Shack's adapt-a-plug system. You just need a plug that splits into two parallel plugs (like this), repeat as necessary (and a PSU with enough current capacity to power all the parallel devices, of course - you can buy wall warts from the shack, but there's no reason you couldn't use an old switching PC PSU.) Only technical drawback is this only provides one voltage per wire "rail". But one PSU per voltage (generally, you only ever need 5, 9, and 12) is a lot better than one PSU per device, which is the status quo. Sadly, Radio Shack absolutely rapes customers on the prices for these bits of wire.
But that's not what it says! It says that power not expressly granted to the federal level devolves to the state level or the people; thus if it is not expressly granted, it is illegal at the federal level.
"Elliot Frielle regularly cheats on his income tax and perjured himself in court last year by stating that his mistress was with him on the night she was accused of mass murder," I'd be libeling (or is that slandering?) him by stating it as fact.
True, but an interesting note is that in the United States, the truth of that statement would be an absolute defense against any charge of libel or slander. In most other countries, that is not the case.
How do you get that from "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"? It seems to me that the obvious reading is that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the lower levels of government.
I suspect the gripers of wanting to abuse code they didn't write.
This statement shows that you are not thinking clearly about this issue. Code cannot be "abused." It is not a creature. It is a thing. It merely exists.
So what is the GPL protecting? It's not the user, because the user is free to choose commercial or open software already. It's really about the developers, and protecting their ability to give away code but not feel exploited. The problem is, why should the user care about this? From the user's perspective, all it means for them is additional hassle. That's why arguments from developers as to the superiority of the GPL for users rings awfully hollow. At least commercial developers are honest enough to admit that the license is for their benefit.
Parent's point is still valid. PDF-related technology is patented, and the free licenses they currently grant are not to my knowledge perpetual. Therefore, theoretically, the license could be revoked, and while Ghostscript would still technically be able to read (old) PDF files, it could not do so legally. There are lots of open, documented formats that are still pay-to-play.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, don't forget that Bill Gates gets half.
There's really nothing wrong with the foundations at all. The problem has been (1) the shell and its various subsystems (particularly IE), (2) programmer practices, and (3) user practices. Microsoft is of course fully responsible for (1), and, in fairness, security for these is free even to pirates. For (2) and (3), though, while they have encouraged best practices, they have made the decision not to enforce them. Enforcement of best practices, though, would not be IMO a good idea - the user should always have ultimate control over their machine.
I'm just going to go waaaay out on a limb here and guess that you are not, in fact, a lawyer.
The issue is pretty cut-and-dried: generally, they that own the copyright can prohibit any and/or all copying and distribution of the material, excepting copying made for fair use purposes.
Is that really applicable here? We're talking about free-form content. What can you do, allow users only to use whitespace and alphanumeric characters? Completely disable using angle brackets? The "badness" you are trying to prevent is distinguishable from the "goodness" only by the patterns that it occurs in. So you say, don't clean it? The real problem here is even identifying that it needs to be cleaned at all. You can't even reject bad input outright if you can't identify that it has a problem.
And even if I was wrong about all of that, and it's not a legitimate question, you are wrong about the personal attacks. The bedrock of civil society is common courtesy and politeness, yes, even towards those you feel are idiots. It is entirely possible to respond to wrong arguments with right arguments, and not invective.
But that was clearly impractical and unreasonable. The Chicom government may be despicable, but it is both large and in charge, and like it or not, we have to play nice with them. The idea that we could provide logisitical or military support to what the Chinese considered insurgents in their own capital city is utterly ridiculous, and I hope to god that you never insinuated to them that such support would be forthcoming. Personally, I feel that the Iraqi situation was different, in that we explicitly promised support and almost certainly could have weathered a confrontation with Hussein. But I don't see it as terribly relevant, except as an example of a mistake which should not be repeated.
P.S. The gratuitous namecalling and personal attacks are totally uncalled for.
Well, then, I have good news! The feelings are mutual!
What the...WTF did you EXPECT?!? Did you think the Marines would invade China? That we'd threaten nuclear retaliation? That Navy Seals would infiltrate the Chinese army and blow up all their tanks? You say you helped make this happen. What plan did you have to prevent this atrocity, other than relying on the U.S. to bail you out? Or did you plan to rely on the good nature and generosity towards dissent traditionally shown by the Chicoms?
Is there some reason why FOSS audio tools will not work in Windows? I'm just puzzled, because I don't understand the jump from "here are some great FOSS audio tools" to "this is why Linux>Windows." I used FOSS on Windows all the time; it it was coded well it works perfectly fine. Or are these FOSS-tools platform-dependent on some specific distro of Linux?
That is because they fail to see the distinction between "speech" and "conduct."
Juries.
Who is building the walls in this dispute? The US is changing nothing with the internet. It is the "allies" who are talking about breaking a working system, just to spite the US.
Nice rhetoric, though. Propose hostile changes, then blame the other side for degraded relations.
Sheesh, RTFQ, he said he didn't want to listen to muzak.
This is not true. You are a FUD victim. What Vista will include is the ability to play DRM'ed files that require a secure channel between the video adapter and the monitor. It will not, however, require the use of such to play unencumbered files.
That is why you fail. Seek understanding, and you will find enlightenment.
Hear, hear. Incidentally, that's (one reason) why I DO subscribe to Consumer Reports. No paid ads. Period.
You can sort of hack such a system together, using Radio Shack's adapt-a-plug system. You just need a plug that splits into two parallel plugs (like this), repeat as necessary (and a PSU with enough current capacity to power all the parallel devices, of course - you can buy wall warts from the shack, but there's no reason you couldn't use an old switching PC PSU.) Only technical drawback is this only provides one voltage per wire "rail". But one PSU per voltage (generally, you only ever need 5, 9, and 12) is a lot better than one PSU per device, which is the status quo. Sadly, Radio Shack absolutely rapes customers on the prices for these bits of wire.
Recent story
- Standard external USB or IEEE1392 2.5" laptop drive
But that's not what it says! It says that power not expressly granted to the federal level devolves to the state level or the people; thus if it is not expressly granted, it is illegal at the federal level.
True, but an interesting note is that in the United States, the truth of that statement would be an absolute defense against any charge of libel or slander. In most other countries, that is not the case.
Right, because only cowards publish anonymously.
How do you get that from "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"? It seems to me that the obvious reading is that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the lower levels of government.
This statement shows that you are not thinking clearly about this issue. Code cannot be "abused." It is not a creature. It is a thing. It merely exists.
So what is the GPL protecting? It's not the user, because the user is free to choose commercial or open software already. It's really about the developers, and protecting their ability to give away code but not feel exploited. The problem is, why should the user care about this? From the user's perspective, all it means for them is additional hassle. That's why arguments from developers as to the superiority of the GPL for users rings awfully hollow. At least commercial developers are honest enough to admit that the license is for their benefit.
Parent's point is still valid. PDF-related technology is patented, and the free licenses they currently grant are not to my knowledge perpetual. Therefore, theoretically, the license could be revoked, and while Ghostscript would still technically be able to read (old) PDF files, it could not do so legally. There are lots of open, documented formats that are still pay-to-play.