No, apparently Linux is based on the idea of software freedom for Linux users only, on the idea of making itself the only player in the free-software gain. Otherwise the Linux kernel developers would realize that making a full arsenal of device drivers portable and available to the world of free operating-systems at large can do more to advance free software...
And you're missing the point. The current argument for why Linux drivers have to be GPL2 is that they are a derivative work of the Linux kernel. If any sort of stable API/ABI was created across multiple OSs, then it would be quite obvious that drivers aren't themselves a derivative work of the kernel and could be licensed however a driver maker pleases. And because Linux kernel hackers want to be able to actually debug and fix faulty components of the kernel space, like a driver, they desire the software freedom of open source for drivers and won't work to undermine it.
Truthfully, this doesn't lock out other free software OSs. But, it does mean that those that wish to use an exiting Linux driver have to modify it for their own OS or clone the Linux behavior, however that might change. Yes, that's a painful barrier and it would be preferable to have portable drivers. But, the current situation is a byproduct of the limitations of copyright law's ability to coerce others to comply with the wishes of Linux kernel developers when it comes to Linux driver development.
What I meant by the kernel was the kernel should have the basic I/O-file systems, networking, etc and that the drivers for device foo belong in the ABI.
That's probably a bad idea. There's already a mishmash of userland drivers for things. Preferably, everything would follow a standard ABI.
And as for "windows drivers causing BSODs"? Yeah, that was true in 1998, but working PC repair I have had to deal with some seriously shitty hardware and since XP came out finding a BSOD due to 3rd party drivers is EXTREMELY rare. 99 times out of 100 the device simply doesn't work. And in 99 out of 100 of those cases a simple uninstall/reinstall fixes it right up.
A lot of that has to do with WHQL testing. That's certainly a way that could be done with Linux, even following a similar $250/submission fee for evaluation of test logs.
While I think your idea of a "retailLinux" is intriguing, and if I didn't suck ass at website design I have some ideas that could mitigate it somewhat,
It'd take a lot more than making a website. You'd need to fork the linux kernel, maintain it with the standard line, create a standard ABI, creating testing tools to create a WHQL-like program, and start an organization to actually handle processing of the test results. Overall, it's something that a large organization like IBM or Ubuntu could finance, but I don't think they have an interest in committing all that work--and I don't think it's for ideological reasons.
I think ultimately in the end Linux is doomed to stay just where it is at, and it is NOT because of some conspiracy. sadly, it all comes down to politics and the "SCoN!" (Source Code or Nothing!) brigade. They will NEVER allow a stable ABI, or an easy way to just slap drivers on a CD and ship it, because "Gasp!" you might actually get a few vendors that don't release their source code for RMS to rummage through.
True enough. There is virtually no interest in moving towards binary blobs of any kind. A lot of people who work on Linux do so precisely because of all the hassle of binary blobs.
To see how militant the SCoN! brigade is, just look at the Anti-TiVo clause in GPL V3. Here you have the defacto leader of the GNU movement rewriting sections to specifically target a SINGLE company he doesn't like, and lets be honest here, okay? If the TiVo was easily "hacked" to run unsigned source code, how long do you think it would be before the net was flooded with "Free TiVo!" code and/or easy to use ways to copy any and all content off of said TiVo? I would say about a week, and TiVo would go bye bye, but RMS don't care about TiVo or any other busines for that matter.
Why should they? The GNU movement's objective isn't to create "good will" at the expense of its ideology. TiVo, quite simply, chose the wrong tool for the job. Instead of choosing a closeable open OS, they went with an open OS and tried to force it to be closeable. Perhaps they did it because they were ignorant of alternatives (like FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD). Or perhaps they did it to capitalize on the interest of Linux fans (and for which they'd deserve backlash, not accolades). In either case, TiVo inadvertently forced GNU to action in finally updating their license to better deal with the issue of patents (something that had been mulled over for quite some time), and it taught a valuable lesson to companies like TiVo that GNU and Linux aren't in it as a part of a popularity contest above all else.
And THAT is why ultimately Linux is doomed to a niche at retail. It will cost serious money for advertising, fixing the problems I outlined in my previous post, making inroads with retail stores like Walmart, all that takes money. I'm sure there are plenty of companies that would be happy to meet with RMS and try to come to some sort of compromise, but to the SCoN! there is NO
You made an emotionally charged comment that was designed to illicit a response. That's a classic troll.
Not quite. It's one thing to make an emotionally charged comment in the middle of a discussion and another to make an emotionally charged comment to, as you state, illicit a response. Only the latter is trolling. Intent is the main factor in trolling.
I understand it's not always avoidable; I do it myself from time to time. And when I get modded Troll because of it, I might be momentarily upset by it but I generally don't whine about it in a subsequent post. Because that's another classic troll technique.
A more appropriate reason, IMHO, to not respond is because it's pointless to try to defend your intentions with statements about your intentions, especially to people who have already decided how they wish to interpret your statements. The one general exception is a miscommunication, but that involves rewording what one says, usually.
Try to provide something more substantive to the conversation, and when those times occur when you just can't then don't whine about how others view your opinion.
Providing some substantive to the conversation and how people view you aren't necessarily related. Consider how people would view Charles Manson's comments in a discussion of manipulation of others. Quite simply, emotion tends to override the better judgment of many people, regardless of how relevant or insightful comments are. It really doesn't matter how politely you state what should be said. Of course, I agree that whining doesn't interject anything useful.
Or does Ubuntu not have a "we're not responsible for anything" clause?
IIRC, Ubuntu doesn't have an EULA. Having said that, if you end up redistributing parts of Ubuntu, just about every part of Ubuntu comes with a redistribution license containing a "we're not responsible for anything" clause. Ie, you become the person responsible to others if you redistribute. I don't think sharing an Ubuntu CD counts, so long as it's a copy from Canonical.
Thinking about it some more, that possibly means whatever mirror you might use would be the one you'd sue. I'm not sure what the legal precedent is in this area, since I've never heard of anyone being sued over generally available software. I don't think EULAs really have anything to do with that, though.
In short, in two years (admittedly record years), Exxon has made more in after taxes profit than what basically all world governments and private companies have ever spent on global warming research, pro or con, and anti-global warming technology in 20 years. Further:
"I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.... By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!" -- Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
Ie, the government gets tons of money from Exxon through taxes. What exactly is their incentive to cut Exxon off again? Personal enrichment? It'd seem Exxon could trivially bribe politicians if that was what it was about. For politicians and private citizens to create a huge global warming conspiracy sounds more like a religion than one based upon money. Of course, that's a harder point to prove, especially with all the evidence by multiple, independent scientists.
PS - Just to be clear, again, Exxon made ~$40 Billion in 2007 after taxes. Their before taxes income in 2007 was ~$70 Billion. If the US wasn't spending money like a drunken sailor, there'd be plenty of money from the taxes on Exxon alone to do substantial technological and research development to combat global warming. The idea that in 20 years we've spent a meager $70 Billion is depressing.
Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property... [is] a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property.... hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
Funny. I was always under the impression that "enforcement of property [rights]" involved some "assholes with AK-47s... holding property hostage... until a nice fat randsom is paid". After all, what's the basis for anyone claiming property other than a combination of (a) no one else claiming it at the time you did, (b) anyone else who would claim it then or later being killed or threatened to be killed by AK-47s (or the weapon of choice of the day), and (c) a progression of ownership carried down under trade (or a new branch of "legitimate" ownership from another instance of (b)). Really, I don't see how any of the whole ownership cycle is particularly morally legitimate under Libertarianism (or libertarianism) except the first part of section (c).
If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question: is the change for the worse? Really? How can you be so sure?
And if prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that fossil fuels have had a dramatic effect on human society for the better, I've one key question: is changing the climate of the entire Earth without knowing the consequences acceptable? Really? How can you be so sure?
I dislike the doom-laden 'changing our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck human society' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that we won't suffer those consequences anyways given fossil fuels aren't renewable. There have been multiple radical shifts in fuel sources by mankind throughout history. Why not work towards yet another shift using a more sustainable power source? Yes, perhaps economics will inherently fix the problem in the long-term, but what's wrong with working towards fixing the problem now? If the survival of humanity is truly desired for the long-term, new power sources being developed sooner is better. It greatly increases our ability to multiply on other planets/moons to survive otherwise plant-scale cataclysmic events.
Well, as we all know, the MSM in the US has a liberal bias. And since the MSM is a by-product of the free market, it must be the case that it is optimal for and people want news to have a liberal bias.
Of course, this just shows the free market has failed. The only solution is for socialism, a buying of major parts of the MSM by the government, to push a more conservative/libertarian bias against socialism, which doesn't work. Of course, if you're in the UK, socialism has produced an even more liberal news source, so they'll have to go back to a more free market approach which has proven to work so well in the US.
I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.
Scenario 1 - I have to pay $100/month for phone service to the one provider in the area or any job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line. I only obtain $80/month above the average wage, x, for any job to pay for the phone line. I effectively earn (x-$20)/month.
Scenario 2 - There is no phone service provider in my area, so no job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line. I obtain $20/month above the average wage, x, for any job to compensate for a lack of phone service in the area. I effectively earn (x+$20)/month.
...I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.
They're called subnotebooks. Sure, you can run other apps, and people generally do now. But, what apps are those? How likely is it that Google will implement web-based versions of most of those apps?
Btw, I can think of another great reason for such a minimal OS, on the same order as subnotebooks: cheap developing country computers that are relatively secure. Cyber-cafes are notorious when it comes to security, and while access to a computer is a reason people use them, more and more people use them for the cheap internet connection, not the actual computer. I can readily imagine Google pushing for even cheaper subnotebooks in markets like China and India as web access expands; and unlikely Microsoft or Apple, they don't really have to worry about piracy.
Underlining/highlighting a book does not change the contents of the book. However if you did change the words, then that is modifying.
Both are modifying. Obviously, highlighting gives you less room to make modifications, but you can very well change the intent of sentences by highlight a few words or drastically alter the story if the highlighted words become the main story (look no further than Bibles which color code the words Jesus spoke).
So if you decided that you didn't like how Cujo by Steven King ended, you could rewrite your own ending and sell it as the "improved" Cujo. I think Steven King would sue the pants off you.
And the question is, why? If I sell 1 million copies of my "improved" Cujo, I had to buy 1 million copies of Cujo from Steven King. If each copy is sold by Steven King at $19.95, then I have to sell at above $19.95 to make any profit at all. Odds are, I'll have to sell it at close to $24.95 or $29.95, most of that difference being marketing, production, and distribution costs. If people believe my "improved" Cujo is worth an extra $10, or nearly 150% of the original selling price, the real problem would seem to be that Steven King is selling the original too cheaply or my "improved" Cujo is really worth it; neither point really is my fault.
Of course, it's really irrelevant since it would be Steven King's publisher, if anyone, who would likely sue (so they can prove my "improved" Cujo is a derivative work and publish it themselves). And they'd likely win by bankrupting me, not by winning on any actual legal merit. That's not to say they wouldn't have any legal merit, but your example is rather lacking since civil suits can be won simply based on whoever has more money for lawyers. Since I don't have any desire to become bankrupt, I personally wouldn't engage in such an enterprise.
PS - I've never even read Cujo. You have a problem with its ending?
No, but selling copies of those textbooks is. That's the issue here.
The issue I was responding to was whether you can buy one single copy of a work, modify it, and resell that single copy. It sounds like such amounts to creating a derivative work, as far as the court is concerned, and isn't legally redistributable without the copyright holder's permission. But, by that very logic, modifying a textbook by adding or removing words or even simply underlining/highlighting words for emphasis would count as well. Ie, no copies have to be made for a derivative work to be created. So Psystar would be just as guilty even if they thought of a clever way to restamp each OS X disc to include their modifications.
Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell.
Good to know. I guess that means reselling all those college textbooks back to the bookstore at the end of a term is not protected by First Sale Doctrine either, if you make even the smallest mark on any page.
The only real way to fix the current advertising problems is to educate the general public to not fall for stupendously unrealistic claims in advertising - unfortunately the general public seem somewhat immune to the effects of such education probably because critical thinking doesn't appear to be fashionable.
The problem is, what makes for "stupendously unrealistic claims"? All-you-can-eat buffets seems stupendously unrealistic. Paying less than $1.00 for a thousand gallons of water seems stupendously unrealistic. Buying a double cheeseburger for $1.00 seems stupendously unrealistic. In fact, people having stupendously unrealistic expectations is actually a good thing; if a company is actually sued over such claims, a jury should be much more likely to find against the company.
No, the current advertisement problem has a lot more to do with the FTC not prosecuting such advertisers. As others note, individuals suing is generally a loss for the individual. That's one reason the FTC was created, to bring cases against businesses so consumers would not have to bear the cost of prosecuting their own consumer protection. But, the FTC is the enemy of nearly all businesses, so is it any surprise that it has been made so weak against deceptive or fraudulent advertising?
Put another way, your argument amounts to the idea that if only people had critical thinking skills, e-mail spam would be eliminated. The fact is, most people (99.7%, IIRC) do have the critical thinking skills to not buy what spam is selling. But, spamming is so cheap and with so little consequences that it only takes a very small percentage of buyers to keep the spammers afloat financially. Do you think print or tv advertising is really so radically different?
You know, I hear this a lot, but I've never yet found a church that actually spends more time talking about homosexuality than about heterosexual adultery and other sins. Quite the contrary, churches that talk about sin at all (which, granted, leaves out a fair few these days) usually focus on the ones that people seem to have a problem with, for the most part.
And my experience has been different. While homosexuality might not have been a large topic of conversation, considering how rampant adultery is, idolatry is, etc there was disproportionate focus on the sin of homosexuality. The point of focusing on homosexuality is, generally, to try to force out open homosexuals from the congregation, yet the same is not done with adultery. Perhaps this is because one sin is more understandable to those who preach?
If you think churches rant about homosexuality all the time and ignore every other sin, you obviously watch too much television. Try turning the TV off and actually going to church sometime.
And that, again, would be duplicity. I never said churches just rant about homosexuality. My point was they don't focus on the sins of the congregation to work to correct them. They, instead, focus primarily on the ones that they don't believe the congregation is guilty of. And if they do mention sins the congregation might be guilty of, they rarely call out members who are guilty to help them nor do they tend to recognize how applicable the sins are (idolatry is a pretty big one, considering the consumer nature of most church goers).
The rare times that a church does focus on a sin is when that sin is such a forefront knowledge of the congregation that to ignore it would be to ignore the elephant in the room. But, so long as the lies are quiet, the brand-focus nature of the people happens outside the church walls, and the sleeping with other men's wives happens behind closed doors, the church generally does not prevail upon itself to become involved. And, if it does, it tends towards trying to shame the person into confessing, not because of some desire for that person to repent but to as quickly as possible quell that sin as projecting as a representation of the church body as a whole.
In short, the focus is not on whether someone is homosexual or adulterous; it is whether they are openly homosexual or openly adulterous. So long as they try to hide their sin, most churches don't want to become involved.
Actually I think the reason that homosexuality is a "problematic" sin is that most murders, liars, and theives are willing to concede that all of those things are sinful and can be apologetic about them.
If a man beleives engaging in homosexual acts is just dandy and his church congregation feels that it is sinful, the man is at odds with his church doctrinally, and in their view, he continues to willfully and unrepentantly sin.
I think you're only partly right. Most murders, liars, and thieves might recognize that murdering, lying, and thieving are sinful, but few are willing to repent for their actions or to stop in their actions (which is not to say they wouldn't make a half-hearted effort, to avoid being harassed). Most, if pressed, would be more inclined to point out the sins of others than to recognize and correct their own sins.
The major point, then, is that since so many people are liars (or, the big one, adulterers), many churches won't even cover the subject, or if they do, they fail to point out those who sin. That's the rather large paradox of Christianity, obviously, since such requires judgment. Meanwhile, it's much easier to shout about the sins of homosexuals, since, if they exist at all, they exist as a minority in the congregation.
In short, the major problem would be, most of all, the duplicity of the recognition of sin. Actual getting to the actual sins of the congregation and working to rectify them would be a real improvement.
Advertising doesn't work for me. I use a DVR to skip all commercials all the time.
I think you're thinking about advertising the wrong way.
Advertisers pay broadcasters, which makes broadcasters happy. Broadcasters show a variety of programs, which makes their viewers happy. And a tiny minority of people actually watch and/or pay close enough attention to advertisements, leaving the advertisers happy.
Really, all broadcast advertisements are inherently spam. The objective of advertisers isn't to get 99.9% of people to buy their product from seeing their advertisement*. It is their objective to raise awareness of the existence of their brand name and to get perhaps 1 in 1000 viewers to actually buy their product who otherwise would not. You and millions of others who block advertisements may cut into their "raise awareness" campaign, but clearly you're one of those people who wishes to avoid advertisements and are a lot less likely to buy their product based on branding anyways.
*That isn't to say that it isn't some fantasy of advertisers to sell to everyone and make lots of money, but an advertiser who expected that is clearly delusional. Having said that, advertisers are clearly against auto-ad blocking on the internet, TV, etc, and they're likely to complain about anything that will reduce their ads exposure (out of the shear principle of it). But, any sort of ad opt-out that requires a bit of effort just provides a better ratio of viewers to buyers, so they're willing to tolerate it. They are, of course, always willing to advertise they'd like even more people to feel they must watch their ads and buy their products out of some sort of loyalty.
First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights.
The First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of that copy. "The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy." Otherwise it has nothing to do with this case.
And you miss the forest for the trees. First sale doctrine is a doctrine. That is, it is "that which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge". Its origin derives not from a mandate from Congress but a recognition of the inherent properties of a copy of a copyrighted work. As you state, it fleshes out that "the copyright owner relinquishes all futher rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy".
But, on what basis did the court have to take such a position? From what is inherent in contract and property law. To make an analogy, to sell a copy of a copyrighted work is little different than to sell a droplet of water from an ocean. What little privileges copyright grants only has power over the production of such droplets, not in the resale, use, etc of them. For a copyright owner to gain further power over a copy, he must enforce a contract upon the "first sale" of that copy (ie, not after the sale is completed), just like any other type of property. There is no language in copyright law to retroactively apply further terms upon a copy. Hence, use and "first sale doctrine" are both trees in the same forest of rights; to destroy one tree is to destroy the forest (barring an explicit Act of Congress).
The only real argument Apple can have is that the copies included in OS X retail boxes are illegitimate in the first place, but as I pointed out in another post, such would make Apple guilty of large scale commercial piracy, a criminal offense.
First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights. If it is the case that a company can retroactively remove a property right from a property I legally obtained, then clearly I don't actually have property rights. Hence, first sale doctrine cannot be reasonably extrapolated over copies of a copyrighted work.
Because when you "buy" software you aren't actually buying the software. You're buying into a licensing contract.
Unfortunately, inside every one of those "OS X" boxes is a copy of the software. Now, if I didn't "buy" the software, then either (a) it's a free copy (in which case, I don't need to follow the license since, as pointed out by others, statute covers a legally obtained copy) or (b) it's a pirate copy (since even if I agree to the contract at some point, until I do it's a pirate copy). Now, given that mass pirating of software is now criminal (, what you're arguing is that Apple, Apple stores, and anyone else who stocks OS X need to be, effectively, arrested and convicted, to serve the equivalent of years in jail ("Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines." -- NET Act). If Apple want's to hang themselves, I'll supply the rope.
This goes back to the 80's, or possibly even 70's and deals with how computers work on a fundamental level. As you know, copyright means that the rights holder is the only one allowed to authorize copies. When a program runs, it is copied from the storage medium (i.e., disk, but back then it was tape) and into RAM. That's a copy. Copyright law was modified to explicitly permit these types of copies (I believe they are termed "transient copies") for license holders.
Very true. Prior to the change in the law, copyright holders of software were in a bind. Clearly, the last thing they wanted to do was prevent people from running their programs ever (while in the short term it's great, in the long term it obviously will kill your company), so EULAs were created to directly clarify that copies into RAM (or disk or whatever) could be created.
Apple's argument goes back to this statute. Apple's license says that you can only run Mac OS X on Apple hardware. Thus, the copy from disk to RAM on non-Apple hardware is an unauthorized copy.
It makes sense, from a letter-of-the-law point of view,...
And that's where you and Apple are lost. Apple's license can say all it wants, but you don't have to agree to it. Why? Because you've (a) bought a copy of OS X and (b) the statute says you can run the software, no special privileges granted from the copyright holder required. This is, in fact, precisely the reason for the statute.
Now, Apple can dangle some apples (pun intended) at you to get you to agree to the license or perhaps it can use a service agreement to get you to comply (for which the issue becomes rather sticky, especially if Apple were to try to force a service on people to intentionally violate a contract*); and there's always the option of just getting you to sign a contract before you buy a copy of OS X. But, First Sale Doctrine and other current statute really blows away Apple's argument.
*Sega tried to do something similar by tying their Genesis game startup code with a display of the Sega trademark, so they could force developers to pay them to obtain development authorization or risk being sued over trademark infringement. Eventually they lost when someone challenged them, since clearly such is a violation of the intent of trademark law; similarly, Apple trying to tie a service contract, after the fact, to an OS X purchase would be questionable. Of course, in all matters of the law, it comes down to lawyers doing their job and a judge agreeing with the presented interpretation. Having said that, IANAL. But if what Apple says holds, then first sale doctrine is effectively void, and we're back to license agreements in books that are automagically enforceable. In a backward sort of way, that'd be a good thing. It'd almost certainly sway copyright back towards more freedom, and perhaps in that time it'd last longer.
If "most everyone else" knows that government - which by its nature involves regulation, and public investment, and yes collecting taxes to pay for those activities - is "not a path through," we're left asking "Who is this 'everyone else'?"
This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform. It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem." Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it." Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!" What does that mean? Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.
As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails. Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources. When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved. But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous. Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem. Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance. The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project. But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.
PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle. The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support. Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it? A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud. Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.
Slashdot Mirror
"A confusing command ... which most people would [copy] is actually a pretty good way to get a virus onto a ... newbie's computer."
And you're missing the point. The current argument for why Linux drivers have to be GPL2 is that they are a derivative work of the Linux kernel. If any sort of stable API/ABI was created across multiple OSs, then it would be quite obvious that drivers aren't themselves a derivative work of the kernel and could be licensed however a driver maker pleases. And because Linux kernel hackers want to be able to actually debug and fix faulty components of the kernel space, like a driver, they desire the software freedom of open source for drivers and won't work to undermine it.
Truthfully, this doesn't lock out other free software OSs. But, it does mean that those that wish to use an exiting Linux driver have to modify it for their own OS or clone the Linux behavior, however that might change. Yes, that's a painful barrier and it would be preferable to have portable drivers. But, the current situation is a byproduct of the limitations of copyright law's ability to coerce others to comply with the wishes of Linux kernel developers when it comes to Linux driver development.
That's probably a bad idea. There's already a mishmash of userland drivers for things. Preferably, everything would follow a standard ABI.
A lot of that has to do with WHQL testing. That's certainly a way that could be done with Linux, even following a similar $250/submission fee for evaluation of test logs.
It'd take a lot more than making a website. You'd need to fork the linux kernel, maintain it with the standard line, create a standard ABI, creating testing tools to create a WHQL-like program, and start an organization to actually handle processing of the test results. Overall, it's something that a large organization like IBM or Ubuntu could finance, but I don't think they have an interest in committing all that work--and I don't think it's for ideological reasons.
True enough. There is virtually no interest in moving towards binary blobs of any kind. A lot of people who work on Linux do so precisely because of all the hassle of binary blobs.
Why should they? The GNU movement's objective isn't to create "good will" at the expense of its ideology. TiVo, quite simply, chose the wrong tool for the job. Instead of choosing a closeable open OS, they went with an open OS and tried to force it to be closeable. Perhaps they did it because they were ignorant of alternatives (like FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD). Or perhaps they did it to capitalize on the interest of Linux fans (and for which they'd deserve backlash, not accolades). In either case, TiVo inadvertently forced GNU to action in finally updating their license to better deal with the issue of patents (something that had been mulled over for quite some time), and it taught a valuable lesson to companies like TiVo that GNU and Linux aren't in it as a part of a popularity contest above all else.
Not quite. It's one thing to make an emotionally charged comment in the middle of a discussion and another to make an emotionally charged comment to, as you state, illicit a response. Only the latter is trolling. Intent is the main factor in trolling.
A more appropriate reason, IMHO, to not respond is because it's pointless to try to defend your intentions with statements about your intentions, especially to people who have already decided how they wish to interpret your statements. The one general exception is a miscommunication, but that involves rewording what one says, usually.
Providing some substantive to the conversation and how people view you aren't necessarily related. Consider how people would view Charles Manson's comments in a discussion of manipulation of others. Quite simply, emotion tends to override the better judgment of many people, regardless of how relevant or insightful comments are. It really doesn't matter how politely you state what should be said. Of course, I agree that whining doesn't interject anything useful.
IIRC, Ubuntu doesn't have an EULA. Having said that, if you end up redistributing parts of Ubuntu, just about every part of Ubuntu comes with a redistribution license containing a "we're not responsible for anything" clause. Ie, you become the person responsible to others if you redistribute. I don't think sharing an Ubuntu CD counts, so long as it's a copy from Canonical.
Thinking about it some more, that possibly means whatever mirror you might use would be the one you'd sue. I'm not sure what the legal precedent is in this area, since I've never heard of anyone being sued over generally available software. I don't think EULAs really have anything to do with that, though.
"Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007." -- Exxon shatters profit records
"Exxon earned $45.2 billion in 2008, beating the record it set in 2007 for most profitable corporation, at $40.6 billion." -- Exxon Posts Record 2008 Profit Despite Slip in 4th Quarter
In short, in two years (admittedly record years), Exxon has made more in after taxes profit than what basically all world governments and private companies have ever spent on global warming research, pro or con, and anti-global warming technology in 20 years. Further:
"I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year. ... By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!" -- Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
Ie, the government gets tons of money from Exxon through taxes. What exactly is their incentive to cut Exxon off again? Personal enrichment? It'd seem Exxon could trivially bribe politicians if that was what it was about. For politicians and private citizens to create a huge global warming conspiracy sounds more like a religion than one based upon money. Of course, that's a harder point to prove, especially with all the evidence by multiple, independent scientists.
PS - Just to be clear, again, Exxon made ~$40 Billion in 2007 after taxes. Their before taxes income in 2007 was ~$70 Billion. If the US wasn't spending money like a drunken sailor, there'd be plenty of money from the taxes on Exxon alone to do substantial technological and research development to combat global warming. The idea that in 20 years we've spent a meager $70 Billion is depressing.
Funny. I was always under the impression that "enforcement of property [rights]" involved some "assholes with AK-47s ... holding property hostage ... until a nice fat randsom is paid". After all, what's the basis for anyone claiming property other than a combination of (a) no one else claiming it at the time you did, (b) anyone else who would claim it then or later being killed or threatened to be killed by AK-47s (or the weapon of choice of the day), and (c) a progression of ownership carried down under trade (or a new branch of "legitimate" ownership from another instance of (b)). Really, I don't see how any of the whole ownership cycle is particularly morally legitimate under Libertarianism (or libertarianism) except the first part of section (c).
And if prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that fossil fuels have had a dramatic effect on human society for the better, I've one key question: is changing the climate of the entire Earth without knowing the consequences acceptable? Really? How can you be so sure?
I dislike the doom-laden 'changing our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck human society' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that we won't suffer those consequences anyways given fossil fuels aren't renewable. There have been multiple radical shifts in fuel sources by mankind throughout history. Why not work towards yet another shift using a more sustainable power source? Yes, perhaps economics will inherently fix the problem in the long-term, but what's wrong with working towards fixing the problem now? If the survival of humanity is truly desired for the long-term, new power sources being developed sooner is better. It greatly increases our ability to multiply on other planets/moons to survive otherwise plant-scale cataclysmic events.
Well, as we all know, the MSM in the US has a liberal bias. And since the MSM is a by-product of the free market, it must be the case that it is optimal for and people want news to have a liberal bias.
Of course, this just shows the free market has failed. The only solution is for socialism, a buying of major parts of the MSM by the government, to push a more conservative/libertarian bias against socialism, which doesn't work. Of course, if you're in the UK, socialism has produced an even more liberal news source, so they'll have to go back to a more free market approach which has proven to work so well in the US.
Scenario 1 - I have to pay $100/month for phone service to the one provider in the area or any job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line. I only obtain $80/month above the average wage, x, for any job to pay for the phone line. I effectively earn (x-$20)/month.
Scenario 2 - There is no phone service provider in my area, so no job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line. I obtain $20/month above the average wage, x, for any job to compensate for a lack of phone service in the area. I effectively earn (x+$20)/month.
They're called subnotebooks. Sure, you can run other apps, and people generally do now. But, what apps are those? How likely is it that Google will implement web-based versions of most of those apps?
Btw, I can think of another great reason for such a minimal OS, on the same order as subnotebooks: cheap developing country computers that are relatively secure. Cyber-cafes are notorious when it comes to security, and while access to a computer is a reason people use them, more and more people use them for the cheap internet connection, not the actual computer. I can readily imagine Google pushing for even cheaper subnotebooks in markets like China and India as web access expands; and unlikely Microsoft or Apple, they don't really have to worry about piracy.
Meanwhile some conservative somewhere makes up:
On Fox News The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese
Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese
Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States
because many conservatives realizes how much Fox News is the jackass channel.
Both are modifying. Obviously, highlighting gives you less room to make modifications, but you can very well change the intent of sentences by highlight a few words or drastically alter the story if the highlighted words become the main story (look no further than Bibles which color code the words Jesus spoke).
And the question is, why? If I sell 1 million copies of my "improved" Cujo, I had to buy 1 million copies of Cujo from Steven King. If each copy is sold by Steven King at $19.95, then I have to sell at above $19.95 to make any profit at all. Odds are, I'll have to sell it at close to $24.95 or $29.95, most of that difference being marketing, production, and distribution costs. If people believe my "improved" Cujo is worth an extra $10, or nearly 150% of the original selling price, the real problem would seem to be that Steven King is selling the original too cheaply or my "improved" Cujo is really worth it; neither point really is my fault.
Of course, it's really irrelevant since it would be Steven King's publisher, if anyone, who would likely sue (so they can prove my "improved" Cujo is a derivative work and publish it themselves). And they'd likely win by bankrupting me, not by winning on any actual legal merit. That's not to say they wouldn't have any legal merit, but your example is rather lacking since civil suits can be won simply based on whoever has more money for lawyers. Since I don't have any desire to become bankrupt, I personally wouldn't engage in such an enterprise.
PS - I've never even read Cujo. You have a problem with its ending?
The issue I was responding to was whether you can buy one single copy of a work, modify it, and resell that single copy. It sounds like such amounts to creating a derivative work, as far as the court is concerned, and isn't legally redistributable without the copyright holder's permission. But, by that very logic, modifying a textbook by adding or removing words or even simply underlining/highlighting words for emphasis would count as well. Ie, no copies have to be made for a derivative work to be created. So Psystar would be just as guilty even if they thought of a clever way to restamp each OS X disc to include their modifications.
Good to know. I guess that means reselling all those college textbooks back to the bookstore at the end of a term is not protected by First Sale Doctrine either, if you make even the smallest mark on any page.
The problem is, what makes for "stupendously unrealistic claims"? All-you-can-eat buffets seems stupendously unrealistic. Paying less than $1.00 for a thousand gallons of water seems stupendously unrealistic. Buying a double cheeseburger for $1.00 seems stupendously unrealistic. In fact, people having stupendously unrealistic expectations is actually a good thing; if a company is actually sued over such claims, a jury should be much more likely to find against the company.
No, the current advertisement problem has a lot more to do with the FTC not prosecuting such advertisers. As others note, individuals suing is generally a loss for the individual. That's one reason the FTC was created, to bring cases against businesses so consumers would not have to bear the cost of prosecuting their own consumer protection. But, the FTC is the enemy of nearly all businesses, so is it any surprise that it has been made so weak against deceptive or fraudulent advertising?
Put another way, your argument amounts to the idea that if only people had critical thinking skills, e-mail spam would be eliminated. The fact is, most people (99.7%, IIRC) do have the critical thinking skills to not buy what spam is selling. But, spamming is so cheap and with so little consequences that it only takes a very small percentage of buyers to keep the spammers afloat financially. Do you think print or tv advertising is really so radically different?
And my experience has been different. While homosexuality might not have been a large topic of conversation, considering how rampant adultery is, idolatry is, etc there was disproportionate focus on the sin of homosexuality. The point of focusing on homosexuality is, generally, to try to force out open homosexuals from the congregation, yet the same is not done with adultery. Perhaps this is because one sin is more understandable to those who preach?
And that, again, would be duplicity. I never said churches just rant about homosexuality. My point was they don't focus on the sins of the congregation to work to correct them. They, instead, focus primarily on the ones that they don't believe the congregation is guilty of. And if they do mention sins the congregation might be guilty of, they rarely call out members who are guilty to help them nor do they tend to recognize how applicable the sins are (idolatry is a pretty big one, considering the consumer nature of most church goers).
The rare times that a church does focus on a sin is when that sin is such a forefront knowledge of the congregation that to ignore it would be to ignore the elephant in the room. But, so long as the lies are quiet, the brand-focus nature of the people happens outside the church walls, and the sleeping with other men's wives happens behind closed doors, the church generally does not prevail upon itself to become involved. And, if it does, it tends towards trying to shame the person into confessing, not because of some desire for that person to repent but to as quickly as possible quell that sin as projecting as a representation of the church body as a whole.
In short, the focus is not on whether someone is homosexual or adulterous; it is whether they are openly homosexual or openly adulterous. So long as they try to hide their sin, most churches don't want to become involved.
I think you're only partly right. Most murders, liars, and thieves might recognize that murdering, lying, and thieving are sinful, but few are willing to repent for their actions or to stop in their actions (which is not to say they wouldn't make a half-hearted effort, to avoid being harassed). Most, if pressed, would be more inclined to point out the sins of others than to recognize and correct their own sins.
The major point, then, is that since so many people are liars (or, the big one, adulterers), many churches won't even cover the subject, or if they do, they fail to point out those who sin. That's the rather large paradox of Christianity, obviously, since such requires judgment. Meanwhile, it's much easier to shout about the sins of homosexuals, since, if they exist at all, they exist as a minority in the congregation.
In short, the major problem would be, most of all, the duplicity of the recognition of sin. Actual getting to the actual sins of the congregation and working to rectify them would be a real improvement.
I think you're thinking about advertising the wrong way.
Advertisers pay broadcasters, which makes broadcasters happy. Broadcasters show a variety of programs, which makes their viewers happy. And a tiny minority of people actually watch and/or pay close enough attention to advertisements, leaving the advertisers happy.
Really, all broadcast advertisements are inherently spam. The objective of advertisers isn't to get 99.9% of people to buy their product from seeing their advertisement*. It is their objective to raise awareness of the existence of their brand name and to get perhaps 1 in 1000 viewers to actually buy their product who otherwise would not. You and millions of others who block advertisements may cut into their "raise awareness" campaign, but clearly you're one of those people who wishes to avoid advertisements and are a lot less likely to buy their product based on branding anyways.
*That isn't to say that it isn't some fantasy of advertisers to sell to everyone and make lots of money, but an advertiser who expected that is clearly delusional. Having said that, advertisers are clearly against auto-ad blocking on the internet, TV, etc, and they're likely to complain about anything that will reduce their ads exposure (out of the shear principle of it). But, any sort of ad opt-out that requires a bit of effort just provides a better ratio of viewers to buyers, so they're willing to tolerate it. They are, of course, always willing to advertise they'd like even more people to feel they must watch their ads and buy their products out of some sort of loyalty.
And you miss the forest for the trees. First sale doctrine is a doctrine. That is, it is "that which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge". Its origin derives not from a mandate from Congress but a recognition of the inherent properties of a copy of a copyrighted work. As you state, it fleshes out that "the copyright owner relinquishes all futher rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy".
But, on what basis did the court have to take such a position? From what is inherent in contract and property law. To make an analogy, to sell a copy of a copyrighted work is little different than to sell a droplet of water from an ocean. What little privileges copyright grants only has power over the production of such droplets, not in the resale, use, etc of them. For a copyright owner to gain further power over a copy, he must enforce a contract upon the "first sale" of that copy (ie, not after the sale is completed), just like any other type of property. There is no language in copyright law to retroactively apply further terms upon a copy. Hence, use and "first sale doctrine" are both trees in the same forest of rights; to destroy one tree is to destroy the forest (barring an explicit Act of Congress).
The only real argument Apple can have is that the copies included in OS X retail boxes are illegitimate in the first place, but as I pointed out in another post, such would make Apple guilty of large scale commercial piracy, a criminal offense.
First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights. If it is the case that a company can retroactively remove a property right from a property I legally obtained, then clearly I don't actually have property rights. Hence, first sale doctrine cannot be reasonably extrapolated over copies of a copyrighted work.
Unfortunately, inside every one of those "OS X" boxes is a copy of the software. Now, if I didn't "buy" the software, then either (a) it's a free copy (in which case, I don't need to follow the license since, as pointed out by others, statute covers a legally obtained copy) or (b) it's a pirate copy (since even if I agree to the contract at some point, until I do it's a pirate copy). Now, given that mass pirating of software is now criminal (, what you're arguing is that Apple, Apple stores, and anyone else who stocks OS X need to be, effectively, arrested and convicted, to serve the equivalent of years in jail ("Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines." -- NET Act). If Apple want's to hang themselves, I'll supply the rope.
Very true. Prior to the change in the law, copyright holders of software were in a bind. Clearly, the last thing they wanted to do was prevent people from running their programs ever (while in the short term it's great, in the long term it obviously will kill your company), so EULAs were created to directly clarify that copies into RAM (or disk or whatever) could be created.
And that's where you and Apple are lost. Apple's license can say all it wants, but you don't have to agree to it. Why? Because you've (a) bought a copy of OS X and (b) the statute says you can run the software, no special privileges granted from the copyright holder required. This is, in fact, precisely the reason for the statute.
Now, Apple can dangle some apples (pun intended) at you to get you to agree to the license or perhaps it can use a service agreement to get you to comply (for which the issue becomes rather sticky, especially if Apple were to try to force a service on people to intentionally violate a contract*); and there's always the option of just getting you to sign a contract before you buy a copy of OS X. But, First Sale Doctrine and other current statute really blows away Apple's argument.
*Sega tried to do something similar by tying their Genesis game startup code with a display of the Sega trademark, so they could force developers to pay them to obtain development authorization or risk being sued over trademark infringement. Eventually they lost when someone challenged them, since clearly such is a violation of the intent of trademark law; similarly, Apple trying to tie a service contract, after the fact, to an OS X purchase would be questionable. Of course, in all matters of the law, it comes down to lawyers doing their job and a judge agreeing with the presented interpretation. Having said that, IANAL. But if what Apple says holds, then first sale doctrine is effectively void, and we're back to license agreements in books that are automagically enforceable. In a backward sort of way, that'd be a good thing. It'd almost certainly sway copyright back towards more freedom, and perhaps in that time it'd last longer.
This is same duplicity being pushed by Republicans when it comes to health care reform. It starts out, "Yes, we have a health care problem." Then it becomes, "Yes, we (ie, government) need to do something about it." Then, "Oh no, we can't let the government regulate or tax to fix the health care problem; they're the source of the health care problem!" What does that mean? Well, the only "solution" then is to cut taxes on health-care related taxes.
As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails. Unfortunately, sometimes there is a market failure when it comes to allocate resources. When it's non-critical (ie, not health, the elderly, the poor), government very probably shouldn't become involved. But this fanciful idea that markets that function on money will suddenly start working with people without money to spend is ludicrous. Cutting taxes doesn't solve the problem. Nor, really, does this mandatory health insurance. The real solution is universal coverage with progressive taxation, just like nearly every other governmental project. But, I guess pointing out that would alienate the Republican base and do nothing political advantageous.
PS - Yes, Obama's doing the same thing from the other angle. The whole "health insurance subsidy" is clearly a pragmatic (ie, political) attempt to obtain Republican support. Since that's not going to fly anyways, why half-ass it? A major problem with the health care system, anyways, is that it's been so cobbled together there's tons of inefficiency and loads of room for fraud. Real reform means real unification, even if it involves a lot of kicking and screaming from people.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to use e-mail? If not, and you still did, you opted in to spam.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to eat that peanut butter? If not, and you still did, you opted in to contracting Salmonella.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to cross that street? If not, and you still did, you opted in to being ran over by a car.
Gosh, that's a silly argument.