>Someone has asked them a question and given them a chance to put their message across and they've just blown it cause they feel it is more important to redefine the lexicon.
Answering a question in a sufficiently short statement that satisifies an interviewer does indeed put one's message across, but it is unlikely to get one's message across. Few movements (or politicians, for that matter) avoid redefining the lexicon as they feel is necessary. If what one describes is a new idea or a sufficiently complex idea and that idea is stated many times, it is simpler to use a word or phrase for it. If people are unwilling to accept this, then clearly trying to use them as a platform to communicate to others will fail. I don't consider that in itself extreme.
>>The problem is that not all projects are presented to the public before they even start with promises of what features will be included.
>They were presented to developers. That's not the general public. The general public would be Joe and Shmoe, not the Slashdot crowd.
Did I say "the general public"? The fact is, the general public is pretty well clueless on most technologies, regardless of if you *did* try to explain it to them. Microsoft has figured out that the best way to hype a product is to talk to developers before a product has even started and then proceed to make the product and near completion advertise to the general public in an entirely different fashion. If it was the case that Microsoft was advertising features in a product that it was to sell that didn't end up materializing, Microsoft wouldn't be booed for merely lying, they'd be charged with fraud and/or false advertising.
So, yes, they were presented to developers only. And the developers got all excited and told all their non-techie friends, some of whom who wrote tech stories hyping Microsoft's new product. But they lied to us, the group that is the backbone of supporting Microsoft (without us, the library of Windows programs would be much smaller , meaning it'd be less likely that that one program a user needs is Windows-only). They lied to us repeatedly (OFS and WinFS). Don't you think that's ruined your reputation at least a little with your non-techie friends? Don't you feel the least bit manipulated?
>The real lying on Microsoft's part would be claiming it was there, shipping the product, and then people realize it isn't there.
That would be more than lying. That would be fraud.
>Companies can have high hopes for projects. They can fail. It's all part of project development: not everything ends up being successful.
True. The problem is that not all projects are presented to the public before they even start with promises of what features will be included. Simply put, they were wrong about including WinFS with Windows Vista and the statement was deceptive as it was conceivably possible for them to have put WinFS into Windows Vista. Ie, they lied.
>No one has purchased or paid for Windows Vista based on the availability of WinFS, because Vista isn't available for purchase yet.
Yes, and this is why Microsoft is being booed for lying, not being hauled into court for fraud.
>So if the EFF is seen at worst as "pirates or piracy sympathies", what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously?
What makes you think the EFF isn't seen in this light anyways? More importantly, what makes you think it's relevant to many people in the political establishment if they are pirates or piracy sympathizers? I was under the impression that politics focused on either providing what the people want or trying to push people into issues so they'd decide based on them. The "pro-public domain" camp fits the former (clearly this new party is about issues that voters care about). The only real issue is that it's hard to compare "Iraq War" and "Public Domain" as talking points, so it's hard to use it to drive votes. To that end, I'm not sure it's possible to make the political establishment really care at all until these "pirates" go about looting ships.
Ie, I really don't see this changing much of anything.
"Later that same day, the remaining 914 inhabitants of Jonestown, 276 of them children, committed mass suicide that Jones referred to as "revolutionary suicide" on Jones's instructions by drinking cyanide-laced Flavor Aid, by forced cyanide injection, or by shooting." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
>>Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).
>It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Yes, more exclusion doesn't matter. The problem is that you can't grant everyone the same privilege on the same work. So, you only give opportunity for *some* people.
>Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal.
The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted.
>Equality does not mean no exclusion.
Of course not.
>You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition
Actually, the locks are. Anyone can try to put locks on my door. Whether my grant of the land I am on is equal is another matter.
>you too can lock your door and have your private space,
Yes, I can physically lock my door and have a private space.
>you too can copyright your software and have your private code.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with copyright. It is not copyright that makes my code private. It is my not distributing it or encrypting it. But once I release it to the world (ie, anyone else), any hopes of my to keep it "private" is bound by law, not by some physicality. How can a grant to keep something private when it is not be seen to be my ability to privatize part of the public sphere? And how is that *not* an inequality?
>>Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).
>Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing.
Nor did I claim it was.
>People from another country cannot vote in your elections.
And so they have no control over the copyright laws in my land. But they surely have control over the laws in *their* land.
>Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote.
So? Do you think this somehow changes that the US, being a democracy (it's not, btw; it's a constitutional republic), would grant itself not the need to pay for any IP laws on Chinese works?
>Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote.
It's democratic to the extent of the OSIV and complete ignorant of the country it exists in. Yea, that's great. And tyrants are merely supports of democracies of one.
>As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.
And did I say democracy was fair? If they don't think democracy is fair, then why the bloody hell are they claiming to be democratic?
>>Being honest means being fair
>No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.
>>>The OISV is based on the values of equality, democracy, honesty, solidarity and helping others achieve their goals.
>>Those who write, promote or sell proprietary software betray each and every one of those ideals.
>A more accurate statement would read something like: I hate proprietary software, but am far too bigoted to acknowledge that this is nothing more than my personal preference.
Or, you know, he could be right.
Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).
Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).
Being honest means being fair. And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work (exclusion of such is an act of jealousy or greed). So, the promotion of copyrighted works is effectively being unfair.
They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors).
And finally, while their solidarity with each other may very well be helping each other achieve their goals, clearly their solidarity works against the efforts of people who wish to dissolve copyright, so they're certainly not helping me with my goals.
If you wish to debate me on these points (as they are rather abbreviated), feel free to respond. If I am bigoted on the subject of copyright, it is on the belief that it is hard to justify.
>>(think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar).
>god are you really this deluded?
In that there are dollar stores? Yep.
>So basically if you cant make a movie that earns its money back selling for a dollar a pop, you dont bother.
If you're making a movie for profit movites, obviously not. No more so than if you can't make a can of soda that earns it money back selling for under a dollar a pop, you probably won't bother.
>Goodbye Lord of the rings then.
Goodbye most future Lord of the Rings movies, probably, yes. But existing Lord of the Rings movies won't just magically disappear with the end of copyright.
>I hope you dont use any commericial software (pirated or not) that wouldnt break even on a dollar a sale, because that would make you a total hypocrite wouldnt it?
Yep, I'm a hypocrite. And I want to change that by changing the world. Funny idea, eh?
>The US can't convince Iran to give up work on its nuclear program (using either incentives or threats).
>>>>They threaten every democratic society they influence with their agenda.
Unless you're arguing Iran is a democratic society, you're bringing up an example that is outside the scope of the original argument.
>>>Because the concepts of intellectual property and copyright were invented by the US,
If I didn't invent the knife I stab you with, does it matter a whole lot to you that I'm not the inventor?
>>>and the only people who benefit from those concepts are Americans
If others benefit from my killing you, does it matter that I did it for my own ends regardless of others wishes?
>>>(it's funny that you are actually implying that Americans are the only ones who produce decent intellectual property).
He actually didn't say anything implying such. The thing he *did* state was that the United States abuses other countries for its own ends. If anything, this would be an indication that the United States is less interested in competing on worth and more interested in using their military or political might to get what they want.
So how can i make a living through sales under copyright, if copyright is not enforced?
The same way chair makers make a living selling chairs even though the materials to make a chair are readily available. Obviously not all chair makers are able to continue production, and you very well might not be able to live through sales without copyright. Again, no one owes you a living. If you can't make a living on sales through copyright, I'm quite willing to accept that you'll stop making new works, just like I'm quite willing to accept that whole other industries might collapse instead of being supported through a government monopoly.
or are you one of these people who supports a two tier system where some people pay for the product, and you and your friends convenientyly ignore copyright and just take it?
I support a system in which you make content and sell it and anyone else can do the same thing. If that means you have to sell CDs of your software at $1 just like the "pirates", so be it. That's how the free market works. If you can't tell, I don't support patents either, as it's the same government interference without justification other than the ends.
piracy is widespread, as the percentage of piracy to legit sales goes up, nobody will make a living. surely this is obvious?
No, it's not obvious. It's not obvious because there's all sorts of goods that are mass produced that sell at below the price one could get for a CD and still people are able to live off the sales (think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar). Hell, do you think commercial pirates don't live off *their* sales of pirated software/movies? Maybe you won't be one of those who manage it. But that doesn't mean nobody will manage it. Simply put, at some point people will want to have hard copies of software, movies, or whatever. And at that point, it's invariable cheaper through economy of scale and opportunity cost for people to buy a cheap CD on the corner than it is to buy a CD-R, find what is wanted, downloading it, and finally burning it.
After all, the stuff one downloads is only free* if your time isn't worth anything. Surely iTunes is a sign that for a lot of people their time is worth something.
*It still isn't free a lot of the time because, again, you need to buy a CD-R for a hard copy, and that's something you really want for a lot of stuff.
Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.
One can sell the act of making digital content. One can sell digital content at a price that most people find is acceptable. The latter, of course, leaves one having to accept that others will do the same and quite possibly make a living off the selling of your work as well.
My personal hatred is those who say "nobody owes you a living" when I point out that people should buy, rather than steal my games, if they like them enough to want the full versions.
I'm sorry you hate that. It's true, though.
apparently my counter response of "nobody owes you my games" goes right over their head.
It doesn't go over my head. But I don't expect you to make games if you're unable to live solely through sales under copyright. As much as I realize that an end to copyright will surely mean a decrease in the production of works, I can't point at the ends (more works) as justification for the means (copyright). The statement "nobody owes you a living" is merely a statement of the belief that copyright, your means of making a living (though not the only one, as I already stated), isn't a natural right. So, perhaps you should try justifying copyright itself?
Did you provide your lawn to the public view for purchase?
If I did make a pretty lawn, sure. But of course I'd need a law in place to make it happen that I could charge people. Do you think I've got a strong case to have a law produced called Lawnright? You might like it. It's based on using a wall with a really large LCD screen at my lawn's permeter to scramble the view of my lawn. The Lawnright Act will include support for copyrighting the descramblers that I sell to people.
Oh, and how about a DLRMA (digital lawn rights management act) to ban cloning hardware/software used to copy said lawn descramblers.
They actually believe it's okay to download, for instance, Doom 3, and not pay John Carmack, even though he spent five years of hard work to release it.
If I spend five years building up my lawn to look very pretty, do I get to charge all my neighbors for any benefit they might get out of it? My point isn't that they're straight analogies; it's that you can't point at hard work, no matter how many years it is, as a basis for why something has to be paid by others.
Even more hypocritically, you'll often hear that piracy isn't theft, but when a GPL violation is reported, it is referred to as "stolen code."
Right, that's clearly wrong. Piracy isn't theft, and a GPL violation is often fraud. You see, few people will take commercial software and pirate it, claiming it as their own (commercial piracy outfits are a large part of the exception). But GPL violaters tend to be commercial outfits that take code and claim it as their own, realizing that as a commercial outfit it would be a huge risk to announce to the world they're pirating software. It's better to push it under the rug and claim they wrote the code. Clearly "steal" isn't the right word.
Also, people act as though it's wrong for the RIAA or the MPAA to go after individual infringers (never mind that this is exactly what Slashdotters were calling for during the Napster lawsuit),
People were against the RIAA going after Napster because Napster didn't do anything morally wrong. It is like if Wal-mart went after a major newspaper because they believed their classified ads included a lot of stolen goods. Regardless of if it were true, the newspaper wasn't the one selling stolen goods. To use the logic that anyone who benefits from an illegal act because they didn't perform "due diligence" turns everyone into their brother's keeper. Not even extending that logic would mean that everyone would turn into drug enforcers.
Having said that, not all slashdotters were suggesting that the RIAA go after individual infringers because they thought the RIAA had some moral right to do so. The point was to make the RIAA seem like an evil corporation to individuals. As much as shutting down Napster might have made the RIAA look evil, it looks much more evil to hunt down individual users and demand hundreds of thousands of dollars for songs one is downloading or distributing. The negative PR might even cause other users to stop buying (or even downloading) such songs in retribution because they will feel personally threatened or personally insulted.
but when there's a GPL violation, the EFF should get involved and sue the infringers.
Harking back to my previously mentioned comment, GPL violaters tend to be commercial outfits constructed with the understanding that they will suffer the consequences if it's discovered they're violating copyright. Simply put, the FSF (not the EFF, btw) is more interested in opening their software under terms of the GPL than killing off the company (although it will probably have that side-effect, considering the GPL violater's almost certain commercial software selling aim). For those few GPL violaters who *aren't* commercial outfits, the call for a lawsuit is mostly to discredit the person who would violate the GPL communities "good will" by commiting fraud against GPL software. It's similar to the feeling of buying a knock-off and only later realizing you'd been had.
I just don't understand the disconnect.
I hope I've explained the disconnect.
Of course, I'm but a single slashdotter, and my views have certainly tainted my explanation. For example, I'm against copyright entirely. Copyright can be used to censor speech. Copyright is also counter the free market. Copyright is fundamentally the exclusion of information, yet the free market is based on perfect information. Obviously, the free market is an unworkable ideal, but one can imagine that with something closer to the free market, the price of most copyrighted works wouldn't be restricted to the selling price of one seller. I don't think that is unreasonable to want such a world.
Sorry. I knew I should have looked up the new project's name. And yes, I was aware that it was based off ideas from EROS. And while I'm only now recalling about it being written in BitC, the fact is that a language in itself isn't sufficient to provide security/resilience. The fact that it's designed for security is only a start. Like I said, I doubt even Microsoft has the funds to design an entire system around the ideal.
It comes down the fact that if there is a bug in the core system (and I'm pretty sure there's going to be at least one), then you're stuck either dumping the entire system (which effectively ruins any claims of resilience) or trying to retroactively undo any damage the bug might have done (something pretty monumental to perform). So, I'd love for Coyotos to prove me wrong; I'm just not exactly optimistic about it.
I could quote literally hundreds of Slashdot posts in almost any past thread about Windows criticising Microsoft for *giving* user's all (i.e. admin) rights on their own machines, in contrast with Linux, MacOS etc.
Uh, no. People criticize Windows for requiring *programs* to run with all rights on their own machine. Simply put, very few programs really need permissions as high as an administrator, let alone as a regular user. The real rights necessary are much less. If you're looking for an OS that gives the absolute minimal permissions necessary to programs, you're looking at CoyoteOS. The middle-ground is something like Linux or Mac OS X which have you run as a regular user and leave the system protected from rogue programs through a password system. And the Windows way seems to be to just pray that programs won't fuck you over.
Of course in the long term, the middle-ground leaves you susceptable to key loggers which can defeat the password system, but at least then the attack vector might take a while to occur. The long-term answer is to give users much more control over what programs can do. And that means making a much more resilient system. That's one reason why CoyoteOS seems very interesting.
Finally Microsoft agree and take them away (not an easy move considering that, since it'll be installed on the computers of people who have no idea how to use a computer, transparent ease of use has to be near the top of their priority list), and all anyone can do is complain about it.
As far as I'm aware, Microsoft's approach is to move towards the middle-ground, not superceed it. But in the process, they're not even interested in really giving their users more control. Instead, they're more interested in giving the programs more authority than the users. That's an even worse situation for users. Admittedly, it's somewhat understandable if one assumes that users are ignorant and cannot be moved to change. But the real answer to this problem is to make the system much more resilient and reversable, not lock-out the user to being able to make changes.
Of course, making such a resilient system is a monumental undertaking (I'm not even sure if MS has enough money to even begin to create such a system). Something like CoyoteOS hinges on making perfect code in some core components. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable expectation or not. Never the less, such is required to do better than the middle-grounds that we have now. So, is it any wonder that people will scoff at Windows as it is as well as what they're aiming to be, something slightly worse than the middle-grounds that already exist?
Few people are in the position to have the power to simply revoke all keys to access information to their crime. This is primarily because most crimes are commited in a situation where there's some open means of accessing the information. But, if it is the case that a crime is purely computer based (say, laundering money), then whoever controls the computer can control the evidence. So, it's not a question of encryption at all. My mentioned scenario doesn't even *require* encryption. It merely requires control. Now, would you truly feel safe if Microsoft or the US government had full control of your financial records? I know I wouldn't. And I very well love encryption.
And the answer is to not codify in law the right for anyone/organization to fully control information. The only other option is to not make any acts of/on information crimes, since one can never be truly sure who actually comitted said act.
I love encryption. I don't love being unable to legally crack encryption keys to gain access to information for my defense. Or to be unable to legally possess software/hardware to obtain said keys to avoid having to brute force said encryption. Afterall, if it's not legal to obtain the information, how can I use the information in my defense?
Clearly your suggestion to have documents hosted on servers isn't the solution. Why? Because some viruses already have their main payload on a group of servers. So, while certainly corporate firewalls can protect people because there's an IT department for that sort of thing, the masses can't rely on their ISP to go about blocking just a handful of servers or shutting down those servers in an orderly fashion.
All your suggestion would do is lead to the following form of virus:
1. "Virus" email arrives. 2. Person clicks on link to document. 3. Document loads infecting user. 4. User's machine begins hosting a ftp/http/gopher server. 5. User's machine begins sending out new "virus" emails, pointing to the user's machine.
And this means that instead of blocking a group of servers (which is probably a bad approach, anyways), the IT group will have to block based on some signature of the data being sent (ie, a virus filter, once the virus is sufficiently discovered, on all known protocols). And of course, this does nothing for the masses either. The only way I can see this as remotely an improvement for the masses is if many ISPs start blocking their users ability to host a http/ftp/gopher server. Personally, I'd consider that an overall bad thing.
I'm not advocating an armed march on the White House (yet:)
Then when exactly will you advocate an armed march on the White House? When they start tapping your phones? When they start rounding up the Arab-looking people? When they come for you?
I'm just curious, since short of cowardace, I'm not sure exactly why nothing has been done so far, given how many liberties have been undone.
Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing Mega Man X and Zero (either from the X or Zero series). Both support wall hugging and air dashes, which would be good fits for the game. That and Zero is actually a melee character. I'm not dissing Megaman. I just don't think he'd be as good of a fit, abilities wise.
Clause 1 should be: No part of this law applies if you broadcast a vulnerability to a list of people who can't fix it. Being a messenger of a vulnerability is cool in my book, but being a broadcaster is not. You can't try to get revenge and then later claim you were trying to help. That scheme is pretty easy to see through.
You assume that the people who are trying to be helped out is the company. The fact is, so long as no one exploits the vulnerability, the cheapest action for the company is to completely ignore the vulnerability. The only reason they have to fix the vulnerability is for PR purposes. However, anyone who goes off and exploits the vulnerability (and hence damages their PR) in any fashion isn't covered by your Clause 1. So, you've effectively given companies carte-blanche basis to prosecute everyone who hurts their PR and driven most companies to not even give much of a fuck about writing secure code.
As a side poster pointed out, a large part of announcing a vulnerability isn't to help the company at all (PR or otherwise). It's to inform the user so they can take steps to prevent being exploited *before* some black hat decides to take advantage of the situation. It doesn't matter how vindictive the statement might be simply because there's already libel/slander laws if the statement isn't true. None of this rises to the level of criminal prosecution for the same reason that pointing out to other customers at a bank that the bank vault's door is a beaded curtain.
On a side note, those who are trying to stop the flow of such information are clearly anti-free market. The free market, after all, is based upon all members of the market having perfect information. To disrupt the flow of information only worsens the situation for all members involved. It is chiefly this reason that things like chiefly planned economies tend to fail; those in power make criticism of their errors (something that occurs in all economies, though the scale is different) illegal because such is bad PR, and such means that the planned economy is doomed to be run inefficiently. Truth wants to be free.
In this regard, one of Stallman's implicit claims is that "other people do it" or "I do it because I can" are not adequate defenses of why one makes money.
Actually, that's not the implicit claim. The implicit claim is that time is limited.
Hence, if he will deny either of those to others, he must deny those defenses to himself.
Yes, I'm sure he denies those two.
If "it's customary to charge money for software" is a good enough reason, a lot of the debate on free software would go away.
Again, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer. You can effectively charge for the time taken to write the code. You can charge for the time taken to print up the nice instruction manual and stamping out the CDs. You can even charge for going over the source code with others. None of this is bad because time is limited innately. Distribution, the act, is limited innately by time and resources.
In the end, Stallman is generally against artificial limits placed upon the right of *others* to go about doing the same things the original programmer did with the code. That's why he calls it copyleft. Artificially limiting who can distribute the source with force goes against what's innately possible. The chief reason, that I can see, that Stallman isn't completely against copyright is that copyright includes attribution rights.
Now, *this* is something that is contradictory to his core belief (again, as I see it), as clearly he's interested in using positive reinforcement through law (even if it isn't through artificially limiting the software itself) to encourage authors to continue to release works, when it is the case that one who are popular/well-known enough could hypothetically easily plagerize another's work and remove the "reward" loop to the real author. The real anarchist approach would leave it to the real author to find some way of avoiding this scenario.
So, please recognize that Stallman is chiefly against the law artifically limiting people's ability to use their time to modify or redistribute things that already exist. Time is limited. There's no "moral" reason to not be allowed to sell it, like any other limited resource. It just happens that for a lot of people the time to share through p2p (irl or not) is less than what the artificial price of copyright is. The fact that this means musicians have to play live (free (as in beer) music removes some of the appeal of going to clubs, etc, requiring at least some to hire live bands) or that programmers have to write more programs or provide for support for the programs they wrote (maybe they can tour or something) to live off that field is just a natural side-effect. But it's not Stallman's direct intent or basis.
So let him defend himself however he likes, but if it comes down to "other people do it", he's undermined his whole political movement.
I don't buy the story that MS knows what's good for me. If anyone knows, I do. And I certainly won't hand this decision over to someone else.
Actually, you already did by using closed software. The fact is, you've no idea when two things are interrelated and are almost entirely dependent on MS to not only fix your problems but report how fixes or any other changes will effect other components. To that end, MS is really the only group that really knows what's good for you. Until you go over the entire system with a fine comb, you can't be sure there aren't any backdoor associations instilled by some component in the system. The same is true for open software, of course, but at least there you only have to verify any firmware or other ROMs, the compiler, and the source. At least the source, which is a huge bulk of the system, is reasonably readable.
When someone comes to me with a computer (or other) problem, I ask them 1. what they think is wrong and 2. what did they do to try and solve it. My problem is that he didn't even make a token effort at step 2. He stopped at step 1 (I don't know what this patch is doing) and then went complaining.
The reason he's complaining is because each patch report is supposed to cover a patch that fixes a specific problem, linked to with the bug report. His complaint isn't with the patch. It's with the report about the patch seeming to cover two, or possibly three, different bugs, of which only one is listed in the bug report. Having said that, he can't do a damn thing to fix the report; he can tell MS or the media that their patch/bug report pairing seems to be inconsistent. Given that he has a history of providing information to MS and other security bug tracking companies while waiting quite a while (it mentions sitting on a bug for 6 months without making it public) to report to the public, I'd make the assumption that he's commented in some way to MS about what he sees as a discrepency before speaking to the public, so he's probably engaged in step 2. Of course he might not have, but then reporting to the media a problem he sees is *also* a way towards step 2, though some would see it as less ethical (and are probably in the same camp that is against reporting security vulnerabilities to the public, as it seems unfairly harmful to the company and/or its users).
So, regardless of whether the patch actually is only for the bug listed in the bug report, the patch report is wrong.
An obvious attempt to get the discussion going again so mods can have fun down-modding any IDer into total oblivion while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened,
Yea!
so much more intelligent than the masses.
Wait, why are you assuming the masses aren't enlightened? I'd say the masses, in majority, *are* enlightened. They're enlightened enough to pander to IDers or Creationists or "Scientists". They're open to allowing discuss to occur, since it's always good to have arguments and mentally work through and support one's beliefs instead of relying wholly on faith. I think it's funny that you assume that/. is some sort of elite organization and not simply a mirrored subset of the real world (admittedly with a heightened emphasis on technology, but it's not like Socrates or Voltaire were computer nerds).
I didn't realize it was analogy. I could have sworn it was a hypothesis with predictions. The prediction was that higher use results in a higher rate of being attacked and hence a higher rate of being exploited. To simple dismiss the Apache vs IIS argument without any basis places everyone else in the position to do the same with Windows vs Linux or Windows vs Mac OS X.
The simple face is, Apache vs IIS does prove the simple argument that the ratio of users to exploits is higher relative to other competitors doesn't work. Whether or not there is in fact another model that fits is certainly an interesting question. But good luck not making a completely esoteric model that works but only applies to a very small subset of the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
>Someone has asked them a question and given them a chance to put their message across and they've just blown it cause they feel it is more important to redefine the lexicon.
Answering a question in a sufficiently short statement that satisifies an interviewer does indeed put one's message across, but it is unlikely to get one's message across. Few movements (or politicians, for that matter) avoid redefining the lexicon as they feel is necessary. If what one describes is a new idea or a sufficiently complex idea and that idea is stated many times, it is simpler to use a word or phrase for it. If people are unwilling to accept this, then clearly trying to use them as a platform to communicate to others will fail. I don't consider that in itself extreme.
>>The problem is that not all projects are presented to the public before they even start with promises of what features will be included.
>They were presented to developers. That's not the general public. The general public would be Joe and Shmoe, not the Slashdot crowd.
Did I say "the general public"? The fact is, the general public is pretty well clueless on most technologies, regardless of if you *did* try to explain it to them. Microsoft has figured out that the best way to hype a product is to talk to developers before a product has even started and then proceed to make the product and near completion advertise to the general public in an entirely different fashion. If it was the case that Microsoft was advertising features in a product that it was to sell that didn't end up materializing, Microsoft wouldn't be booed for merely lying, they'd be charged with fraud and/or false advertising.
So, yes, they were presented to developers only. And the developers got all excited and told all their non-techie friends, some of whom who wrote tech stories hyping Microsoft's new product. But they lied to us, the group that is the backbone of supporting Microsoft (without us, the library of Windows programs would be much smaller , meaning it'd be less likely that that one program a user needs is Windows-only). They lied to us repeatedly (OFS and WinFS). Don't you think that's ruined your reputation at least a little with your non-techie friends? Don't you feel the least bit manipulated?
>The real lying on Microsoft's part would be claiming it was there, shipping the product, and then people realize it isn't there.
That would be more than lying. That would be fraud.
>Companies can have high hopes for projects. They can fail. It's all part of project development: not everything ends up being successful.
True. The problem is that not all projects are presented to the public before they even start with promises of what features will be included. Simply put, they were wrong about including WinFS with Windows Vista and the statement was deceptive as it was conceivably possible for them to have put WinFS into Windows Vista. Ie, they lied.
>No one has purchased or paid for Windows Vista based on the availability of WinFS, because Vista isn't available for purchase yet.
Yes, and this is why Microsoft is being booed for lying, not being hauled into court for fraud.
>So if the EFF is seen at worst as "pirates or piracy sympathies", what on earth makes you think the political establishment will take the Pirate Party seriously?
What makes you think the EFF isn't seen in this light anyways? More importantly, what makes you think it's relevant to many people in the political establishment if they are pirates or piracy sympathizers? I was under the impression that politics focused on either providing what the people want or trying to push people into issues so they'd decide based on them. The "pro-public domain" camp fits the former (clearly this new party is about issues that voters care about). The only real issue is that it's hard to compare "Iraq War" and "Public Domain" as talking points, so it's hard to use it to drive votes. To that end, I'm not sure it's possible to make the political establishment really care at all until these "pirates" go about looting ships.
Ie, I really don't see this changing much of anything.
"Later that same day, the remaining 914 inhabitants of Jonestown, 276 of them children, committed mass suicide that Jones referred to as "revolutionary suicide" on Jones's instructions by drinking cyanide-laced Flavor Aid, by forced cyanide injection, or by shooting." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
>>Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).
>It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Yes, more exclusion doesn't matter. The problem is that you can't grant everyone the same privilege on the same work. So, you only give opportunity for *some* people.
>Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal.
The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted.
>Equality does not mean no exclusion.
Of course not.
>You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition
Actually, the locks are. Anyone can try to put locks on my door. Whether my grant of the land I am on is equal is another matter.
>you too can lock your door and have your private space,
Yes, I can physically lock my door and have a private space.
>you too can copyright your software and have your private code.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with copyright. It is not copyright that makes my code private. It is my not distributing it or encrypting it. But once I release it to the world (ie, anyone else), any hopes of my to keep it "private" is bound by law, not by some physicality. How can a grant to keep something private when it is not be seen to be my ability to privatize part of the public sphere? And how is that *not* an inequality?
>>Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).
>Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing.
Nor did I claim it was.
>People from another country cannot vote in your elections.
And so they have no control over the copyright laws in my land. But they surely have control over the laws in *their* land.
>Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote.
So? Do you think this somehow changes that the US, being a democracy (it's not, btw; it's a constitutional republic), would grant itself not the need to pay for any IP laws on Chinese works?
>Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote.
It's democratic to the extent of the OSIV and complete ignorant of the country it exists in. Yea, that's great. And tyrants are merely supports of democracies of one.
>As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.
And did I say democracy was fair? If they don't think democracy is fair, then why the bloody hell are they claiming to be democratic?
>>Being honest means being fair
>No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.
But honesty is more than being simply tru
>>>The OISV is based on the values of equality, democracy, honesty, solidarity and helping others achieve their goals.
>>Those who write, promote or sell proprietary software betray each and every one of those ideals.
>A more accurate statement would read something like: I hate proprietary software, but am far too bigoted to acknowledge that this is nothing more than my personal preference.
Or, you know, he could be right.
Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).
Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).
Being honest means being fair. And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work (exclusion of such is an act of jealousy or greed). So, the promotion of copyrighted works is effectively being unfair.
They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors).
And finally, while their solidarity with each other may very well be helping each other achieve their goals, clearly their solidarity works against the efforts of people who wish to dissolve copyright, so they're certainly not helping me with my goals.
If you wish to debate me on these points (as they are rather abbreviated), feel free to respond. If I am bigoted on the subject of copyright, it is on the belief that it is hard to justify.
>>(think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar).
>god are you really this deluded?
In that there are dollar stores? Yep.
>So basically if you cant make a movie that earns its money back selling for a dollar a pop, you dont bother.
If you're making a movie for profit movites, obviously not. No more so than if you can't make a can of soda that earns it money back selling for under a dollar a pop, you probably won't bother.
>Goodbye Lord of the rings then.
Goodbye most future Lord of the Rings movies, probably, yes. But existing Lord of the Rings movies won't just magically disappear with the end of copyright.
>I hope you dont use any commericial software (pirated or not) that wouldnt break even on a dollar a sale, because that would make you a total hypocrite wouldnt it?
Yep, I'm a hypocrite. And I want to change that by changing the world. Funny idea, eh?
>The US can't convince Iran to give up work on its nuclear program (using either incentives or threats).
>>>>They threaten every democratic society they influence with their agenda.
Unless you're arguing Iran is a democratic society, you're bringing up an example that is outside the scope of the original argument.
>>>Because the concepts of intellectual property and copyright were invented by the US,
If I didn't invent the knife I stab you with, does it matter a whole lot to you that I'm not the inventor?
>>>and the only people who benefit from those concepts are Americans
If others benefit from my killing you, does it matter that I did it for my own ends regardless of others wishes?
>>>(it's funny that you are actually implying that Americans are the only ones who produce decent intellectual property).
He actually didn't say anything implying such. The thing he *did* state was that the United States abuses other countries for its own ends. If anything, this would be an indication that the United States is less interested in competing on worth and more interested in using their military or political might to get what they want.
So how can i make a living through sales under copyright, if copyright is not enforced?
The same way chair makers make a living selling chairs even though the materials to make a chair are readily available. Obviously not all chair makers are able to continue production, and you very well might not be able to live through sales without copyright. Again, no one owes you a living. If you can't make a living on sales through copyright, I'm quite willing to accept that you'll stop making new works, just like I'm quite willing to accept that whole other industries might collapse instead of being supported through a government monopoly.
or are you one of these people who supports a two tier system where some people pay for the product, and you and your friends convenientyly ignore copyright and just take it?
I support a system in which you make content and sell it and anyone else can do the same thing. If that means you have to sell CDs of your software at $1 just like the "pirates", so be it. That's how the free market works. If you can't tell, I don't support patents either, as it's the same government interference without justification other than the ends.
piracy is widespread, as the percentage of piracy to legit sales goes up, nobody will make a living. surely this is obvious?
No, it's not obvious. It's not obvious because there's all sorts of goods that are mass produced that sell at below the price one could get for a CD and still people are able to live off the sales (think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar). Hell, do you think commercial pirates don't live off *their* sales of pirated software/movies? Maybe you won't be one of those who manage it. But that doesn't mean nobody will manage it. Simply put, at some point people will want to have hard copies of software, movies, or whatever. And at that point, it's invariable cheaper through economy of scale and opportunity cost for people to buy a cheap CD on the corner than it is to buy a CD-R, find what is wanted, downloading it, and finally burning it.
After all, the stuff one downloads is only free* if your time isn't worth anything. Surely iTunes is a sign that for a lot of people their time is worth something.
*It still isn't free a lot of the time because, again, you need to buy a CD-R for a hard copy, and that's something you really want for a lot of stuff.
Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.
One can sell the act of making digital content. One can sell digital content at a price that most people find is acceptable. The latter, of course, leaves one having to accept that others will do the same and quite possibly make a living off the selling of your work as well.
My personal hatred is those who say "nobody owes you a living" when I point out that people should buy, rather than steal my games, if they like them enough to want the full versions.
I'm sorry you hate that. It's true, though.
apparently my counter response of "nobody owes you my games" goes right over their head.
It doesn't go over my head. But I don't expect you to make games if you're unable to live solely through sales under copyright. As much as I realize that an end to copyright will surely mean a decrease in the production of works, I can't point at the ends (more works) as justification for the means (copyright). The statement "nobody owes you a living" is merely a statement of the belief that copyright, your means of making a living (though not the only one, as I already stated), isn't a natural right. So, perhaps you should try justifying copyright itself?
Did you provide your lawn to the public view for purchase?
If I did make a pretty lawn, sure. But of course I'd need a law in place to make it happen that I could charge people. Do you think I've got a strong case to have a law produced called Lawnright? You might like it. It's based on using a wall with a really large LCD screen at my lawn's permeter to scramble the view of my lawn. The Lawnright Act will include support for copyrighting the descramblers that I sell to people.
Oh, and how about a DLRMA (digital lawn rights management act) to ban cloning hardware/software used to copy said lawn descramblers.
They actually believe it's okay to download, for instance, Doom 3, and not pay John Carmack, even though he spent five years of hard work to release it.
If I spend five years building up my lawn to look very pretty, do I get to charge all my neighbors for any benefit they might get out of it? My point isn't that they're straight analogies; it's that you can't point at hard work, no matter how many years it is, as a basis for why something has to be paid by others.
Even more hypocritically, you'll often hear that piracy isn't theft, but when a GPL violation is reported, it is referred to as "stolen code."
Right, that's clearly wrong. Piracy isn't theft, and a GPL violation is often fraud. You see, few people will take commercial software and pirate it, claiming it as their own (commercial piracy outfits are a large part of the exception). But GPL violaters tend to be commercial outfits that take code and claim it as their own, realizing that as a commercial outfit it would be a huge risk to announce to the world they're pirating software. It's better to push it under the rug and claim they wrote the code. Clearly "steal" isn't the right word.
Also, people act as though it's wrong for the RIAA or the MPAA to go after individual infringers (never mind that this is exactly what Slashdotters were calling for during the Napster lawsuit),
People were against the RIAA going after Napster because Napster didn't do anything morally wrong. It is like if Wal-mart went after a major newspaper because they believed their classified ads included a lot of stolen goods. Regardless of if it were true, the newspaper wasn't the one selling stolen goods. To use the logic that anyone who benefits from an illegal act because they didn't perform "due diligence" turns everyone into their brother's keeper. Not even extending that logic would mean that everyone would turn into drug enforcers.
Having said that, not all slashdotters were suggesting that the RIAA go after individual infringers because they thought the RIAA had some moral right to do so. The point was to make the RIAA seem like an evil corporation to individuals. As much as shutting down Napster might have made the RIAA look evil, it looks much more evil to hunt down individual users and demand hundreds of thousands of dollars for songs one is downloading or distributing. The negative PR might even cause other users to stop buying (or even downloading) such songs in retribution because they will feel personally threatened or personally insulted.
but when there's a GPL violation, the EFF should get involved and sue the infringers.
Harking back to my previously mentioned comment, GPL violaters tend to be commercial outfits constructed with the understanding that they will suffer the consequences if it's discovered they're violating copyright. Simply put, the FSF (not the EFF, btw) is more interested in opening their software under terms of the GPL than killing off the company (although it will probably have that side-effect, considering the GPL violater's almost certain commercial software selling aim). For those few GPL violaters who *aren't* commercial outfits, the call for a lawsuit is mostly to discredit the person who would violate the GPL communities "good will" by commiting fraud against GPL software. It's similar to the feeling of buying a knock-off and only later realizing you'd been had.
I just don't understand the disconnect.
I hope I've explained the disconnect.
Of course, I'm but a single slashdotter, and my views have certainly tainted my explanation. For example, I'm against copyright entirely. Copyright can be used to censor speech. Copyright is also counter the free market. Copyright is fundamentally the exclusion of information, yet the free market is based on perfect information. Obviously, the free market is an unworkable ideal, but one can imagine that with something closer to the free market, the price of most copyrighted works wouldn't be restricted to the selling price of one seller. I don't think that is unreasonable to want such a world.
Sorry. I knew I should have looked up the new project's name. And yes, I was aware that it was based off ideas from EROS. And while I'm only now recalling about it being written in BitC, the fact is that a language in itself isn't sufficient to provide security/resilience. The fact that it's designed for security is only a start. Like I said, I doubt even Microsoft has the funds to design an entire system around the ideal.
It comes down the fact that if there is a bug in the core system (and I'm pretty sure there's going to be at least one), then you're stuck either dumping the entire system (which effectively ruins any claims of resilience) or trying to retroactively undo any damage the bug might have done (something pretty monumental to perform). So, I'd love for Coyotos to prove me wrong; I'm just not exactly optimistic about it.
I could quote literally hundreds of Slashdot posts in almost any past thread about Windows criticising Microsoft for *giving* user's all (i.e. admin) rights on their own machines, in contrast with Linux, MacOS etc.
Uh, no. People criticize Windows for requiring *programs* to run with all rights on their own machine. Simply put, very few programs really need permissions as high as an administrator, let alone as a regular user. The real rights necessary are much less. If you're looking for an OS that gives the absolute minimal permissions necessary to programs, you're looking at CoyoteOS. The middle-ground is something like Linux or Mac OS X which have you run as a regular user and leave the system protected from rogue programs through a password system. And the Windows way seems to be to just pray that programs won't fuck you over.
Of course in the long term, the middle-ground leaves you susceptable to key loggers which can defeat the password system, but at least then the attack vector might take a while to occur. The long-term answer is to give users much more control over what programs can do. And that means making a much more resilient system. That's one reason why CoyoteOS seems very interesting.
Finally Microsoft agree and take them away (not an easy move considering that, since it'll be installed on the computers of people who have no idea how to use a computer, transparent ease of use has to be near the top of their priority list), and all anyone can do is complain about it.
As far as I'm aware, Microsoft's approach is to move towards the middle-ground, not superceed it. But in the process, they're not even interested in really giving their users more control. Instead, they're more interested in giving the programs more authority than the users. That's an even worse situation for users. Admittedly, it's somewhat understandable if one assumes that users are ignorant and cannot be moved to change. But the real answer to this problem is to make the system much more resilient and reversable, not lock-out the user to being able to make changes.
Of course, making such a resilient system is a monumental undertaking (I'm not even sure if MS has enough money to even begin to create such a system). Something like CoyoteOS hinges on making perfect code in some core components. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable expectation or not. Never the less, such is required to do better than the middle-grounds that we have now. So, is it any wonder that people will scoff at Windows as it is as well as what they're aiming to be, something slightly worse than the middle-grounds that already exist?
Few people are in the position to have the power to simply revoke all keys to access information to their crime. This is primarily because most crimes are commited in a situation where there's some open means of accessing the information. But, if it is the case that a crime is purely computer based (say, laundering money), then whoever controls the computer can control the evidence. So, it's not a question of encryption at all. My mentioned scenario doesn't even *require* encryption. It merely requires control. Now, would you truly feel safe if Microsoft or the US government had full control of your financial records? I know I wouldn't. And I very well love encryption.
And the answer is to not codify in law the right for anyone/organization to fully control information. The only other option is to not make any acts of/on information crimes, since one can never be truly sure who actually comitted said act.
I love encryption. I don't love being unable to legally crack encryption keys to gain access to information for my defense. Or to be unable to legally possess software/hardware to obtain said keys to avoid having to brute force said encryption. Afterall, if it's not legal to obtain the information, how can I use the information in my defense?
Clearly your suggestion to have documents hosted on servers isn't the solution. Why? Because some viruses already have their main payload on a group of servers. So, while certainly corporate firewalls can protect people because there's an IT department for that sort of thing, the masses can't rely on their ISP to go about blocking just a handful of servers or shutting down those servers in an orderly fashion.
All your suggestion would do is lead to the following form of virus:
1. "Virus" email arrives.
2. Person clicks on link to document.
3. Document loads infecting user.
4. User's machine begins hosting a ftp/http/gopher server.
5. User's machine begins sending out new "virus" emails, pointing to the user's machine.
And this means that instead of blocking a group of servers (which is probably a bad approach, anyways), the IT group will have to block based on some signature of the data being sent (ie, a virus filter, once the virus is sufficiently discovered, on all known protocols). And of course, this does nothing for the masses either. The only way I can see this as remotely an improvement for the masses is if many ISPs start blocking their users ability to host a http/ftp/gopher server. Personally, I'd consider that an overall bad thing.
I'm not advocating an armed march on the White House (yet :)
Then when exactly will you advocate an armed march on the White House? When they start tapping your phones? When they start rounding up the Arab-looking people? When they come for you?
I'm just curious, since short of cowardace, I'm not sure exactly why nothing has been done so far, given how many liberties have been undone.
Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing Mega Man X and Zero (either from the X or Zero series). Both support wall hugging and air dashes, which would be good fits for the game. That and Zero is actually a melee character. I'm not dissing Megaman. I just don't think he'd be as good of a fit, abilities wise.
Clause 1 should be: No part of this law applies if you broadcast a vulnerability to a list of people who can't fix it. Being a messenger of a vulnerability is cool in my book, but being a broadcaster is not. You can't try to get revenge and then later claim you were trying to help. That scheme is pretty easy to see through.
You assume that the people who are trying to be helped out is the company. The fact is, so long as no one exploits the vulnerability, the cheapest action for the company is to completely ignore the vulnerability. The only reason they have to fix the vulnerability is for PR purposes. However, anyone who goes off and exploits the vulnerability (and hence damages their PR) in any fashion isn't covered by your Clause 1. So, you've effectively given companies carte-blanche basis to prosecute everyone who hurts their PR and driven most companies to not even give much of a fuck about writing secure code.
As a side poster pointed out, a large part of announcing a vulnerability isn't to help the company at all (PR or otherwise). It's to inform the user so they can take steps to prevent being exploited *before* some black hat decides to take advantage of the situation. It doesn't matter how vindictive the statement might be simply because there's already libel/slander laws if the statement isn't true. None of this rises to the level of criminal prosecution for the same reason that pointing out to other customers at a bank that the bank vault's door is a beaded curtain.
On a side note, those who are trying to stop the flow of such information are clearly anti-free market. The free market, after all, is based upon all members of the market having perfect information. To disrupt the flow of information only worsens the situation for all members involved. It is chiefly this reason that things like chiefly planned economies tend to fail; those in power make criticism of their errors (something that occurs in all economies, though the scale is different) illegal because such is bad PR, and such means that the planned economy is doomed to be run inefficiently. Truth wants to be free.
In this regard, one of Stallman's implicit claims is that "other people do it" or "I do it because I can" are not adequate defenses of why one makes money.
Actually, that's not the implicit claim. The implicit claim is that time is limited.
Hence, if he will deny either of those to others, he must deny those defenses to himself.
Yes, I'm sure he denies those two.
If "it's customary to charge money for software" is a good enough reason, a lot of the debate on free software would go away.
Again, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer. You can effectively charge for the time taken to write the code. You can charge for the time taken to print up the nice instruction manual and stamping out the CDs. You can even charge for going over the source code with others. None of this is bad because time is limited innately. Distribution, the act, is limited innately by time and resources.
In the end, Stallman is generally against artificial limits placed upon the right of *others* to go about doing the same things the original programmer did with the code. That's why he calls it copyleft. Artificially limiting who can distribute the source with force goes against what's innately possible. The chief reason, that I can see, that Stallman isn't completely against copyright is that copyright includes attribution rights.
Now, *this* is something that is contradictory to his core belief (again, as I see it), as clearly he's interested in using positive reinforcement through law (even if it isn't through artificially limiting the software itself) to encourage authors to continue to release works, when it is the case that one who are popular/well-known enough could hypothetically easily plagerize another's work and remove the "reward" loop to the real author. The real anarchist approach would leave it to the real author to find some way of avoiding this scenario.
So, please recognize that Stallman is chiefly against the law artifically limiting people's ability to use their time to modify or redistribute things that already exist. Time is limited. There's no "moral" reason to not be allowed to sell it, like any other limited resource. It just happens that for a lot of people the time to share through p2p (irl or not) is less than what the artificial price of copyright is. The fact that this means musicians have to play live (free (as in beer) music removes some of the appeal of going to clubs, etc, requiring at least some to hire live bands) or that programmers have to write more programs or provide for support for the programs they wrote (maybe they can tour or something) to live off that field is just a natural side-effect. But it's not Stallman's direct intent or basis.
So let him defend himself however he likes, but if it comes down to "other people do it", he's undermined his whole political movement.
It doesn't, as that's never been his position.
I don't buy the story that MS knows what's good for me. If anyone knows, I do. And I certainly won't hand this decision over to someone else.
Actually, you already did by using closed software. The fact is, you've no idea when two things are interrelated and are almost entirely dependent on MS to not only fix your problems but report how fixes or any other changes will effect other components. To that end, MS is really the only group that really knows what's good for you. Until you go over the entire system with a fine comb, you can't be sure there aren't any backdoor associations instilled by some component in the system. The same is true for open software, of course, but at least there you only have to verify any firmware or other ROMs, the compiler, and the source. At least the source, which is a huge bulk of the system, is reasonably readable.
When someone comes to me with a computer (or other) problem, I ask them 1. what they think is wrong and 2. what did they do to try and solve it. My problem is that he didn't even make a token effort at step 2. He stopped at step 1 (I don't know what this patch is doing) and then went complaining.
The reason he's complaining is because each patch report is supposed to cover a patch that fixes a specific problem, linked to with the bug report. His complaint isn't with the patch. It's with the report about the patch seeming to cover two, or possibly three, different bugs, of which only one is listed in the bug report. Having said that, he can't do a damn thing to fix the report; he can tell MS or the media that their patch/bug report pairing seems to be inconsistent. Given that he has a history of providing information to MS and other security bug tracking companies while waiting quite a while (it mentions sitting on a bug for 6 months without making it public) to report to the public, I'd make the assumption that he's commented in some way to MS about what he sees as a discrepency before speaking to the public, so he's probably engaged in step 2. Of course he might not have, but then reporting to the media a problem he sees is *also* a way towards step 2, though some would see it as less ethical (and are probably in the same camp that is against reporting security vulnerabilities to the public, as it seems unfairly harmful to the company and/or its users).
So, regardless of whether the patch actually is only for the bug listed in the bug report, the patch report is wrong.
An obvious attempt to get the discussion going again so mods can have fun down-modding any IDer into total oblivion while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened,
/. is some sort of elite organization and not simply a mirrored subset of the real world (admittedly with a heightened emphasis on technology, but it's not like Socrates or Voltaire were computer nerds).
Yea!
so much more intelligent than the masses.
Wait, why are you assuming the masses aren't enlightened? I'd say the masses, in majority, *are* enlightened. They're enlightened enough to pander to IDers or Creationists or "Scientists". They're open to allowing discuss to occur, since it's always good to have arguments and mentally work through and support one's beliefs instead of relying wholly on faith. I think it's funny that you assume that
I didn't realize it was analogy. I could have sworn it was a hypothesis with predictions. The prediction was that higher use results in a higher rate of being attacked and hence a higher rate of being exploited. To simple dismiss the Apache vs IIS argument without any basis places everyone else in the position to do the same with Windows vs Linux or Windows vs Mac OS X.
The simple face is, Apache vs IIS does prove the simple argument that the ratio of users to exploits is higher relative to other competitors doesn't work. Whether or not there is in fact another model that fits is certainly an interesting question. But good luck not making a completely esoteric model that works but only applies to a very small subset of the industry.