Ah, but do you use the provided Windows drivers on a PC connected to the internet? The ones we recently learned phone home? I hope you have a firewall that prevents this.
Well, even if the terms of service have no legal standing, you still can't meta-search google, because that would probably be copyright infringement and would almost certainly run afoul of "database rights" (shudder). You need a contract with them that explicitly allows that.
Government research has this crazy idea that companies won't want something unless they can get an exclusive license to it. So they'll halfway develop something, then start looking for companies, then sign licensing deals with the companies. This is the big problem - if the government develops something, than anybody ought to be able to implement it. If nobody has the balls to perfect the product and bring it to market, then that's their problem.
DRM relies on security by obscurity, either at the software or the hardware level. (Software that just won't do what users want, or hardware that withholds keys from the user.) In hardware, this is at least somewhat viable, because it's hard to get info from chips that don't want to give it. But for software, it's not viable, because any software can easily be modified. Open source solutions would be even more easily circumvented, because they can be even more easily modified.
I think the best way for open-source users to win the DRM game is the same way everybody else can win - don't play.
The GPL doesn't say distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license. Rather, the GPL can grant you the right, which you wouldn't otherwise have had, to distribute the work, provided you comply with the provisions. So when you distribute a GPL'd work, you haven't implicitly agreed to the GPL - it's just that if you don't, you're infringing copyright law. (If you get sued, you can choose whether it's a copyright or a contract violation.)
A EULA is different because it isn't granting you distribution rights, instead, it's trying to limit rights you do have. So if you didn't agree, you can still use the work, because that's allowed by copyright. In a similar vein, just using a GPL work doesn't force you to do anything, because you can just not accept the GPL, and the GPL acknowledges that copyright allows you to use it anyway.
My biggest problem with that is that I think the freedom to do stuff like decompiling or reverse engineering code is extremely important, both to me personally and to the industry as a whole. However, the people in the market for most software doesn't give a flying shit. Market forces are insufficient to ensure us that freedom, so I think the government ought to, and to some degree does. The other problem is that the "contract" has no consideration, is not available at the time of sale, typically isn't read, isn't signed, and can be clicked-thru by minors, shell scripts, etc. - but others have covered that angle.
Some say/sbin/init is created by the "kernel," but I just don't see evidence for that. The user must have manually twiddled the bits in the "process table." Though good luck learning that in our *cough* unbiased OS design classes!
Scientific theories about the origin of life (for example, "Autocatalytic proteins got stuck in bubbles, then evolved RNA and DNA") can be disproven with more data. The creationist view (for the sake of argument, "An omnipotent being created primitive life, which then evolved, possibly with more divine intervention") is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproven. An omnipotent being would be able to disguise his actions. For any scientific theory, you can say "There's not enough evidence for me, I prefer to believe X," but that doesn't imply X is a theory.
Do me a favor and tell your boss this: Consumers are smart. How much do the printers cost you? Multiply that by your margin and sell them for that. How much does the ink cost you? Multiply by your margin and sell it for that. That will make your more printers expensive. But consumers are smart! - tell them, "We're not fucking with you like everyone else is - sure the printer's expensive, but the ink is cheap." People will buy it! It's no secret what the printer manufacturers are doing - everyone knows it's a racket, and everyone wants it to stop - you're just not fooling anybody. Be the first to sell stuff for what it's worth, and you will be rewarded.
I think we disagree on what constitutes production. Obviously on a farm, you produce food, and society needs food, so we encourage you by buying it. You seem to view the copyright holder's production as selling copies, thus making money for himself, which he of course needs copyright to do. But in my view, what the artist produces is original work - by the time he is selling copies, the production is done. Society doesn't need copies, they need original work. In a sense, charging for copies is just leeching, but we allow this, because that's how he gets reimbursed for his production of an original work. However, there are limits - after a time, we have to say, "You've got your money, now stop leeching and go produce another product." And especially when the artist is dead, he's not producing anything, his kids aren't producing anything, nobody really deserves to be paid.
I'm not advocating that copyright shouldn't be inheiritable - what I really want is for a reasonable limit on the term. This sets a clear limit on the amount of leeching, and gives the author the clear bargain, "You will get paid according to how much people will pay for copies over the next, say, 14 years." I think this is better than the current plan, where after making one marketable work, five generations (life + 70, and probably more by then) can get paid for producing nothing while locking up what has become a part of our society's consciousness.
A farm is capital - a tangible thing you can use to make money, a means of production. You can't farm without a farm. When a farmer dies, he passes his farm, his tractor, etc. to his children, and they use it to make money. If he had money, he passes it to his children also. The creative equivalent of a farm is pens, paper, instruments, recording hardware, and creativity - all of which a musician can pass down to his children. And he can still pass down his money, and he even gets to pass down his name. But a farmer's child isn't guaranteed income unless he farms the farm, thus becoming a productive member of society, so why should an author/musician's child expect to get income unless he writes/sings/etc?
Understand that protecting copyrights and preventing IP theft is exactly the same as protecting monopolies and preventing competiton. (Not that that's a bad thing - a copyright is a limited monopoly granted to promote the science and the useful arts. Which would be good, were there any balance currently.)
What you mean is, the DMCA is meant to protect copyright monopolies, not ink cartridge monopolies - let Lexmark buy it's own laws.
Compiles shouldn't cause X to hang anyway. One likely problem is no DMA - this causes HD access to make the system unresponsive. If that wasn't the problem, try running your compiles nice. ("nice make", or even "nice bash"). If that still doesn't fix it, there's something wrong. Bitch at the kernel developers, and in the meantime, try a -ck kernel - they have a less hacky scheduler, and also SCHED_BATCH - which you can use to ensure that your compile will never ever run when something else wants to. The only performance hit then will be from the cache being dirtied often and the larger working set.
Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - nobody knows what these people stand for, so nobody will vote for them in polls (on which they're often not included), so they can't get into debates, so nobody knows what they stand for, and so on. And the election system is set up so that anyone with less than probably 20% of the popular vote won't get a single electoral vote, and so that a vote for a third party candidate is often a vote against your second choice.
It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.
Well, I agree with you right up to the point you call us all idiots. I guess my question is, how do we get out of the situation? For that matter, how would non-halfwits get out of the situation? It doesn't matter how smart you are - you only get to vote once.
They aren't giving you electrons. The electrons barely move at all. They are giving you information, which at various points is represented as light amplitude, radio amplitude, and varying electrical potentials. You can play a CD multiple times, and the information comes through the air - do CDs have an unlimited supply of air? Not ever your power company gives you electrons.
Be careful with your nomenclature. Even accepting pirating=copyright infringement, not all copying of TV is copyright infringement. A big part of the reason we're all so pissed is because the broadcast will stop us from using our homebrew PVRs with HDTV for most shows. Yes we're copying, but we're only timeshifting, and the Betamax case says that's legal. And even though with the broadcast flag, most of us would still figure out how to do it, I prefer it when the things I do are legal.
Why is the RIAA so fucking stupid? You say they market songs on the radio. Well, here at least, they never ever tell you what the song is called. If I hear a song on the radio I want to buy, how am I supposed to know what it is? The whole point of marketing is to tell people what your product is. The only way is to Google for lyrics, assuming I can understand them, but the sites that put lyrics online are under constant legal threat. Geez, how stupid can they be?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but do you use the provided Windows drivers on a PC connected to the internet? The ones we recently learned phone home? I hope you have a firewall that prevents this.
Well, even if the terms of service have no legal standing, you still can't meta-search google, because that would probably be copyright infringement and would almost certainly run afoul of "database rights" (shudder). You need a contract with them that explicitly allows that.
Government research has this crazy idea that companies won't want something unless they can get an exclusive license to it. So they'll halfway develop something, then start looking for companies, then sign licensing deals with the companies. This is the big problem - if the government develops something, than anybody ought to be able to implement it. If nobody has the balls to perfect the product and bring it to market, then that's their problem.
I think the best way for open-source users to win the DRM game is the same way everybody else can win - don't play.
With the GPL, the "trigger," distributing the software, would be illegal if you don't agree to the GPL.
A EULA is different because it isn't granting you distribution rights, instead, it's trying to limit rights you do have. So if you didn't agree, you can still use the work, because that's allowed by copyright. In a similar vein, just using a GPL work doesn't force you to do anything, because you can just not accept the GPL, and the GPL acknowledges that copyright allows you to use it anyway.
My biggest problem with that is that I think the freedom to do stuff like decompiling or reverse engineering code is extremely important, both to me personally and to the industry as a whole. However, the people in the market for most software doesn't give a flying shit. Market forces are insufficient to ensure us that freedom, so I think the government ought to, and to some degree does. The other problem is that the "contract" has no consideration, is not available at the time of sale, typically isn't read, isn't signed, and can be clicked-thru by minors, shell scripts, etc. - but others have covered that angle.
Some say /sbin/init is created by the "kernel," but I just don't see evidence for that. The user must have manually twiddled the bits in the "process table." Though good luck learning that in our *cough* unbiased OS design classes!
Scientific theories about the origin of life (for example, "Autocatalytic proteins got stuck in bubbles, then evolved RNA and DNA") can be disproven with more data. The creationist view (for the sake of argument, "An omnipotent being created primitive life, which then evolved, possibly with more divine intervention") is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproven. An omnipotent being would be able to disguise his actions. For any scientific theory, you can say "There's not enough evidence for me, I prefer to believe X," but that doesn't imply X is a theory.
I assume you made a typo: I just tried it, on GCC on AMD64, ints are 32, longs and long longs are 64.
Do me a favor and tell your boss this: Consumers are smart. How much do the printers cost you? Multiply that by your margin and sell them for that. How much does the ink cost you? Multiply by your margin and sell it for that. That will make your more printers expensive. But consumers are smart! - tell them, "We're not fucking with you like everyone else is - sure the printer's expensive, but the ink is cheap." People will buy it! It's no secret what the printer manufacturers are doing - everyone knows it's a racket, and everyone wants it to stop - you're just not fooling anybody. Be the first to sell stuff for what it's worth, and you will be rewarded.
I'm not advocating that copyright shouldn't be inheiritable - what I really want is for a reasonable limit on the term. This sets a clear limit on the amount of leeching, and gives the author the clear bargain, "You will get paid according to how much people will pay for copies over the next, say, 14 years." I think this is better than the current plan, where after making one marketable work, five generations (life + 70, and probably more by then) can get paid for producing nothing while locking up what has become a part of our society's consciousness.
A farm is capital - a tangible thing you can use to make money, a means of production. You can't farm without a farm. When a farmer dies, he passes his farm, his tractor, etc. to his children, and they use it to make money. If he had money, he passes it to his children also. The creative equivalent of a farm is pens, paper, instruments, recording hardware, and creativity - all of which a musician can pass down to his children. And he can still pass down his money, and he even gets to pass down his name. But a farmer's child isn't guaranteed income unless he farms the farm, thus becoming a productive member of society, so why should an author/musician's child expect to get income unless he writes/sings/etc?
What you mean is, the DMCA is meant to protect copyright monopolies, not ink cartridge monopolies - let Lexmark buy it's own laws.
Compiles shouldn't cause X to hang anyway. One likely problem is no DMA - this causes HD access to make the system unresponsive. If that wasn't the problem, try running your compiles nice. ("nice make", or even "nice bash"). If that still doesn't fix it, there's something wrong. Bitch at the kernel developers, and in the meantime, try a -ck kernel - they have a less hacky scheduler, and also SCHED_BATCH - which you can use to ensure that your compile will never ever run when something else wants to. The only performance hit then will be from the cache being dirtied often and the larger working set.
I'd genuinely like to see an example of this.
http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisHardware There are a few that are mass-produced for audio players that include Vorbis playback. Scroll down to the bottom.
We'd rather nobody had nukes, but if someone else has them, we want them too!
It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.
Well, I agree with you right up to the point you call us all idiots. I guess my question is, how do we get out of the situation? For that matter, how would non-halfwits get out of the situation? It doesn't matter how smart you are - you only get to vote once.
They aren't giving you electrons. The electrons barely move at all. They are giving you information, which at various points is represented as light amplitude, radio amplitude, and varying electrical potentials. You can play a CD multiple times, and the information comes through the air - do CDs have an unlimited supply of air? Not ever your power company gives you electrons.
Be careful with your nomenclature. Even accepting pirating=copyright infringement, not all copying of TV is copyright infringement. A big part of the reason we're all so pissed is because the broadcast will stop us from using our homebrew PVRs with HDTV for most shows. Yes we're copying, but we're only timeshifting, and the Betamax case says that's legal. And even though with the broadcast flag, most of us would still figure out how to do it, I prefer it when the things I do are legal.
Why should a printer driver run in kernel mode and be able to BSOD a system? Whose design was that, and what were they smoking?
Why is the RIAA so fucking stupid? You say they market songs on the radio. Well, here at least, they never ever tell you what the song is called. If I hear a song on the radio I want to buy, how am I supposed to know what it is? The whole point of marketing is to tell people what your product is. The only way is to Google for lyrics, assuming I can understand them, but the sites that put lyrics online are under constant legal threat. Geez, how stupid can they be?
Well, that's the game's problem, not Linux's. And at least UT2004 has absolutely no problem - just run the GUI installer.