The submitter isn't clear about the fact that this would not apply to everyone who changes software for commercial use but does not redistribute. This applies ONLY when "redistribution" of the software sort-of-occurs, because the software is used to provide a service. For example: any open source software Google uses in its search engine interface does not count as "redistributed", even though it _interacts_ with users of Google, because no actualy _binaries_ were shared with those users. For another example, if I modified the GIMP and then let people use my modified version over the Internet, but not on their machines, I would not have "redistributed" my modifications. This is considered by many to be a "loophole" to be closed.
"... illegal to commit, or attempt to commit, suicide."
I can see it now...
Police: "We know you're in there! Come out with your hands in the air!" Body: <doesn't move> Police: "Just because you're dead, don't think the law doesn't apply to you!"
*sigh.* What's wrong with you people? The law doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know. Your interpretation of the Constitution is at odds with 1) years of Constitutional scholarship, 2) years of court rulings, 3) common sense. Get a life.
Check out here. It shows him as the World Bank (IBRD) representative to the UN Information Systems Coordination Committee. So afaict he is what they say he is.
I would be willing to entertain the idea that RMS' "Free Software" ideology is like a religion. But the point of differentiating "Open Source" from "Free Software" is to get away from that zealotry. Besides which, there are very many projects that simply don't care about such issues, preferring to focus on the software itself (as it should be.)
I have to strongly disagree with you. Yes, the superficial structure may be similar; but the difference is in the _memes_. The memes associated with/spread by FLOSS are things like sharing your efforts; in contrast religious memes are, almost by definition, of the form "If you don't join us you are going to Hell. If you do x, y, or z you are going to Hell."
The only meme I can really find in common is respecting the leadership; but forks of religions only happen by people so up in the hierarchy as to be disillusioned with the leaders, whereas anyone can fork a FLOSS project (not that it happens often, but it does occasionally.)
Parent needs, like all tax protestors, to realize that the law does not exist in a vacuum. Since the courts do not admit a distinction between "US Citizenship" and "State Citizenship," no such distinction exists, REGARDLESS of what you may pull out of (in increasing order of probability) US statue law, the Internet, or your ass, on the subject.
I shall give you credit for intelligence and assume you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course they need to make it back, _eventually_. The point is that they need not make it back immediately, or on the same product line. It can be profitable for them, in the long run, to either 1) dump product below cost in order to drive out competitors, then raise prices (not a strategy I can think of any Microsoft examples of, though they may well exist), or 2) dump product below cost in one market to enhance the desirability of their offerings in other markets and screw with the demand curve (THIS is a very popular Microsoft strategy).
... except that Microsoft has no need to make back the money they lose, because they have enough liquid assets to survive a full year on no revenue. (That may not still be true since their giant dividend payout, but it still gives you a good idea of their strategy.) In addition, they are in lots of markets, so they can afford to sell software below cost in the ones (like web browser) which are critical to helping retain their monopoly in others.
Read those RFC's again. If the domain was locked, Verislime was responsible, as the domain registry, for denying any and all transfer requests, period, no question. Dotster never even got so much as a notification of the fradulent request; it had no opportunity to object.
Just because Google can "do no evil" now, doesn't mean we shouldn't watch them closely. They are a publically traded company now, which means whatever conscience they might once have had is gone. "Power corrupts..." so the more powerful they get the more skeptical we should become.
If this technology worked perfectly, I would absolutely agree that it should be mandated, and I'm sure most everyone would agree with me. The fact, though, is that it won't.
Previous technologies, relying on palmprints and the like, would likely fail if, for example, your hand was covered in blood. Whoops.
This one, which claims to be "dynamic" and take into account things like grip pressure, succumb to a different problem; if I have trained my firearm to recognize my normal target-practice grip (already with a small, some would say unacceptable, false negative rate), it is likely that the rate of false negatives will rise precipitously if I am nervous/fearful for my life, because the character of my grip will completely change.
Re:Answer 50 years. BTW, THIS IS TRUSTED COMPUTIN
on
i-Names Pick Up Steam
·
· Score: 1
> The system will not be fully operational unless you are running Microsoft's Palladium operating system
Evidence, please? I loathe and abhor trusted computing in all forms, but what evidence have you to specifically tie Oasis to Palladium?
Would somebody please explain to me why with Passport we're in mortal danger but with i-Names we're supposed to be safe?
Seriously... why does central single-sign-on become a good idea just because it has the word "commons" in it? To briefly don my tinfoil hat, how does anyone even know that this company isn't just a front for Micr[NO CARRIER]
> A college professor of mine taught us how to
> square 3-digit numbers in our head in seconds
> using tricks like this; he was able to multiply
> arbitrary 5-digit numbers in his head, and often
> performed this onstage. And for the curious, yes,
> I do actually have a life outside slashdot.:-)
Did you happen to go to Harvey Mudd College?
Slashdot Mirror
The submitter isn't clear about the fact that this would not apply to everyone who changes software for commercial use but does not redistribute. This applies ONLY when "redistribution" of the software sort-of-occurs, because the software is used to provide a service. For example: any open source software Google uses in its search engine interface does not count as "redistributed", even though it _interacts_ with users of Google, because no actualy _binaries_ were shared with those users. For another example, if I modified the GIMP and then let people use my modified version over the Internet, but not on their machines, I would not have "redistributed" my modifications. This is considered by many to be a "loophole" to be closed.
WTF, people?
Execute you, obviously.
I can see it now...
Somebody was having fun with a network card. (Sorry about the crap formatting, how hard must they make it to paste program output?)
Massive, massive TROLL. I mean, What the Fuck?
Read my comments on the great-grandparent.
*sigh.* What's wrong with you people? The law doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know. Your interpretation of the Constitution is at odds with 1) years of Constitutional scholarship, 2) years of court rulings, 3) common sense. Get a life.
Check out here. It shows him as the World Bank (IBRD) representative to the UN Information Systems Coordination Committee. So afaict he is what they say he is.
I would be willing to entertain the idea that RMS' "Free Software" ideology is like a religion. But the point of differentiating "Open Source" from "Free Software" is to get away from that zealotry. Besides which, there are very many projects that simply don't care about such issues, preferring to focus on the software itself (as it should be.)
The only meme I can really find in common is respecting the leadership; but forks of religions only happen by people so up in the hierarchy as to be disillusioned with the leaders, whereas anyone can fork a FLOSS project (not that it happens often, but it does occasionally.)
Parent needs, like all tax protestors, to realize that the law does not exist in a vacuum. Since the courts do not admit a distinction between "US Citizenship" and "State Citizenship," no such distinction exists, REGARDLESS of what you may pull out of (in increasing order of probability) US statue law, the Internet, or your ass, on the subject.
I shall give you credit for intelligence and assume you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course they need to make it back, _eventually_. The point is that they need not make it back immediately, or on the same product line. It can be profitable for them, in the long run, to either 1) dump product below cost in order to drive out competitors, then raise prices (not a strategy I can think of any Microsoft examples of, though they may well exist), or 2) dump product below cost in one market to enhance the desirability of their offerings in other markets and screw with the demand curve (THIS is a very popular Microsoft strategy).
... except that Microsoft has no need to make back the money they lose, because they have enough liquid assets to survive a full year on no revenue. (That may not still be true since their giant dividend payout, but it still gives you a good idea of their strategy.) In addition, they are in lots of markets, so they can afford to sell software below cost in the ones (like web browser) which are critical to helping retain their monopoly in others.
Read those RFC's again. If the domain was locked, Verislime was responsible, as the domain registry, for denying any and all transfer requests, period, no question. Dotster never even got so much as a notification of the fradulent request; it had no opportunity to object.
Just because Google can "do no evil" now, doesn't mean we shouldn't watch them closely. They are a publically traded company now, which means whatever conscience they might once have had is gone. "Power corrupts..." so the more powerful they get the more skeptical we should become.
... one for the "Peer2Peer" section!
... better placed in the Peer2Peer category. Which ought, of course, to be created first.
*sigh*.... the quoted text doesn't appear in the grandparent. Search it for yourself.
How about a "Peer2Peer" category for Slashdot? Who's with me? :-)
If this technology worked perfectly, I would absolutely agree that it should be mandated, and I'm sure most everyone would agree with me. The fact, though, is that it won't. Previous technologies, relying on palmprints and the like, would likely fail if, for example, your hand was covered in blood. Whoops. This one, which claims to be "dynamic" and take into account things like grip pressure, succumb to a different problem; if I have trained my firearm to recognize my normal target-practice grip (already with a small, some would say unacceptable, false negative rate), it is likely that the rate of false negatives will rise precipitously if I am nervous/fearful for my life, because the character of my grip will completely change.
Evidence, please? I loathe and abhor trusted computing in all forms, but what evidence have you to specifically tie Oasis to Palladium?
Would somebody please explain to me why with Passport we're in mortal danger but with i-Names we're supposed to be safe? Seriously ... why does central single-sign-on become a good idea just because it has the word "commons" in it? To briefly don my tinfoil hat, how does anyone even know that this company isn't just a front for Micr[NO CARRIER]
> A college professor of mine taught us how to > square 3-digit numbers in our head in seconds > using tricks like this; he was able to multiply > arbitrary 5-digit numbers in his head, and often > performed this onstage. And for the curious, yes, > I do actually have a life outside slashdot. :-)
Did you happen to go to Harvey Mudd College?
Most entertaining, yes. I do indeed recall. :-)