I googled for some free services and yes, they are still around (although many are trial bases before they charge which is good news when it comes to spam). Of course, there really only need to be a couple and spammers are happy.
The actual facts of what have happened aside (The employee may or may not have stolen code/rewritten something similar, implimented it on MSN search etc) it does show that the issue of stolen code isn't an OSS centric problem. It'll be good if companies see this and realise that it's a risk of buying ANY software and not just one or the other.
I'm sure this guy is capable in his field, but I'm wondering why he's finding it so difficult to get a job. Could it just be down to the authorites imposing restrictions? Or is there a multitude of things effecting his situation, most of which he's just ignoring and placing the blame squarely on his government? He doesn't have to job hunt in NZ alone. Experience and skills in the weapons department arn't exactly qualifications everybodies got.
Or they could employ other tactics that the RIAA totally missed the boat on, such as legal downloads for a fee. If they start doing things like this _now_ then lots of people will start using these kinds of services and get used to it. Especially since broadband is growing, meaning so will their potential audience. I'd be interested to see if the MPAA have the sense to try legal downloads out, and what effect it has on the problem of illegal online distribution. Surely it makes sense to exaust your options before you start alienating your customers?
- When you have a cold you are LAZY because you call the Dr instead of going and getting chicken soup.
- When your car needs its oil checked you are LAZY because you didn't get someone to give you a 5 minute lesson on how to do it.
- When you need to hang a picture you are LAZY because you call in a contractor to do it for you.
I don't expect my less knowledgable friends and family to work everything out for themselves, but after I've showed them how do to simple things like opening and saving a file and sending an email a few times I don't expect to have to do it for them anymore. I wouldn't expect them to be able to set up their home network or upgrade the memory in their PC but it doesn't take an expert to do most of the day-to-day things with your computer. The average user should at least be computer literate enough to do the basics. Less frequent and more complex tasks I have no problem helping them out with, since, for example, I don't think my mechanic expects me to be able to replace the gear box in my car. Help out but don't forget to draw a line.
Good. The more bugs exposed in firefox (et al) the better for the quality of the software. Sure, IE should be great by now if you apply that logic, but they keep changing the code and introducing more problems. Lets hope the moz developers don't do this. Firefox users shouldn't be getting on the defensive about the appearance of a bug, they should be looking for more.
If that happens then the scheme as a whole is doomed to fail in it's goal of getting everyone to use it. Sure joeuser might give it a go and it could well be very popular, but then the idea has changed into something else. In order for this to work it'd have to have either standard software that worked on every OS (or was portable) or standards that allowed developers to incorporate it. If Microsoft took over then it would simply turn into another microsoft service and not a public resource....wouldn't it?
True. I could probably write into half the TV channels I have access to about content I don't like, but I don't because I have enough sense to know that many more people actually want to see it, and that I don't have to watch it. I have the common sense to avoid the programmes I know I'll find offensive and I'm quite happy doing so. Do I have the right to dictate to the country what they should be able to see based on my own opinions? No.
I think "protecting the children" is a load of rubbish. Sure, I wouldn't want my kid to see tinky-winky getting-it-on with lala on after school childrens TV, but I wouln't mind them hearing the odd "bad word" in a programme aired after the watershed. Over protecting kids can be just as bad as not protecting them at all, since they'll grow up thinking that so much as a friendly hug is dirty (extreame example). Teach them right from wrong and let them experience the world.
"But you can't protect the individual artist without protecting the person whom buys copy rights from that artist - through contract or otherwise." True, but the "old business model" is largly to blame for this situation of musicians not owning their own work in the first place...but that's another discussion. Some artists thrive from sharing thier music. People tend to go out and buy good music on CD or from the internet if they like it. This is regardless of whether they've got the whole album for free off of the internet. People will pay for something they appreciate.
Yes, I totally agree that infringing on copyrights by widely distributing music on the internet is wrong, but the RIAA has their approach totally backwards They cannot stop people from sharing music, they can hardly slow it down. Why not embrace the technology? If you can't beat them, join them, and give them a legal and cheap alternative way of using existing technologies. The induvidual artist could then follow suit and everyone would benefit.
Of course, I have no really good ideas on how this could happen so please don't nitpick and point out that I'm being an idealist. They're just thoughts:)
No, you're right, it can't be fixed from this end. But cutting off countries won't be very effective (especially not in the long term). Fraudsters also invest their time into their schemes. They won't just give up because their country is blacklisted. I just think that refusing to do business with these countries is more acceptable than not giving them access at all.
Would a free carton of popcorn or a free drink get you to go to a movie theatre to watch it? And the idea of freebies was that you can ONLY get them when you buy the official DVD, otherwise the pirates would just go buy some aswell and give them away. Of course, it's not the "this will end piracy" solution, but mearly a more sensible way for companies to get people to buy official copies rather than pirated ones. I don't believe piracy CAN be stopped.
It's been pointed out and proven time and again that technology does not stop piracy. A smarter move would be to offer the customer something extra that the pirates would find much harder to offer. How about a few little freebies to go with the actual DVD? A free poster or stickers, interactive content such as a mini-game (which wouldn't be copied using the method of copying the film via a video-output or using a videocamera), a username and password to the official website so you can access online content and enter online competitions (the username and password expiring after X access times). A little imagination from the distributers would entice people to buy the official product since they would get more than the pirates are offering.
Lets face it. Every country has their fair share of fraudsters and miscellanious criminals. If the richer countries can't stamp out online fraud then how can anyone expect economically smaller countries to have much of a chance? I don't think blacklisting countries from the web is a good solution. Blacklisting countries from buying off the websites is a better, although still not reasonable, solution. I know fraud hurts the bottom line for many companies but discrimination hurts the end users to.
Patents arn't bad....at least not for real, physical, inventions. However, _Software_ patents arn't a good idea. They have a habit of inhibiting innovation and progress instead of encouraging it. It's a bit like patenting a book. It's silly. Copyright gives sufficiant protection to the authors.
The article seems to say that the linux kernel is becoming more and more like the windows kernel. Sure, similarities in design are bound to show up, especially since they're both monolithic, but are these similarities due to linux "copying" design concepts or is it more to do with the changing environment? People's want's and needs change and an OS will change with them and this means some features of an OS will look the same. It'd be daft for one or the other to say "no, we won't impliment this because a competitor has". Yes, I'm sure this doesn't go for everything that's in both kernels but it's bad to assume that one is copying the other. The article doesn't point out many differences apart from the way windowing is handled, but I'm also sure that many more differences exist than just this.
" How does establishing identity help in the slightest when the stated aim is to prevent another plane-as-suicide-bomb attack." It doesn't. Except maybe, if the authorities want to know who that was flying a plane into a building. Also, why would a terrorist attack a harder target? Why would they target planes again when there are lots of other different and less watched targets? It doesn't make sense to me to spend lots of money on a slim risk that someone malicious _could_ be on a plane and _could_ be planning a hijack. I should have thought the plane is more likely to crash for technical reasons.
The people who look into using OSS as an alternative are tech savvy people. This means they'll read both sides of a story before making a decision. Let MicroSoft pump money into these thinktanks, it's all a bit pointless. Do you think joe sixpack even hears about the studies? Do you think a sysadmin takes them at face value? Whats the point in worrying about something microsoft is doing when it has a small impact?
What if you go to a peaceful protest, some jackass starts throwing bricks, other people join in turning it into a riot, and then a policeman clubs you, when all you're doing is trying to get out of the area and away from the violence? This happens on occasion. Sure, most people in a riot are threatening others safety. The police have a job to do, but sometimes some officers don't think before they act making by-standers victims. This new crowd control method would be even less discriminating than a plain old club.
No way. Putting more into the OS will make more bugs and vunrabilities occure. It would couter-intuitive. If they wish to bundle AV software with windows, fine. That would make it easier for users to install (and if needed uninstall) an improtant peice of software. Yes, fixing the problems in the first place would help but lets face it: it's not going to happen. It can't. If they want to make the OS try and spot suspicious activity and alert the userr, fair enough. That would go a long way to increase awareness. But adding more code into the OS would be a great big mistake.
Um...right now it's the same thing. Same codebase, same product. Ok, since the license change in XFree86 the codebases haven't been _exactly_ the same (obviously) but all in all, you're talking about the same peice of software.
Slashdot Mirror
About what?
I'd think the answer is no...even on windows. ;)
Don't get me wrong, you have a valid point, I just feel like being pedantic
I googled for some free services and yes, they are still around (although many are trial bases before they charge which is good news when it comes to spam).
Of course, there really only need to be a couple and spammers are happy.
There are online services that allow you to send sms messages for free.
The actual facts of what have happened aside (The employee may or may not have stolen code/rewritten something similar, implimented it on MSN search etc) it does show that the issue of stolen code isn't an OSS centric problem. It'll be good if companies see this and realise that it's a risk of buying ANY software and not just one or the other.
I'm sure this guy is capable in his field, but I'm wondering why he's finding it so difficult to get a job.
Could it just be down to the authorites imposing restrictions? Or is there a multitude of things effecting his situation, most of which he's just ignoring and placing the blame squarely on his government?
He doesn't have to job hunt in NZ alone. Experience and skills in the weapons department arn't exactly qualifications everybodies got.
Or they could employ other tactics that the RIAA totally missed the boat on, such as legal downloads for a fee. If they start doing things like this _now_ then lots of people will start using these kinds of services and get used to it. Especially since broadband is growing, meaning so will their potential audience.
I'd be interested to see if the MPAA have the sense to try legal downloads out, and what effect it has on the problem of illegal online distribution.
Surely it makes sense to exaust your options before you start alienating your customers?
I think the analogies you've used are more like:
- When you have a cold you are LAZY because you call the Dr instead of going and getting chicken soup.
- When your car needs its oil checked you are LAZY because you didn't get someone to give you a 5 minute lesson on how to do it.
- When you need to hang a picture you are LAZY because you call in a contractor to do it for you.
I don't expect my less knowledgable friends and family to work everything out for themselves, but after I've showed them how do to simple things like opening and saving a file and sending an email a few times I don't expect to have to do it for them anymore.
I wouldn't expect them to be able to set up their home network or upgrade the memory in their PC but it doesn't take an expert to do most of the day-to-day things with your computer.
The average user should at least be computer literate enough to do the basics. Less frequent and more complex tasks I have no problem helping them out with, since, for example, I don't think my mechanic expects me to be able to replace the gear box in my car.
Help out but don't forget to draw a line.
Please point out the hypocrasy.
I don't hear the OSS community pretending their software has no bugs or holes.
Good. The more bugs exposed in firefox (et al) the better for the quality of the software. Sure, IE should be great by now if you apply that logic, but they keep changing the code and introducing more problems. Lets hope the moz developers don't do this.
Firefox users shouldn't be getting on the defensive about the appearance of a bug, they should be looking for more.
If that happens then the scheme as a whole is doomed to fail in it's goal of getting everyone to use it.
Sure joeuser might give it a go and it could well be very popular, but then the idea has changed into something else. In order for this to work it'd have to have either standard software that worked on every OS (or was portable) or standards that allowed developers to incorporate it.
If Microsoft took over then it would simply turn into another microsoft service and not a public resource....wouldn't it?
True. I could probably write into half the TV channels I have access to about content I don't like, but I don't because I have enough sense to know that many more people actually want to see it, and that I don't have to watch it. I have the common sense to avoid the programmes I know I'll find offensive and I'm quite happy doing so. Do I have the right to dictate to the country what they should be able to see based on my own opinions? No.
I think "protecting the children" is a load of rubbish. Sure, I wouldn't want my kid to see tinky-winky getting-it-on with lala on after school childrens TV, but I wouln't mind them hearing the odd "bad word" in a programme aired after the watershed. Over protecting kids can be just as bad as not protecting them at all, since they'll grow up thinking that so much as a friendly hug is dirty (extreame example). Teach them right from wrong and let them experience the world.
"But you can't protect the individual artist without protecting the person whom buys copy rights from that artist - through contract or otherwise."
:)
True, but the "old business model" is largly to blame for this situation of musicians not owning their own work in the first place...but that's another discussion.
Some artists thrive from sharing thier music. People tend to go out and buy good music on CD or from the internet if they like it. This is regardless of whether they've got the whole album for free off of the internet. People will pay for something they appreciate.
Yes, I totally agree that infringing on copyrights by widely distributing music on the internet is wrong, but the RIAA has their approach totally backwards They cannot stop people from sharing music, they can hardly slow it down. Why not embrace the technology? If you can't beat them, join them, and give them a legal and cheap alternative way of using existing technologies.
The induvidual artist could then follow suit and everyone would benefit.
Of course, I have no really good ideas on how this could happen so please don't nitpick and point out that I'm being an idealist. They're just thoughts
No, you're right, it can't be fixed from this end. But cutting off countries won't be very effective (especially not in the long term). Fraudsters also invest their time into their schemes. They won't just give up because their country is blacklisted.
I just think that refusing to do business with these countries is more acceptable than not giving them access at all.
Would a free carton of popcorn or a free drink get you to go to a movie theatre to watch it?
And the idea of freebies was that you can ONLY get them when you buy the official DVD, otherwise the pirates would just go buy some aswell and give them away.
Of course, it's not the "this will end piracy" solution, but mearly a more sensible way for companies to get people to buy official copies rather than pirated ones.
I don't believe piracy CAN be stopped.
It's been pointed out and proven time and again that technology does not stop piracy.
A smarter move would be to offer the customer something extra that the pirates would find much harder to offer.
How about a few little freebies to go with the actual DVD? A free poster or stickers, interactive content such as a mini-game (which wouldn't be copied using the method of copying the film via a video-output or using a videocamera), a username and password to the official website so you can access online content and enter online competitions (the username and password expiring after X access times).
A little imagination from the distributers would entice people to buy the official product since they would get more than the pirates are offering.
Lets face it. Every country has their fair share of fraudsters and miscellanious criminals. If the richer countries can't stamp out online fraud then how can anyone expect economically smaller countries to have much of a chance?
I don't think blacklisting countries from the web is a good solution. Blacklisting countries from buying off the websites is a better, although still not reasonable, solution.
I know fraud hurts the bottom line for many companies but discrimination hurts the end users to.
Patents arn't bad....at least not for real, physical, inventions. However, _Software_ patents arn't a good idea. They have a habit of inhibiting innovation and progress instead of encouraging it.
It's a bit like patenting a book. It's silly. Copyright gives sufficiant protection to the authors.
The article seems to say that the linux kernel is becoming more and more like the windows kernel. Sure, similarities in design are bound to show up, especially since they're both monolithic, but are these similarities due to linux "copying" design concepts or is it more to do with the changing environment? People's want's and needs change and an OS will change with them and this means some features of an OS will look the same. It'd be daft for one or the other to say "no, we won't impliment this because a competitor has".
Yes, I'm sure this doesn't go for everything that's in both kernels but it's bad to assume that one is copying the other.
The article doesn't point out many differences apart from the way windowing is handled, but I'm also sure that many more differences exist than just this.
" How does establishing identity help in the slightest when the stated aim is to prevent another plane-as-suicide-bomb attack."
It doesn't. Except maybe, if the authorities want to know who that was flying a plane into a building.
Also, why would a terrorist attack a harder target? Why would they target planes again when there are lots of other different and less watched targets?
It doesn't make sense to me to spend lots of money on a slim risk that someone malicious _could_ be on a plane and _could_ be planning a hijack. I should have thought the plane is more likely to crash for technical reasons.
Actually intelligence is to do with many different factors, not _just_ logical thought.
You need to be able to think abstractly aswell.
The people who look into using OSS as an alternative are tech savvy people. This means they'll read both sides of a story before making a decision. Let MicroSoft pump money into these thinktanks, it's all a bit pointless. Do you think joe sixpack even hears about the studies? Do you think a sysadmin takes them at face value?
Whats the point in worrying about something microsoft is doing when it has a small impact?
What if you go to a peaceful protest, some jackass starts throwing bricks, other people join in turning it into a riot, and then a policeman clubs you, when all you're doing is trying to get out of the area and away from the violence? This happens on occasion. Sure, most people in a riot are threatening others safety. The police have a job to do, but sometimes some officers don't think before they act making by-standers victims.
This new crowd control method would be even less discriminating than a plain old club.
No way. Putting more into the OS will make more bugs and vunrabilities occure. It would couter-intuitive. If they wish to bundle AV software with windows, fine. That would make it easier for users to install (and if needed uninstall) an improtant peice of software. Yes, fixing the problems in the first place would help but lets face it: it's not going to happen.
It can't.
If they want to make the OS try and spot suspicious activity and alert the userr, fair enough. That would go a long way to increase awareness. But adding more code into the OS would be a great big mistake.
Um...right now it's the same thing. Same codebase, same product. Ok, since the license change in XFree86 the codebases haven't been _exactly_ the same (obviously) but all in all, you're talking about the same peice of software.