Well, I have been running both private and business smtp servers for the last 12 years, so I am somewhat aware of what is possible...
A smarthost stops working the day your ISP decides that all mail from their servers must have a from address that they controll or are authorative for. Something that happens to be a rather obvious step also in combination with a.mail TLD setup.
Don't tell me that won't happen, It happened to me with 2 ISPs already and is the main reason I decided to do my own delivery besides it giving a much better insight in the delivery status of mail.
Last but not least. it forces me to depend on my ISPs servers. Those have shown a lot less reliable then the connection.
So, while a smarthost may work in quite a few cases, it doesn't always and forcing it on people will take away the possibility to run their own mailserver.
When big isps only accept mail from servers registered in the.mail tld, then that takes away my ability to run my own mailserver for my own private domains. How do you mean nothing is taken away from the end user.
> My sig is meant as a counter example to those who think that only the weak-minded beleive in God.
That is one way to explain your sig, but that meaning is implicit and not explicit.
There are alternative implicit meansings, the 'therefore' one bing just an example.
Another example: All those great peopel believe in god, I believe in god, you are stupid if you don't.
The AC who responded initially might be mistaken with regards to it being a statement of logic, but you are mistaken if you believe it is communicating anything clearly.
Also, it is a really weak argument. Come with reasons, not with names of other (now dead) people who we can't ask about it;P
Ah well, maybe its better if you don't and just go be happy with your belief:)
Well.. their claim is sortof true and is not about how long it takes for a fix to get published, but about how much efford a user must put into finding and installing it.
No doubt it is easier then they depict with regards to OO.org, yet, having one well known palce for getting your fixes and automating the process as much as possible is an advantage
Of course the advantage is pretty irrelevant when they don't fix stuff;P
One suggestion. If you are like many others from the USA and would want an end to US bashing, I very strongly suggest you leave your 'France' jokes at home.
Well, even for those who managed to officialy license their code (IBM with Windows 3.1 and the win32s implementation) MS tries to consiously screw things up. How?
As soon as you have a workign implementation of their current version of the API (fully legal and based on contracts with MS) they change the API spec.
They have played this game a decade ago with OS/2, and will play it again when needed.
> IBM is a company, and a company sells what its customers want.
Heh, I'm sure all those who bought MCA machines from them back when those still existed really agree with that;P (and yeah, MCA had some real advantages, just lacked compatability and 3rd party hardware)
Yeah, since they are not a diff between the 'official' Linux kernel and someone elses (often unpublished otherwise) alternative version.. How do you think such patchsets are created and maintained?
Not all of them qualify as fork, and I'm not aware of any forks that are published in other ways right now, and I bet that most forks do not make it beyond a few users really.
Linux is maintained by Linus and his adjudants but there are forks.
The reason why virtually everyone uses Linus' version is because he does a good job organizing it, not because its 'protected' from forking.
The one biggest advantage open sourcing offers for the community is that it will become independent from which companies happen to go under or happens to end up in the wrong hands.
If there is anything to learn from Linux it is that good supporters can change face all of a sudden (Caldera/SCO anyone?) and that open source doesn't result in splintering if there is leadership.
I suggest reading my post answering similar comments in this same thread. basicly, civil disobediance often includes undergoing the punishment and using it to point out the absurdity of it all.
While the url you gave doesn't work, the site you point at gives interesting and good definitions indeed.
From the site you refered:
burglary
n. the crime of breaking and entering into a structure for the purpose of committing a crime. No great force is needed (pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is sufficient) if the entry is unauthorized. Contrary to common belief, a burglary is not necessarily for theft. It can apply to any crime, such as assault or sexual harassment, whether the intended criminal act is committed or not. Originally under English common law burglary was limited to entry in residences at night, but it has been expanded to all criminal entries into any building, or even into a vehicle.
Note how it says: pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is enough. A lock is one way of denoting that access is unauthorized, by far not the only way, and a 'do not enter' sign is sufficient. My personal opinion is that a fenced private property is no entrance unless invited, I do not know if US law agrees with me fully there, but it seems it does say that no lock is required.
Note also how this is a seperate offense, and that you can be charged with burglary and stealing or burglary and rape for example.
Thanks for the reference, and as I mentioned before, for it being criminal a lock won't matter, for your insurance it will.
> My guess is that the points are comming from that minority of readers that are older so they do not have time to enjoy the finer things like determining the difference between theft and copying and smoking weed.
Now... talk about faulty stereotypes...;)
Lets see.. I'm 35, which I guess classifies as older for a slashdot reader. I have smoked pot, tho that is a while ago now.. I think I already mentioned the copyright/property and such stuff, I also have worked for the last 15 years, so hrm:)
Ok, I know you were not talkign about me, but I just had to laugh reading it.:)
Well, my understanding of the founding of the USA is that it follows to quite some extent the model of the Spartan republic instead of direct democracy. My understanding is also that the main argument for this was that that model promoted the idea that every person had to serve society besides him/herself.
I believe that any person, regardles of it being about private or business matters, should keep the interest of society in mind. I think that the USA's founding fathers held similar beliefs and that it was an underlying assumption when the American constitution was written.
They are not calling in the police or law enforcement, they are threatening people with civil law.
Cases of commercial distribution of copyrighted works without permission can indeed be criminal, but that is not what we are talkign about with regards to filesharing.
Then, the symantics are important. Property normally belongs to someone untill the moment the person gives it away. There is implicit expclusiveness in it, and no implicit term of ownership.
The recording industry and friends promote the use of this word for the simple reason that that is also how they want to see the works they publish.
What copyright grants is exclusive initially, but can be granted and regranted (you can give people non exclusive distribution rights on your work for example), and is limited in term (at least, it is supposed to be)
The RIAA is right to fight for their rights (tho I do not think the means they use are proper). That doesn't imply they have a right to corrupt the perception of copyright however.
> Civil disobedience has never invloved property laws however, at least not that I am aware of.
There is a first time for everything. Civil disobedience has involved laws or areas of law for the first time repeatedly, and once it has been applied succesfully there is often little reason to apply it again.
> By your reasoning if a group of individuals, say native americans, were to disagree with laws regarding land title and ownership then they should just go an destroy people's homes and take back the land that they claim should not be 'ownable'?
By copying music you are not destroying anything. Record companies will argue (and if you were going to buy the music if you couldnt copy it, rightfully so) that you deprived them of some proffit.
Civil disobedience also means accepting that you can get punished for it btw, it is as much about pointing out the absurdity of the situation.
If native americans have an issue that has a good chance of broad support in society but were denied other ways to fight the laws to cause those issues, then they could indeed try to take this into their own hand, have a chance to get caught, end up in prison and let society judge the situation.
> Your solution is much more absurd. It is every persons duties to respect the laws that are in place and to work peacfully to change those which they disagree with.
Respect the law? yes, for as long as I have a decent assurance that that law has been created in a fair way.
Violence is definitely a last means to defend such a thing, and peacefull means should be used. Also, the means should be proportional to the goal. Having said that, and on danger of re-invoking Godwins law, the outcome of things like the Neurenburg trials definitely says that you have a responsibility to not just blindly follow the laws of your country, and that in extreme cases it may be a crime to do so. (and fo course copyright is not such an extreme case)
So, respecting the law? yes. Following it in all cases? definitely not. Being critical with regards to the law making process and the outcome of it? A rather healthy idea imho.
Well, I do not live in the USA, where I live it was not obtained through the court system, it was obtained in talks between the local version of the RIAA and the government, excluding the consumer from the picture alltogether.
But point taken, if I'd be livign in the USA, I'd consider fighting it in court.
But let me tell you something, when you live in a country where peopel indeed used the exact excuse that I mentioned in order to colaborate with an occupying government, you might actually also start to understand why my statement had nothign to do whatsoever with the thing Godwins law is about.
Country: The Netherlands. Example of the excuse used? A politician called Willem Aantjes used it to defend his role in the German SS and his job as a guard for one of their prison camps. He was found out about much later, and used the exact excuse to defend himself.
There are scores of examples to be found in Germany itself as well, usually explicitly refering to the bible also to support that this was a religious belief and not a convenient choice.
Godwins law is nice, and applies in many cases, but it doesn't when the comparison is simply to the point and relevant.
> If your sharing it out, your giving up your rights...if you don't want someone to break into your house LOCK THE DOOR.
Hmm, it is no breaking in that case, but is usually still illegal entry, and punishable. You just have little chance with your insurance claims since you have been neglectign the protection of your property. Those however are 2 entirely different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehehehehe. hmm... yeah.. its asking for it indeed.
Heh, I do not mind at all a system that requires proof of being able to configure a mail server and that excludes those who abuse it.
I do not see how paying 2k makes sure of that, while it makes sure that only businesses can run mailservers
Well, I have been running both private and business smtp servers for the last 12 years, so I am somewhat aware of what is possible...
.mail TLD setup.
A smarthost stops working the day your ISP decides that all mail from their servers must have a from address that they controll or are authorative for. Something that happens to be a rather obvious step also in combination with a
Don't tell me that won't happen, It happened to me with 2 ISPs already and is the main reason I decided to do my own delivery besides it giving a much better insight in the delivery status of mail.
Last but not least. it forces me to depend on my ISPs servers. Those have shown a lot less reliable then the connection.
So, while a smarthost may work in quite a few cases, it doesn't always and forcing it on people will take away the possibility to run their own mailserver.
Yes, and I realy want to keep it to only relying on them for the connection and nothing else.
Also, what you'd need is configuring a smarthost, no MX records get involved.
When big isps only accept mail from servers registered in the .mail tld, then that takes away my ability to run my own mailserver for my own private domains. How do you mean nothing is taken away from the end user.
> isn't it a fancy/expensive whitelist?
Yes it is, and its yet another attempt to get a service out of the control of the end user.
> My sig is meant as a counter example to those who think that only the weak-minded beleive in God.
;P
:)
That is one way to explain your sig, but that meaning is implicit and not explicit.
There are alternative implicit meansings, the 'therefore' one bing just an example.
Another example: All those great peopel believe in god, I believe in god, you are stupid if you don't.
The AC who responded initially might be mistaken with regards to it being a statement of logic, but you are mistaken if you believe it is communicating anything clearly.
Also, it is a really weak argument. Come with reasons, not with names of other (now dead) people who we can't ask about it
Ah well, maybe its better if you don't and just go be happy with your belief
Well.. their claim is sortof true and is not about how long it takes for a fix to get published, but about how much efford a user must put into finding and installing it.
;P
No doubt it is easier then they depict with regards to OO.org, yet, having one well known palce for getting your fixes and automating the process as much as possible is an advantage
Of course the advantage is pretty irrelevant when they don't fix stuff
One suggestion. If you are like many others from the USA and would want an end to US bashing, I very strongly suggest you leave your 'France' jokes at home.
Well, even for those who managed to officialy license their code (IBM with Windows 3.1 and the win32s implementation) MS tries to consiously screw things up. How?
As soon as you have a workign implementation of their current version of the API (fully legal and based on contracts with MS) they change the API spec.
They have played this game a decade ago with OS/2, and will play it again when needed.
> IBM is a company, and a company sells what its customers want.
;P (and yeah, MCA had some real advantages, just lacked compatability and 3rd party hardware)
Heh, I'm sure all those who bought MCA machines from them back when those still existed really agree with that
Put all of them on a state/federal budget for their election campaigns and make all donations to specific parties illegal? ;P
:)
Nice dream
> ac, mm, etc patchsets don't count
Yeah, since they are not a diff between the 'official' Linux kernel and someone elses (often unpublished otherwise) alternative version.. How do you think such patchsets are created and maintained?
Not all of them qualify as fork, and I'm not aware of any forks that are published in other ways right now, and I bet that most forks do not make it beyond a few users really.
Linux is maintained by Linus and his adjudants but there are forks.
The reason why virtually everyone uses Linus' version is because he does a good job organizing it, not because its 'protected' from forking.
The one biggest advantage open sourcing offers for the community is that it will become independent from which companies happen to go under or happens to end up in the wrong hands.
If there is anything to learn from Linux it is that good supporters can change face all of a sudden (Caldera/SCO anyone?) and that open source doesn't result in splintering if there is leadership.
I suggest reading my post answering similar comments in this same thread. basicly, civil disobediance often includes undergoing the punishment and using it to point out the absurdity of it all.
From the site you refered:
Note how it says: pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is enough. A lock is one way of denoting that access is unauthorized, by far not the only way, and a 'do not enter' sign is sufficient. My personal opinion is that a fenced private property is no entrance unless invited, I do not know if US law agrees with me fully there, but it seems it does say that no lock is required.
Note also how this is a seperate offense, and that you can be charged with burglary and stealing or burglary and rape for example.
Thanks for the reference, and as I mentioned before, for it being criminal a lock won't matter, for your insurance it will.
> love faulty stereotypes ....
;)
:)
:)
> My guess is that the points are comming from that minority of readers that are older so they do not have time to enjoy the finer things like determining the difference between theft and copying and smoking weed.
Now... talk about faulty stereotypes...
Lets see.. I'm 35, which I guess classifies as older for a slashdot reader. I have smoked pot, tho that is a while ago now.. I think I already mentioned the copyright/property and such stuff, I also have worked for the last 15 years, so hrm
Ok, I know you were not talkign about me, but I just had to laugh reading it.
Well, my understanding of the founding of the USA is that it follows to quite some extent the model of the Spartan republic instead of direct democracy. My understanding is also that the main argument for this was that that model promoted the idea that every person had to serve society besides him/herself.
I believe that any person, regardles of it being about private or business matters, should keep the interest of society in mind. I think that the USA's founding fathers held similar beliefs and that it was an underlying assumption when the American constitution was written.
> still criminal, after all is said and done.
Is it?
They are not calling in the police or law enforcement, they are threatening people with civil law.
Cases of commercial distribution of copyrighted works without permission can indeed be criminal, but that is not what we are talkign about with regards to filesharing.
Then, the symantics are important. Property normally belongs to someone untill the moment the person gives it away. There is implicit expclusiveness in it, and no implicit term of ownership.
The recording industry and friends promote the use of this word for the simple reason that that is also how they want to see the works they publish.
What copyright grants is exclusive initially, but can be granted and regranted (you can give people non exclusive distribution rights on your work for example), and is limited in term (at least, it is supposed to be)
The RIAA is right to fight for their rights (tho I do not think the means they use are proper). That doesn't imply they have a right to corrupt the perception of copyright however.
> Civil disobedience has never invloved property laws however, at least not that I am aware of.
There is a first time for everything. Civil disobedience has involved laws or areas of law for the first time repeatedly, and once it has been applied succesfully there is often little reason to apply it again.
> By your reasoning if a group of individuals, say native americans, were to disagree with laws regarding land title and ownership then they should just go an destroy people's homes and take back the land that they claim should not be 'ownable'?
By copying music you are not destroying anything. Record companies will argue (and if you were going to buy the music if you couldnt copy it, rightfully so) that you deprived them of some proffit.
Civil disobedience also means accepting that you can get punished for it btw, it is as much about pointing out the absurdity of the situation.
If native americans have an issue that has a good chance of broad support in society but were denied other ways to fight the laws to cause those issues, then they could indeed try to take this into their own hand, have a chance to get caught, end up in prison and let society judge the situation.
> Your solution is much more absurd. It is every persons duties to respect the laws that are in place and to work peacfully to change those which they disagree with.
Respect the law? yes, for as long as I have a decent assurance that that law has been created in a fair way.
Violence is definitely a last means to defend such a thing, and peacefull means should be used. Also, the means should be proportional to the goal. Having said that, and on danger of re-invoking Godwins law, the outcome of things like the Neurenburg trials definitely says that you have a responsibility to not just blindly follow the laws of your country, and that in extreme cases it may be a crime to do so. (and fo course copyright is not such an extreme case)
So, respecting the law? yes. Following it in all cases? definitely not. Being critical with regards to the law making process and the outcome of it? A rather healthy idea imho.
I forgive you :)
And I don't blame them for what my government agreed to, I blame them for even trying, and I do not feel morally wrong by taking back from them.
Well, I do not live in the USA, where I live it was not obtained through the court system, it was obtained in talks between the local version of the RIAA and the government, excluding the consumer from the picture alltogether.
But point taken, if I'd be livign in the USA, I'd consider fighting it in court.
The idea or research paper does not have to be my property as such, but I do have the exclusive rights on distribution.
Still means that what he did is wrong.
Then, I don't believe I have to have everything for free, I just object to givign soemthign the wrong name when that results in confusion.
Does that answer your question?
And I really wonder, what makes you think that calling it exclusive rights instead of property makes for me claiming that I want it for free?
*lol*.
Like I care about Godwins law.
But let me tell you something, when you live in a country where peopel indeed used the exact excuse that I mentioned in order to colaborate with an occupying government, you might actually also start to understand why my statement had nothign to do whatsoever with the thing Godwins law is about.
Country: The Netherlands. Example of the excuse used? A politician called Willem Aantjes used it to defend his role in the German SS and his job as a guard for one of their prison camps. He was found out about much later, and used the exact excuse to defend himself.
There are scores of examples to be found in Germany itself as well, usually explicitly refering to the bible also to support that this was a religious belief and not a convenient choice.
Godwins law is nice, and applies in many cases, but it doesn't when the comparison is simply to the point and relevant.
> If your sharing it out, your giving up your rights...if you don't want someone to break into your house LOCK THE DOOR.
Hmm, it is no breaking in that case, but is usually still illegal entry, and punishable. You just have little chance with your insurance claims since you have been neglectign the protection of your property. Those however are 2 entirely different things.