Guess we'll just agree to disagree, then. Certainly do appreciate you keeping a reasonable tone, and the opportunity for a lively debate without getting personal, it's all too rare around here.
Please don't tell me that a corporation "feeds" me. I make them a fair trade-I do my work for them on their terms for a certain number of hours a day, and they pay me a set amount of money for those hours. Once I go home, they are not obligated to continue paying me for the hours I spend there, so why should they have any say in what I say or do with them?
Quite often, in this case, whistleblower laws will protect an employee who speaks up. Generally, if it's about a deceptive or dangerous practice, they will even protect those who violate an NDA. Of course, IANAL, and you should talk to an aforementioned L before you do blow the whistle.
Are you doing it AT WORK (on company property) and/or DURING WORK (on company time)?
If YES, it is your company's business, and justification to fire you. If NO, it is not. This is not similar to your analogy, since it (presumably) wasn't done during work or on company property-a more appropriate analogy would be "If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
Is he doing it on company time? No? Well then, I'd say you don't have any right to fire him, what you do off the clock is and should be none of your employer's business. (This does not of course cover such things as breach of a nondisclosure agreement, but your example didn't involve a breach of contract.) Now, of course, if he's doing it on company time, you've got every right to fire 'em. But "freedom of speech" isn't real if you can't say what you wish without fear of repercussions-and losing your job, for a lot of people, can be as catastrophic a repercussion as jail time.
Certainly agree on the length issue being an abomination, as well as enforcement against those who do not stand to profit from infringing.
As to addressing piracy-my proposed reforms would clearly delineate and address the issue. You sell copies, you are infringing and it's piracy. You don't, it is a non-infringing use and not piracy. I think that would clear the issue up quite nicely. I also support far stronger fair-use regulations (sampling of 2 seconds of a song, for example, would be considered fair use no matter done by whom or for what purpose), and it would limit the term of copyright to the point that those who did want to make a derivative work without having to license it could be working on it during those 5 years to release it once they're up, instead of working on a derivative to be released by their great-grandchildren (so long as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Perpetuation Act Part 5" hasn't been enacted by then to extend the term to life of the author plus 5000 years).
This would have several benefits:
-Work would be released to the public domain while it is still current and relevant. The copyright holder will have had their go at making some money, and then it goes public domain for public benefit. This will greatly enrich the public domain with reasonably current, relevant work, while still giving the creator a period of exclusivity.
-Enforcement could be made stricter and harsher if it applied only to commercial pirates in a five-year period, since this would criminalize a very small segment of the population rather then a very large one.
-Find an orphan work you want to work with, but can't find the author? No problem! Just wait 5 years, and then you can be assured it's out of copyright. Mandatory registration and renewal would also make orphan works far less common.
-Copyright holders, like the rest of us, will not be able to sit back and rest on a job well done once providing them income forever. If they want to keep eating, they'll have to keep working-just like all of us do. This will result in a greater supply of creative work overall.
Now, mind telling me again how my reforms "would not address" the issues?
Linux's copyright does indeed create artificial scarcity-there's no "real" scarcity that Microsoft couldn't use GPL code in Windows, the Linux license enforces that they may not. (Unless they GPL Windows, of course.) Of course, the GPL is a means to play the system against itself, keeping those who keep code proprietary from utilizing the advances made by those who do not, just as Microsoft's EULA prohibits opensource developers from utilizing code MS develops. However, the Linux GPL does indeed keep the code artificially off-limits to some uses, just like Microsoft's EULA keeps it off-limits in other ways. There's no real scarcity of the product-it's not a piece of steel or a sheet of glass that, once used up, is gone. An infinite (or effectively infinite) number of copies of code can be made without using up the original. There is no real scarcity.
As to copyright itself creating artificial scarcity-yes, it does. If I run across some code, it is copyrighted by virtue of the fact that it was written. If I can't locate the author of that code to ask them if it's alright to use it, I really can't-if they find out, they could sue me, even if they put no copyright notice on it whatsoever. Automatic, effectively perpetual copyright takes a non-scarce product (information) and PROVIDES THE ABILITY to make it scarce. That is wrong and needs to be changed. If some form of copyright is to continue, it needs to be severely limited in terms of both time and scope (5 years maximum, prohibits commercial/for-profit use only, no copyright without registration, mandatory yearly renewal). The current system is broken.
If your scenario was genuinely possible (an empty road which no one else could possibly be on), then no, the offender should not be punished, for the very reason that the crime -is- victimless. However, the real scenario, that there is always a real danger to real people, means they should be. And in the real-life scenarios where this DOES occur (for example, a closed-off course or racetrack) the drivers involved are NOT punished like someone driving the same way on an open roadway would be. I'm not arguing against a strawman, I'm arguing against the very scenario you presented.
Copyright law creates artificial scarcity on a product for which no natural scarcity exists. The victim in that scenario is the consumer, and when the consumer rightfully takes back their right to have all they want of a non-scarce product, that is not "wrong", even if it is illegal. It's like trying to divide up and provide ownership of certain blocks of air-it's goddamn near impossible, and it's also pointless, since there's as much of the stuff as anyone can want.
I don't care if it DOES financially damage the copyright holder, the law is intended to prop up a now-unworkable business model (success through artificial scarcity of information). I might "damage" Toyota by giving a friend a ride to work every day and keeping him from needing to buy a car, and I might "damage" the RIAA by sharing copies of a CD, but in either case, it's mine, and I'll share it with who I wish. Depriving a corporation of potential profits is not theft, and whatever the law says, not wrong.
You're a troll, but one with a common theme, so here's a response to this tired garbage.
Say, hypothetically speaking, that they never used that information against you (and they haven't yet). In that case, it becomes a "victimless crime", and therefore ok, no?
Violating someone's privacy is not a victimless crime. This is true whether a corporation is monitoring you without authorization or you are peeping through your cute neighbor's bedroom window while they're undressing. However, the **AA's have CHOSEN to make their information public.
If I hack into X Record Label's system and grab Y Unreleased Material, I have intruded upon their private systems. On the other hand, if I share information they have voluntarily chosen to release publicly, I am doing nothing wrong. (I didn't say "nothing illegal", I said "nothing wrong"). If your cute neighbor chooses to get undressed on her front lawn, you are not violating her privacy by watching.
Anything which can be made into digital data will be copied and shared once publicly available. If you release digital data, or anything that can be made into it, without being aware of this reality, and demand that reality be bent to suit your business model, you are foolish and deserve whatever losses you may suffer. To extend the analogy further, you are getting undressed on your front lawn, and demanding that the police come and arrest anyone who looks.
Didn't you hear? Property is theft.
Property, in itself, is not theft. However, expecting to be able to control how often something you say in public (or sing, or exhibit, or show in a public theater, or etc.) is repeated, is theft of free speech rights and intrusion upon private property. Keeping me from hacking into your system (and legally prohibiting it) is exerting control over YOUR OWN property (your computer). This is perfectly legitimate. Prohibiting me from sharing certain files with other people is exerting control over MY property, and the property of the person I'm attempting to share with. That is theft.
"No sort of reform?" So at very minimum, the time periods of copyright couldn't be reduced to 10-20 years instead of over 100? That wouldn't "preserve the essense" of what copyright is supposed to do? I must respectfully disagree. While I do not support copyright law whatsoever, it is entirely possible to reform copyright while preserving its original intent. I simply do not believe it is right to create artificial scarcity on a product which is not naturally scarce.
Perhaps you are unaware that someone going 140 in a 60 zone at 4 AM when very few (there's never "no one" on the roads, and always potentially someone) other cars are on the roads is still endangering those who are. This is real danger-property damage, injury, dismemberment, death.
When you convince me that sharing files puts real people at real risk of injury or death, I'll support you against it. You may begin your argument now.
Incorrect. This is only defamation if you didn't do it. If you really did, and I can show you did, your suit will be thrown out no matter how many people I tell.
Yes, because we all know that private companies are always the greatest for competence and customer service. In fact, the last three ISP's I've dealt with...
Wait...had morons who wouldn't know a processor from a hard smack across the forehead. And when I've worked on government accounts to service datacenter UPS's, the admins there are generally smarter and better then the equivalent corporate ones.
As to "forcing" you to buy something? Parent indicated a CITIZEN REFERENDUM OR INITIATIVE putting the taxes for this service to a popular vote. If people don't want it, it'll fail overwhelmingly and no one will be "forced" into anything. And if it passes, and the government service sucks as badly as you think it will, private companies will come along and offer better service and make tons of money. Of course, if the government service is as good as promised, problem solved.
You so-called "lovers of the free market" are the ones who tell us that it's OUR problem to figure out how to get health insurance when it's prohibitively expensive, and OUR problem to get a job. Well great, fine. Then it's the CORPORATION'S problem to figure out how to break into a government's market area, and if they can't, well, there's the free market, and some have an advantage where some don't!
Stereotypes and joking aside, not all government employees are idiots, and CERTAINLY not all corporate employees have two braincells to clack together.
And before you start in-I'm a private sector employee myself.
I see your point, but must respectfully disagree. I think that once more people use and are satisfied with F/OSS solutions, they will be more interested in learning about them, but you've got to get the foot in the door first. And that means not confusing the hell out of them, because the biggest barrier to entry to GNU/Linux currently is the fact that people DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. They know Windows "Just Works(TM)", and they like the automagic, easy way that it does. If you can convince them that Linux is NOT hard to learn and has step-by-step instructions on the web and in wikis all over the place, they'll start to adopt. And then-and only then-they'll start to care, and say "How can such a wonderful thing exist?"
When they ask that question, THAT is the time to explain to them the proper naming conventions and the like. Not when they're first considering jumping off the Windows ship, because that'll just convince them not to.
As to success-yes, the less cash that flows to Redmond, and the more people that adopt Linux, learn it, and (for the most part) contribute back to the community, the better. I do call that success. Of course, you are not required to agree, or define it the same way, or work toward the same ends-that's the very ideal of the "free" in "free software".
Re:I Know this has been said a million times ...
on
Linux.conf.au Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Names are important, that's why we use them in the first place. Calling it Unix.conf.au would be misleading. Calling it Linux.conf.au is misleading too...
Indeed. And since MOST people know the GNU/Linux distributions, collectively, as "Linux", referring to them that way will be the least confusing method. Holy wars over naming do NOT attract new users to Linux, or GNU/Linux, or Not Windows, or whatever it is that you call it. Speak the way your audience is familiar with. Don't say "security", say "doesn't get viruses and spyware". Of course, this does not apply if you know your target audience is ALL those who are already tech-savvy, but that's not always the case.
Actually, a UPS is quite a bit cheaper then a laptop battery. A basic UPS costs about $40-50, even the cheapest laptop batteries are over $100. Miniaturization always kills on cost.
Also, lead-acid batteries do NOT have a "better discharge lifetime", whatever that means-the energy density in AH/kg is far -less- for lead acid batteries, and they also must be far physically larger. A UPS battery wouldn't last 6 months in the duty cycle of a typical laptop battery (frequent deep discharges), but they're also not expected to. They're expected to be maintained on a "float" (low-current, low charge voltage) type charge for months or years at a time, and be cycled only occasionally during an extended outage. Lead acid batteries are excellently suited to this type of duty cycle.
Also, for an application like a stationary UPS, where physical size and weight are not a large concern, lead-acid batteries have another significant advantage-they're the cheapest chemistry of rechargeable battery out there. They're also the largest and heaviest, which is why laptops will continue to use $200 Li-Ion batteries instead of an equivalent capacity lead acid battery that's a quarter the cost but triple the size and ten times the weight. But it's a far more complex equation then just duty cycling, and "best suited" to a particular use has to do with more then raw number of charge/discharge cycles or number of years in service.
As to laptops killing batteries, especially while plugged in, the biggest reason for this is not current at all, but the fact that plugging a laptop into AC generally sets the power management to run full steam (full processor speed and so on). This generates far more heat then the conservative "on-battery" settings designed to conserve power. Batteries degrade FAR faster when hot-a battery that has a useful service life of 3-4 years at 70F might only last around a year at 85-90F. Of course, heat isn't great on any other computer component either. So the moral of the story-if you don't absolutely need that CPU running ultrafast for what you're doing, keep the power management at a conservative setting, even on AC. You'll see a far longer useful lifetime from the batteries, and at what laptop batteries cost, this is not a trivial thing.
Erm...well, in this case, it's Microsoft seeking a bullcrap patent, so google hasn't "done" anything. Anyone who asserts (especially now that it's publically traded) that Google is anything better then a soulless corporation is naive, a corporate whore, or both, but in this case, it's clearly Microsoft in the wrong.
I think the point more is, neither one should be entitled to patent such an idea, but both should be entitled, if they wish, to implement it. As should you or I be entitled to implement it, or a similar technology, in programs we write.
Many shows I've taped on my VCR have had the commercials going past at a blazing-fast speed with no sound. Seems to happen every time I push some little button on the remote, with two arrows pointing forward.
People have been able to pull commercials out of TV for years. Repeat after me: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACT IN THE BENEFIT OF A CORPORATION. You are not required to pay for something when it is available for free to prop up a corporation. You are not required to leave commercials in which people do not like for the benefit of a corporation. You CAN, but there is NOT some legal requirement out there "You may not, by any of your actions, ever undermine a corporation's profits." And those who call that "theft" can have their corporate overseers. Me, if that ever gets codified into law, I hear Canada's pretty nice right now.
It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source is an abridgement of freedom of the press. Apple is attempting to do just that. Therefore, Apple is attempting to chill freedom of the press. And I do imagine if they thought they had a hope in hell of winning, they'd be suing to shut the site down.
The First Amendment covers rights other than free speech, that's just the most "famous" one, so to speak.
That analogy is flawed. I imagine Apple and their employees hold many corporate credit cards, and if this guy got hold of and published them, he should be forced to stop. If he has done so, you might want to submit a story of your own, that changes the dynamics of the whole thing. However, until then, let's work with what he HAS done.
A better analogy would be if you put up on your website that I had just thought up a great new product and would be bringing it to market shortly. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that a corporation may control and squelch information just because it may be worth some money to them.
Oh, I'm not sure how fundamental YOU think the right being violated by IP laws is, but I'll post it here for you to decide for yourself.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sometimes, just when I'm afraid that some big company is going to trample over a fundamental right again, the EFF gets up and stands in their way. Every success is a reminder of why I'm a member, and really, every failure is too-a reminder of the urgent need.
If you're going to be a fan, then for godsakes, pick an organization worth your time. Apple isn't one, they're just another megacorporation, who'll gladly use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle speech they dislike. They've clearly shown that.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess we'll just agree to disagree, then. Certainly do appreciate you keeping a reasonable tone, and the opportunity for a lively debate without getting personal, it's all too rare around here.
Please don't tell me that a corporation "feeds" me. I make them a fair trade-I do my work for them on their terms for a certain number of hours a day, and they pay me a set amount of money for those hours. Once I go home, they are not obligated to continue paying me for the hours I spend there, so why should they have any say in what I say or do with them?
Quite often, in this case, whistleblower laws will protect an employee who speaks up. Generally, if it's about a deceptive or dangerous practice, they will even protect those who violate an NDA. Of course, IANAL, and you should talk to an aforementioned L before you do blow the whistle.
Once again, the distinction:
Are you doing it AT WORK (on company property) and/or DURING WORK (on company time)?
If YES, it is your company's business, and justification to fire you. If NO, it is not. This is not similar to your analogy, since it (presumably) wasn't done during work or on company property-a more appropriate analogy would be "If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"
Is he doing it on company time? No? Well then, I'd say you don't have any right to fire him, what you do off the clock is and should be none of your employer's business. (This does not of course cover such things as breach of a nondisclosure agreement, but your example didn't involve a breach of contract.) Now, of course, if he's doing it on company time, you've got every right to fire 'em. But "freedom of speech" isn't real if you can't say what you wish without fear of repercussions-and losing your job, for a lot of people, can be as catastrophic a repercussion as jail time.
Certainly agree on the length issue being an abomination, as well as enforcement against those who do not stand to profit from infringing.
As to addressing piracy-my proposed reforms would clearly delineate and address the issue. You sell copies, you are infringing and it's piracy. You don't, it is a non-infringing use and not piracy. I think that would clear the issue up quite nicely. I also support far stronger fair-use regulations (sampling of 2 seconds of a song, for example, would be considered fair use no matter done by whom or for what purpose), and it would limit the term of copyright to the point that those who did want to make a derivative work without having to license it could be working on it during those 5 years to release it once they're up, instead of working on a derivative to be released by their great-grandchildren (so long as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Perpetuation Act Part 5" hasn't been enacted by then to extend the term to life of the author plus 5000 years).
This would have several benefits:
-Work would be released to the public domain while it is still current and relevant. The copyright holder will have had their go at making some money, and then it goes public domain for public benefit. This will greatly enrich the public domain with reasonably current, relevant work, while still giving the creator a period of exclusivity.
-Enforcement could be made stricter and harsher if it applied only to commercial pirates in a five-year period, since this would criminalize a very small segment of the population rather then a very large one.
-Find an orphan work you want to work with, but can't find the author? No problem! Just wait 5 years, and then you can be assured it's out of copyright. Mandatory registration and renewal would also make orphan works far less common.
-Copyright holders, like the rest of us, will not be able to sit back and rest on a job well done once providing them income forever. If they want to keep eating, they'll have to keep working-just like all of us do. This will result in a greater supply of creative work overall.
Now, mind telling me again how my reforms "would not address" the issues?
Linux's copyright does indeed create artificial scarcity-there's no "real" scarcity that Microsoft couldn't use GPL code in Windows, the Linux license enforces that they may not. (Unless they GPL Windows, of course.) Of course, the GPL is a means to play the system against itself, keeping those who keep code proprietary from utilizing the advances made by those who do not, just as Microsoft's EULA prohibits opensource developers from utilizing code MS develops. However, the Linux GPL does indeed keep the code artificially off-limits to some uses, just like Microsoft's EULA keeps it off-limits in other ways. There's no real scarcity of the product-it's not a piece of steel or a sheet of glass that, once used up, is gone. An infinite (or effectively infinite) number of copies of code can be made without using up the original. There is no real scarcity.
As to copyright itself creating artificial scarcity-yes, it does. If I run across some code, it is copyrighted by virtue of the fact that it was written. If I can't locate the author of that code to ask them if it's alright to use it, I really can't-if they find out, they could sue me, even if they put no copyright notice on it whatsoever. Automatic, effectively perpetual copyright takes a non-scarce product (information) and PROVIDES THE ABILITY to make it scarce. That is wrong and needs to be changed. If some form of copyright is to continue, it needs to be severely limited in terms of both time and scope (5 years maximum, prohibits commercial/for-profit use only, no copyright without registration, mandatory yearly renewal). The current system is broken.
If your scenario was genuinely possible (an empty road which no one else could possibly be on), then no, the offender should not be punished, for the very reason that the crime -is- victimless. However, the real scenario, that there is always a real danger to real people, means they should be. And in the real-life scenarios where this DOES occur (for example, a closed-off course or racetrack) the drivers involved are NOT punished like someone driving the same way on an open roadway would be. I'm not arguing against a strawman, I'm arguing against the very scenario you presented.
Copyright law creates artificial scarcity on a product for which no natural scarcity exists. The victim in that scenario is the consumer, and when the consumer rightfully takes back their right to have all they want of a non-scarce product, that is not "wrong", even if it is illegal. It's like trying to divide up and provide ownership of certain blocks of air-it's goddamn near impossible, and it's also pointless, since there's as much of the stuff as anyone can want.
I don't care if it DOES financially damage the copyright holder, the law is intended to prop up a now-unworkable business model (success through artificial scarcity of information). I might "damage" Toyota by giving a friend a ride to work every day and keeping him from needing to buy a car, and I might "damage" the RIAA by sharing copies of a CD, but in either case, it's mine, and I'll share it with who I wish. Depriving a corporation of potential profits is not theft, and whatever the law says, not wrong.
You're a troll, but one with a common theme, so here's a response to this tired garbage.
Say, hypothetically speaking, that they never used that information against you (and they haven't yet). In that case, it becomes a "victimless crime", and therefore ok, no?
Violating someone's privacy is not a victimless crime. This is true whether a corporation is monitoring you without authorization or you are peeping through your cute neighbor's bedroom window while they're undressing. However, the **AA's have CHOSEN to make their information public.
If I hack into X Record Label's system and grab Y Unreleased Material, I have intruded upon their private systems. On the other hand, if I share information they have voluntarily chosen to release publicly, I am doing nothing wrong. (I didn't say "nothing illegal", I said "nothing wrong"). If your cute neighbor chooses to get undressed on her front lawn, you are not violating her privacy by watching.
Anything which can be made into digital data will be copied and shared once publicly available. If you release digital data, or anything that can be made into it, without being aware of this reality, and demand that reality be bent to suit your business model, you are foolish and deserve whatever losses you may suffer. To extend the analogy further, you are getting undressed on your front lawn, and demanding that the police come and arrest anyone who looks.
Didn't you hear? Property is theft.
Property, in itself, is not theft. However, expecting to be able to control how often something you say in public (or sing, or exhibit, or show in a public theater, or etc.) is repeated, is theft of free speech rights and intrusion upon private property. Keeping me from hacking into your system (and legally prohibiting it) is exerting control over YOUR OWN property (your computer). This is perfectly legitimate. Prohibiting me from sharing certain files with other people is exerting control over MY property, and the property of the person I'm attempting to share with. That is theft.
"No sort of reform?" So at very minimum, the time periods of copyright couldn't be reduced to 10-20 years instead of over 100? That wouldn't "preserve the essense" of what copyright is supposed to do? I must respectfully disagree. While I do not support copyright law whatsoever, it is entirely possible to reform copyright while preserving its original intent. I simply do not believe it is right to create artificial scarcity on a product which is not naturally scarce.
Perhaps you are unaware that someone going 140 in a 60 zone at 4 AM when very few (there's never "no one" on the roads, and always potentially someone) other cars are on the roads is still endangering those who are. This is real danger-property damage, injury, dismemberment, death.
When you convince me that sharing files puts real people at real risk of injury or death, I'll support you against it. You may begin your argument now.
Incorrect. This is only defamation if you didn't do it. If you really did, and I can show you did, your suit will be thrown out no matter how many people I tell.
Everyone who isn't wealthy will end up with sub-par government controlled and outdated technology because it's "free".
Sounds better then "nothing" to me.
Yes, because we all know that private companies are always the greatest for competence and customer service. In fact, the last three ISP's I've dealt with...
Wait...had morons who wouldn't know a processor from a hard smack across the forehead. And when I've worked on government accounts to service datacenter UPS's, the admins there are generally smarter and better then the equivalent corporate ones.
As to "forcing" you to buy something? Parent indicated a CITIZEN REFERENDUM OR INITIATIVE putting the taxes for this service to a popular vote. If people don't want it, it'll fail overwhelmingly and no one will be "forced" into anything. And if it passes, and the government service sucks as badly as you think it will, private companies will come along and offer better service and make tons of money. Of course, if the government service is as good as promised, problem solved.
You so-called "lovers of the free market" are the ones who tell us that it's OUR problem to figure out how to get health insurance when it's prohibitively expensive, and OUR problem to get a job. Well great, fine. Then it's the CORPORATION'S problem to figure out how to break into a government's market area, and if they can't, well, there's the free market, and some have an advantage where some don't!
Stereotypes and joking aside, not all government employees are idiots, and CERTAINLY not all corporate employees have two braincells to clack together.
And before you start in-I'm a private sector employee myself.
I see your point, but must respectfully disagree. I think that once more people use and are satisfied with F/OSS solutions, they will be more interested in learning about them, but you've got to get the foot in the door first. And that means not confusing the hell out of them, because the biggest barrier to entry to GNU/Linux currently is the fact that people DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. They know Windows "Just Works(TM)", and they like the automagic, easy way that it does. If you can convince them that Linux is NOT hard to learn and has step-by-step instructions on the web and in wikis all over the place, they'll start to adopt. And then-and only then-they'll start to care, and say "How can such a wonderful thing exist?"
When they ask that question, THAT is the time to explain to them the proper naming conventions and the like. Not when they're first considering jumping off the Windows ship, because that'll just convince them not to.
As to success-yes, the less cash that flows to Redmond, and the more people that adopt Linux, learn it, and (for the most part) contribute back to the community, the better. I do call that success. Of course, you are not required to agree, or define it the same way, or work toward the same ends-that's the very ideal of the "free" in "free software".
Names are important, that's why we use them in the first place. Calling it Unix.conf.au would be misleading. Calling it Linux.conf.au is misleading too ...
Indeed. And since MOST people know the GNU/Linux distributions, collectively, as "Linux", referring to them that way will be the least confusing method. Holy wars over naming do NOT attract new users to Linux, or GNU/Linux, or Not Windows, or whatever it is that you call it. Speak the way your audience is familiar with. Don't say "security", say "doesn't get viruses and spyware". Of course, this does not apply if you know your target audience is ALL those who are already tech-savvy, but that's not always the case.
Actually, a UPS is quite a bit cheaper then a laptop battery. A basic UPS costs about $40-50, even the cheapest laptop batteries are over $100. Miniaturization always kills on cost.
Also, lead-acid batteries do NOT have a "better discharge lifetime", whatever that means-the energy density in AH/kg is far -less- for lead acid batteries, and they also must be far physically larger. A UPS battery wouldn't last 6 months in the duty cycle of a typical laptop battery (frequent deep discharges), but they're also not expected to. They're expected to be maintained on a "float" (low-current, low charge voltage) type charge for months or years at a time, and be cycled only occasionally during an extended outage. Lead acid batteries are excellently suited to this type of duty cycle.
Also, for an application like a stationary UPS, where physical size and weight are not a large concern, lead-acid batteries have another significant advantage-they're the cheapest chemistry of rechargeable battery out there. They're also the largest and heaviest, which is why laptops will continue to use $200 Li-Ion batteries instead of an equivalent capacity lead acid battery that's a quarter the cost but triple the size and ten times the weight. But it's a far more complex equation then just duty cycling, and "best suited" to a particular use has to do with more then raw number of charge/discharge cycles or number of years in service.
As to laptops killing batteries, especially while plugged in, the biggest reason for this is not current at all, but the fact that plugging a laptop into AC generally sets the power management to run full steam (full processor speed and so on). This generates far more heat then the conservative "on-battery" settings designed to conserve power. Batteries degrade FAR faster when hot-a battery that has a useful service life of 3-4 years at 70F might only last around a year at 85-90F. Of course, heat isn't great on any other computer component either. So the moral of the story-if you don't absolutely need that CPU running ultrafast for what you're doing, keep the power management at a conservative setting, even on AC. You'll see a far longer useful lifetime from the batteries, and at what laptop batteries cost, this is not a trivial thing.
Erm...well, in this case, it's Microsoft seeking a bullcrap patent, so google hasn't "done" anything. Anyone who asserts (especially now that it's publically traded) that Google is anything better then a soulless corporation is naive, a corporate whore, or both, but in this case, it's clearly Microsoft in the wrong.
Went to Gentoo, and I've been happier then hell with it. I'm just fine where I am and wouldn't have any reason to come back.
Software patents gravely affect the rights of every developer out there, where have YOU been living?
I think the point more is, neither one should be entitled to patent such an idea, but both should be entitled, if they wish, to implement it. As should you or I be entitled to implement it, or a similar technology, in programs we write.
Many shows I've taped on my VCR have had the commercials going past at a blazing-fast speed with no sound. Seems to happen every time I push some little button on the remote, with two arrows pointing forward.
People have been able to pull commercials out of TV for years. Repeat after me: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACT IN THE BENEFIT OF A CORPORATION. You are not required to pay for something when it is available for free to prop up a corporation. You are not required to leave commercials in which people do not like for the benefit of a corporation. You CAN, but there is NOT some legal requirement out there "You may not, by any of your actions, ever undermine a corporation's profits." And those who call that "theft" can have their corporate overseers. Me, if that ever gets codified into law, I hear Canada's pretty nice right now.
It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source is an abridgement of freedom of the press. Apple is attempting to do just that. Therefore, Apple is attempting to chill freedom of the press. And I do imagine if they thought they had a hope in hell of winning, they'd be suing to shut the site down.
The First Amendment covers rights other than free speech, that's just the most "famous" one, so to speak.
That analogy is flawed. I imagine Apple and their employees hold many corporate credit cards, and if this guy got hold of and published them, he should be forced to stop. If he has done so, you might want to submit a story of your own, that changes the dynamics of the whole thing. However, until then, let's work with what he HAS done.
A better analogy would be if you put up on your website that I had just thought up a great new product and would be bringing it to market shortly. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that a corporation may control and squelch information just because it may be worth some money to them.
Oh, I'm not sure how fundamental YOU think the right being violated by IP laws is, but I'll post it here for you to decide for yourself.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sometimes, just when I'm afraid that some big company is going to trample over a fundamental right again, the EFF gets up and stands in their way. Every success is a reminder of why I'm a member, and really, every failure is too-a reminder of the urgent need.
If you're going to be a fan, then for godsakes, pick an organization worth your time. Apple isn't one, they're just another megacorporation, who'll gladly use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle speech they dislike. They've clearly shown that.