The point is ridiculous - distros could just set up a menu with aliases like 'graphics editor' or 'drawing program' or 'media player' or whatever.
Many distros already do. In fact, looking at my Ubuntu laptop, I see "GIMP Image Editor" and "Text Editor" (instead of Gedit). Even if I look at Slackware (which, as much as I love, wouldn't recommend for new users) on my desktop, I see "The GIMP (Image Editor)" and "Konqueror (Web Browser)". I agree, such menu entries are helpful for newcomers to Linux, easy for the distro suppliers to do, and don't require a renaming of the apps themselves. Heck, if I wanted to run the GIMP from the command line (which a newbie probably wouldn't be doing), I'd hate having to type "linux_image_editor" or something like that, even with autocomplete.
I for one don't really believe in bundles, but rather the *lack* of them.
So when should we stop? At 1 browser? 0?
If you "don't really believe in bundles," what exactly do you want to ship with operating systems? Nothing but the kernel?
IMHO, it's perfectly appropriate for operating system suppliers to bundle software that will be fairly universally useful for users; i.e., at least one browser should be supplied. The case of Internet Explorer is special, however. First, IE cannot be removed from Windows, so IE will be bundled no matter what. Second, IE has become largely obsolete when compared with its competition, both in terms of security and usability features like tabs. By bundling Firefox, Dell can provide customers with a modern browser out of the box. From Dell's perspective, they can save resources if tech support calls decrease because their customers' computers are more secure. Thirdly, this is a "Good Thing" in general because it will level the playing field between IE and Firefox; users of both browsers will benefit from the competition.
The only potential loss for users is a few megabytes of hard drive space, which probably would have been filled with spyware if they used IE instead.
The start of the Mr. and Mrs. Smith DVD (rented from a Seattle Blockbuster on 2005-12-23) states that Peer-to-peer sharing of movies is a CRIME. I didn't actually catch the exact wording (I was distracted), but the word "CRIME" did appear on-screen. I had a bit of an argument with my companion over that (she insisted that it was a "simplification", I insisted that it was a "lie").
Depends on your definition of "crime." Google around or check dictionary.com; you'll find that "violation of the law" will turn up fairly frequently as the definition of "crime," in which case copyright infringement is a crime. There are also various laws and international treaties governing copyright that might bring certain kinds of copyright infringement under criminal law; I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. In any case, without the exact wording, and without legal research, it's hard to say whether or not the statement was false; but given the loose definition of "crime," I'd agree with your companion that it's a "simplification."
I'm not trolling; I'm trying to have a serious discussion in the hope that you will see that since the system is voluntary, there is no violation of your rights.
The one doesn't follow from the other. I fail to see how coming into possession of material, either by gift or through purchase, morally beholds me to restrict my usage or sharing of that material. I have agreed to no such restrictions.
You can check and see if the material is copyrighted quite easily. If you see "Foobar (C) 2005. All Rights Reserved." that quite clearly means that the material is copyrighted, and unless the author has given you permission you are forbidden from copying it. If you don't want that restriction, don't buy it.
Imagine some country passed a law saying everyone who learned to read had to convert to a particular religion - backed by coercive punishment, of course. That would be a stupid and immoral law. And yet, someone could use an exact analog of your argument to say "if you don't want to convert to that religion, you don't have to learn to read."
Such a law would be stupid and immoral; however, your analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate to say, suppose a country passed a law requiring everyone who purchased books that were "belief-righted" to convert to a particular religion. If you don't want to convert, you don't have to read *those* books.
The reason such a law is rather useless is that virtually no one wants to place such restrictions on their books. However, most authors want to restrict the copying of their books, and because the desire for copyright is so common, governments help "standardize" it. This standardization is for the convenience of both users and authors; without it, authors would have to spend money on lawyers to draft their own special agreements for their works, and users would have to spend time (and perhaps money on lawyers) to read different agreements everytime they want to buy a copyrighted CD or book.
copyright is nothing more than using force against me for sharing my property in a completely voluntary, non-violent manner. If you want to stop me from peacefully sharing a song with a friend, you must initiate force to do so.
If I peacefully walk into your backyard, set up a tent and sleep there, how will you react? I imagine that either you or the police will "force" me to respect your property. When you buy a copyrighted CD, the music on the CD does *not* become your property; that's what the copyright is for. You are sharing someone else's property in violation of the legal obligations that you were fully aware of before you acquired the CD.
That's like a plantation owner saying if slavery were abolished, a non-slaver's views would be imposed on him because a system he used was destroyed. Not a very compelling argument.
My system - freedom - violates your rights in no way. Your system severely restricts my completely natural rights to share and communicate.
The reason slavery is immoral is that slaves are forced into the system against their will. If consumers were forced under copyright restrictions, it would be immoral. Please tell me: how many times have you been forced to buy a copyrighted CD?
The opposite would be true, because copyright would only apply to parties that had explicitly agreed to the contract's limited terms. To get competing publishers and other organizations on board, companies would have every incentive to make the contract as fair and open as possible.
How many consumers read EULAs before they install software? Not very many; most quickly click "I Agree." If consumers had to sign a EULA every time they wanted to buy a CD, as you wish, they probably would simply check "I Agree" without any thought. Corporations don't have the resources and consumers don't have the patience to negotiate separate agreements for each purchase, and I see no widespread boycotts in the general public (not the Slashdot crowd) against copyright m
Well, if your real disagreement is with copyright, then there's no real sense in blaming the RIAA specifically; at worst, they are prolific users of the mechanism you disagree with, but they are hardly unique. Attack copyright in general, not the RIAA in particular. That said...
In relation to my post's parent post, I was referring to the fact that the RIAA and its ilk want to equate *distribution* (which is sometimes prohibited by copyright law) with reading, hearing, and seeing said materials.
I'm not aware of this, so I cannot comment on it; I certainly don't think viewing materials is the same is distributing them. However, I think it's pretty clear that file-sharing involves distribution of materials, not viewing them.
Copyright and patents are simply government-enforced monopolies to prevent other people from sharing information. While they are somewhat accessible to individuals, they are most easily wielded by powerful corporations to threaten competitors and customers.
A "monopoly" means (roughly) controlling a market and using it to prevent competition. Copyrights are no more "government-enforced monopolies" than physical property laws. Of course I have a monopoly over my own property. That doesn't mean that my ownership prevents you from owning land as well. Similarly, if you own the copyright over a song, that doesn't preclude others from writing their own songs (of course, copyright infringers by definition are merely reproducing other people's music, not creating their own).
"License" is just one term that hides the fact many people (including yourself) want to pervert true personal property with the concept that ideas and data is scarce property. The only way this is practical is if corporations and copyright holders, rather than me, control my computer, my VCR, my TV, and so on. They are working hard to make ownership of many electronics, as well as altering your own equipment, illegal.
Actually, I will argue that you are the one who is portraying ideas and data as "scarce property." The only way to monopolize something is to own all or nearly all of it. How is copyrighting even hundreds of thousands of songs coming anywhere close to owning nearly all of the music universe?
Anyway, circuit boards is outside of the scope of this discussion (music piracy), but the manufacturers you're referring to aren't retaining ownership of the electronics themselves (similarly, the RIAA doesn't claim to own the actual physical components of their CDs). Rather, they claim ownership of the ideas involved in making them (i.e., how the chip works, not the silicon inside it). As a tinkerer myself, I don't welcome this trend; but I, just like anyone else who likes to tinker, can avoid such restrictions by simply not buying such encumbered devices. Again, I'd agree that this was an ethical issue if we were *forced* to abide by these rules, but they are completely voluntary. If you buy the device, you have to abide by the manufacturer's rules; if you don't like the rules, don't buy the device.
Copyrights are designed these days to protect a business model that wouldn't work otherwise. It's easier for a large company to litigate than to innovate or change.
The main purpose of copyright, to give authors control of their works, is the same today as it has always been, even if it has been applied in many different ways. The biggest difference today isn't copyright itself, but the technology that allows users to violate copyright much more easily than before. It's easy to point to copyright holders who litigate but don't innovate (SCO comes to mind), but it's even easier to point to copyright and patent holders who *do* innovate. For example,...
All creative and scientific works in this world build on the work of others. Just look at how a creative movie industry sprang up and thrived in California in defiance of Thomas Edison and his movie camera patents.
If they really want to stop online piracy, they need to go after the makers of the software, not the poor people they duped into believing that they had "purchased" music.
Filesharing software can also be used for legal downloading, and if the RIAA can punish the authors of file sharing software because users used the software illegally, that's very dangerous (of course, such episodes have already played out in the courts). As far as I know, these software makers never say that their software's license includes the cost of music licenses. If they did, that would be false advertisement. Unless that's happening users should be held accountable for how they use software, not the authors of the software.
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
Actually, several of premises are actually false, or are putting words in the RIAA's mouth.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
No one ever said copying and sharing are heinous crimes. Unauthorized copying and sharing of copyright materials is against the law (copyright infringement isn't a criminal act, but it can get you sued).
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
I'm not sure what you meant, so I can't refute it. Please elaborate.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
Within the United States, copyright infringement is most certainly against the law; in fact, Congress is explicitly given authority in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to make copyright laws. While the US Constitution obviously has no authority outside the US, copyright is virtually universal through international treaties and most (all?) countries have their own copyright laws.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
I agree with you:) (that ethics are more important than legal technicalities.) But if you're suggesting that copyright is unethical, I disagree.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
Actually, in the world of copyright, this is often true. If you buy a copyrighted CD, you do not fully own the material. The copyright owner still owns the copyright to the CD; you own a license to it. When you buy the CD you don't "own" the music; you are, in a sense, leasing it from the copyright owner. Even Richard Stallman, who appears to deeply dislike the *intention* of copyright (I know, the GPL is enforced through copyright; I mean copyright's intention of restricting redistribution) has said this (though in the context of software, not music).
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
I don't know of anyone who is saying this. It's just as easy for you to copyright your own work as it is for a large company. But given the context here, I'm not sure what's so "creative" about copyright infringement.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Profits are rarely, if ever, guaranteed, but your wording is rather misleading. You're trying to appeal to the hatred of the faceless CEO and his corporation by contrasting it with the word "freedom." By "freedom," you really mean "the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." By "guaranteed profits," you certainly mean the RIAA making money through selling music (even though most Slashdotters argue that consumers wouldn't buy many of the CDs they pirate, so that means these profits are hardly "guaranteed"), but the profits could just as well be a small software company selling its copyrighted program and making enough money to stay in business, or a fledgling artist scraping together a living.
In any case, when an individual buys copyrighted material, he is fully aware that he does not have the right to redistribute it; if he doesn't want to be under such restrictions, he is perfectly free to decline to buy it. If I sign a contract with you to clean your toilet every Saturday in exchange for some "guaranteed profits," I am fully aware of the fact that I'm giving up the freedom to do something I'd much rather do on Saturday. But perhaps I can't find any other job, and having the "guaranteed profits" minus my "freedom" on Saturday sounds more appealing than starving.
If you do not oppose the existence of copyright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth (I did so because several of your statements seem to imply that you do oppose it). I most certainly don't defend ever
To paraphrase the famous quote: Those who would give up essential privacy to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither privacy nor safety.
Of course, the actual quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
So, if you assert that your paraphrase is accurate, you assert that privacy and liberty are the same thing, which is where I would differ. Losing privacy can mean giving up liberty; there are some things we don't do in public because we don't want people knowing/seeing it. But retaining privacy can also mean giving up liberty. For example, in order to exercise the freedom to vote, you have to fill out a form with personal information on it. In order to exercise your economic freedoms through business transactions, you often have to give out information like your address (to ship an item to your house).
Perhaps you do, but I don't consider keeping my address a secret to be "essential." There simply are some activities that cannot be carried out in anonymity. Privacy is more like your time; don't give it all away to someone, but giving it up for something you value more makes perfect sense.
That's truly dumb. Educating parts of the market by beating people with a piece of legal two-by-four is not productive. Advertise, promote, share information and engage with the people you're trying to reach is healthier and more likely to create understanding.
And how is the MPAA supposed to deal with people who are fully aware that copyright infringement is illegal? You can "advertise, promote, share information and engage" with such people forever, and they'll still pirate copyrighted material. The Slashdot community constantly argues that if the MPAA/RIAA offer legal movie/music online stores and advertises against piracy, it will stop. It's time to face up to the fact that a lot of people out there are simply breaking the law and are fully aware of it. Copyright infringement is a civil offense, which means copyright holders (e.g. MPAA) are responsible for enforcing their copyrights; and when they do enforce copyrights, Slashdot starts criticizing them for it. I know the MPAA/RIAA has done things that are questionable to say the least (the recent Sony DRM debacle being a perfect example), but I don't see why their primary philosophy, that copyright holders should be able to enforce their copyright, is being attacked.
The same way, its not okay for a person to only care about money, it's not okay for an organization to be all about money.
Being NICE, is a good reputation, treating your smallest client the same as the biggest, is NICE, and we should encourage all organizations to do it, because that way we will be living in a NICE society
If the public cares about companies being "nice," then it won't spend its money on "mean" companies. (The definition of "nice" and "mean" is rather vague...) What is the result? "Mean" companies won't make any money. But the "mean" companies want to make money, so they will become "nice" to appease consumers.
As long as companies don't do anything illegal or coercive, caring mostly about money is generally a *good* thing for society. In order to make money in a capitalist economy, you have to make or do something that makes someone happy enough that they'll pay you for it. If no one likes what you're doing, you definitely won't make any money. The more people that like what you do, the more money you make.
In other words, if a "nice" society is what the public wants, companies will be "nice" because they care about making money. If companies are being "mean," it's probably because the public doesn't care about being friendly. You should probably take your issue up with the general public, not the corporate world.
But, to me, the point of the password is to keep someone looking through files from stumbling across it. It's like hiding Christmas presents under the bed--it's trivial to circumvent, but it prevents truly-accidental discovery.
Anyone looking in your ~/.gaim directory is already "looking under your bed." No one will be using your computer and "accidentally" come across your personal settings in your home directory. If you want security for your passwords, just do 'chmod 700 ~' and you'll be the only one who can see your passwords.
In situations where security is paramount, a third party in your organization will be auditing the security logs and if you cleared them to cover something up, a large chunk of time would be missing from the logs.
Why would it have to be a large chunk of time? Couldn't it be a fraction of a second if you write a script to do it? My point is that if someone has "root" (I know this is Windows we're talking about) access to a machine, if they're clever enough, they can basically cover anything up.
an administrator can be denied access to a file. The admin can change the ACLs by taking ownership, but doing this generates a log event. Deleting the logs generates another log event.
And what happens if the admin deletes the log of the logs? Is there also a log of the logs of the logs? Does this continue until the hard drive is full?
Oddly enough a lot of people I know insist on using Yahoo. They admit that google has a cleaner interface and better results but they still use yahoo.
I use Google over Yahoo, but really it's more because of features like "define: X". When I google myself, I actually get worse results than with Yahoo or MSN. Google used to put my webpage at the top, but now it's down to the 3rd result and has switched around numerous times. Yahoo and MSN have consistently put my page at the top for a while now.
I'm not saying that one search is enough to show one search engine is better than another. But it does raise questions about whether or not Google really is undeniably superior to its rivals.
Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.
Copyright infringement is not theft. But to imply copyright infringement doesn't deprive someone of something is simply false. Copyright infringement deprives a copyright holder of the right to control how his material is distributed and used. Say I were to copy code out of Linux and redistribute it under a proprietary license; that would deprive the copyright holder (Linus Torvalds) of the right to restrict how it is redistributed. Linus Torvalds GPLed Linux because he wanted to force users to contribute back their improvements; pirating Linux source code would deprive him of the right to enforce this.
Copyright infringement doesn't directly deprive people of tangible objects or property. It directly deprives people of the (intangible) right to control their work. This usually indirectly deprives copyright holders of tangibles. In Linus' case, it would deprive him of code; in the MPA's case, it deprives them of royalties.
I agree, copyright infringement isn't theft. But stop claiming that it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
The lyric sites get around this with those cryptic "only for individual private study" disclaimers -- I'd copy and paste the exact text but I don't feel like going to a lyric site right now and festooning my display with twelve pop-ups.
Wow, the only Slashdotter who still uses Internet Explorer.
And me, well I agree with the person who posted way back above that the revenue generation should be taken out of the equation and these things be based solely on the safety aspect.
I agree, but the question of where to set speed limits is a separate question from that of this whole article (whether this device should be implemented). The point is that no matter whether the speed limit is reasonable or unreasonable, there will still be reckless speeders, and according to the person I first responded, they account for a very substantial number (and you argue they are even more numerous).
So I would hazard to guess besides the 3 unreasonable drivers that you don't care about 9 reasonable drivers would also be 'punished' by this device.
Absolutely not. The reasonable drivers would not even notice this device, because if they were reasonable they wouldn't be speeding. If the speed limit is unreasonable, that doesn't give drivers the right to speed; they should take the issue up with whoever's in charge of setting them (that's what democracy is for). But again, people will speed whether the limit is perfectly set or not. This device is designed for them.
We shouldn't muddle two separate problems: artificially low speed limits and speeding drivers. We should address the former by voting for officials who share our views, and we should address the latter with the police, and perhaps this new device.
I agree, setting artificially low speed limits is silly. That said...
Look, traffic engineers know, and have known for a very long time, that the safest speed to set speed limits at is the 85% percentile speed: the speed which 85% of the free-flowing traffic on that particular road travels at or below. This is because the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, and while they wish to reach their destination in a short amount of time, they also wish to remain alive and unwrecked.
That also means that 15% of drivers are not so reasonable. If three out of every 20 drivers are drive recklessly, that's a serious danger for the other 17. If the device that is being discussed here is implemented, that means that only these three drivers are getting a friendly reminder about what they're doing. The reasonable 85% won't notice that the device is even there.
Without any details, I can't really help you with the network connection, but...
I also tried to play some mp3s on it and none of the audio players installed would recognize the file. I've since read that I may need to install additional software to get those programs to use mp3s. WTF? Something that minor, playing an mp3 file, shouldn't be that big a hassle.
The algorithms used in MP3 are patented by the Fraunhofer IIS. For this reason, many Linux distros simply don't include MP3 support to avoid licensing issues and possible lawsuits. There's really nothing in the world Linux programmers can do except wait for the patent to expire. If you want, you can pay Fraunhofer $0.75 for a license.
Or, you can do what I do. When I get ahold of an mp3, I run it through the command-line decoder that Fraunhofer provides (free as in beer, but proprietary), and then encode it to FLAC (not Ogg, because I don't want to convert from one lossy format to another lossy format). Kind of ironic that I'm using Fraunhofer's own tool to avoid playing MP3, but yeah... IMHO, setting MP3 as the "standard" lossy audio codec is one of the ISO's biggest mistakes ever, given all the patent issues.
Anyhow, in short, the MP3 issue you're running into has nothing to do with how good Linux is; it has to do with the legal issues surrounding MP3s.
Come on guys, cut down the flames and lets think... its only a SMALL start but it is a very significant start. While this might be a one-off tactical move its from one of the most important divisions in Microsoft, its an important move. This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.
I agree: good job this time, Microsoft! That said, Microsoft isn't accepting or promoting an "Open Source licensing model;" they're opening one of their previously proprietary formats. Open formats and open source are two different things. An example is PDF and Adobe Acrobat Reader: PDF is an open format that any programmer out there can write a program to support, but Acrobat Reader is closed source. Microsoft isn't really promoting open source with this move; they are supporting open formats, which levels the playing field for open source programmers.
But again, I agree with the general gist of your post. This is definitely a good thing, no matter how you look at it. It means the OpenOffice.org will be able to support MS Office files *perfectly*, and I know that the glitches in opening and saving Office documents is one of the big criticisms of OO.o; now, that will no longer be a problem.
I've looked at small business server and it's a pretty attractive product. For about $80/user you get a pretty full featured server. It includes a full copy of exchange which is hard to beat for calendaring and shared contacts, sharepoint server and of course print and file server.
Disclaimer: I've never used Exchange server, Zimbra or Open-Xchange.
That said, with Linux and Zimbra or Open-Xchange, you get a full featured server for $0/user. I know of no reason why Zimbra or Open-Xchange wouldn't be able to do what Exchange does; please let me know if there is something Zimbra or Open-Xchange.
And of course, Linux doesn't max out at 75 users or any other number.
Anyhow, my point is that the poster I was responding to implicitly distorted what the situation of Linux servers. He implied that only experts are able to do things like add users, and that support for Linux doesn't exist. This is simply not true.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
Um...
This is the primary way companies like Red Hat and Novell make money. They provide support for customers using their Linux products. Of course, support isn't free, but tech support for Linux is every bit as real as it is for Windows.
And what do you mean by "Being able to do some basic features yourself without needing administrators?" Adding users is very simple. Every distro I've tried provides an easy GUI interface for this, or if you prefer the command line, "useradd name" isn't hard either. Please explain what you meant by this.
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
Virtually all Linux distros come with at least one email client, usually more than one. In fact, Linux distros come out of the box with a whole lot more software and features than Windows usually does (this is partly due to Microsoft's antitrust situation, but it's still reality). That's not to say you can't install stuff on Windows computers that doesn't come in the box... but you said "out of the box."
So your only reason other for choosing Windows over Linux is that "everyone uses Windows," which is definitely not the case in the server world. And even if it were, "everyone uses it" has no merits behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is ridiculous - distros could just set up a menu with aliases like 'graphics editor' or 'drawing program' or 'media player' or whatever.
Many distros already do. In fact, looking at my Ubuntu laptop, I see "GIMP Image Editor" and "Text Editor" (instead of Gedit). Even if I look at Slackware (which, as much as I love, wouldn't recommend for new users) on my desktop, I see "The GIMP (Image Editor)" and "Konqueror (Web Browser)". I agree, such menu entries are helpful for newcomers to Linux, easy for the distro suppliers to do, and don't require a renaming of the apps themselves. Heck, if I wanted to run the GIMP from the command line (which a newbie probably wouldn't be doing), I'd hate having to type "linux_image_editor" or something like that, even with autocomplete.
So when should we stop? At 2 browsers? 4? 8?
I for one don't really believe in bundles, but rather the *lack* of them.
So when should we stop? At 1 browser? 0?
If you "don't really believe in bundles," what exactly do you want to ship with operating systems? Nothing but the kernel?
IMHO, it's perfectly appropriate for operating system suppliers to bundle software that will be fairly universally useful for users; i.e., at least one browser should be supplied. The case of Internet Explorer is special, however. First, IE cannot be removed from Windows, so IE will be bundled no matter what. Second, IE has become largely obsolete when compared with its competition, both in terms of security and usability features like tabs. By bundling Firefox, Dell can provide customers with a modern browser out of the box. From Dell's perspective, they can save resources if tech support calls decrease because their customers' computers are more secure. Thirdly, this is a "Good Thing" in general because it will level the playing field between IE and Firefox; users of both browsers will benefit from the competition.
The only potential loss for users is a few megabytes of hard drive space, which probably would have been filled with spyware if they used IE instead.
and today is the day when software bundles is a Good Thing!
(err, right?)
Yes, when they encourage competition, as happened in this case.
The start of the Mr. and Mrs. Smith DVD (rented from a Seattle Blockbuster on 2005-12-23) states that Peer-to-peer sharing of movies is a CRIME. I didn't actually catch the exact wording (I was distracted), but the word "CRIME" did appear on-screen. I had a bit of an argument with my companion over that (she insisted that it was a "simplification", I insisted that it was a "lie").
Depends on your definition of "crime." Google around or check dictionary.com; you'll find that "violation of the law" will turn up fairly frequently as the definition of "crime," in which case copyright infringement is a crime. There are also various laws and international treaties governing copyright that might bring certain kinds of copyright infringement under criminal law; I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. In any case, without the exact wording, and without legal research, it's hard to say whether or not the statement was false; but given the loose definition of "crime," I'd agree with your companion that it's a "simplification."
I'm not trolling; I'm trying to have a serious discussion in the hope that you will see that since the system is voluntary, there is no violation of your rights.
The one doesn't follow from the other. I fail to see how coming into possession of material, either by gift or through purchase, morally beholds me to restrict my usage or sharing of that material. I have agreed to no such restrictions.
You can check and see if the material is copyrighted quite easily. If you see "Foobar (C) 2005. All Rights Reserved." that quite clearly means that the material is copyrighted, and unless the author has given you permission you are forbidden from copying it. If you don't want that restriction, don't buy it.
Imagine some country passed a law saying everyone who learned to read had to convert to a particular religion - backed by coercive punishment, of course. That would be a stupid and immoral law. And yet, someone could use an exact analog of your argument to say "if you don't want to convert to that religion, you don't have to learn to read."
Such a law would be stupid and immoral; however, your analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate to say, suppose a country passed a law requiring everyone who purchased books that were "belief-righted" to convert to a particular religion. If you don't want to convert, you don't have to read *those* books.
The reason such a law is rather useless is that virtually no one wants to place such restrictions on their books. However, most authors want to restrict the copying of their books, and because the desire for copyright is so common, governments help "standardize" it. This standardization is for the convenience of both users and authors; without it, authors would have to spend money on lawyers to draft their own special agreements for their works, and users would have to spend time (and perhaps money on lawyers) to read different agreements everytime they want to buy a copyrighted CD or book.
copyright is nothing more than using force against me for sharing my property in a completely voluntary, non-violent manner. If you want to stop me from peacefully sharing a song with a friend, you must initiate force to do so.
If I peacefully walk into your backyard, set up a tent and sleep there, how will you react? I imagine that either you or the police will "force" me to respect your property. When you buy a copyrighted CD, the music on the CD does *not* become your property; that's what the copyright is for. You are sharing someone else's property in violation of the legal obligations that you were fully aware of before you acquired the CD.
That's like a plantation owner saying if slavery were abolished, a non-slaver's views would be imposed on him because a system he used was destroyed. Not a very compelling argument.
My system - freedom - violates your rights in no way. Your system severely restricts my completely natural rights to share and communicate.
The reason slavery is immoral is that slaves are forced into the system against their will. If consumers were forced under copyright restrictions, it would be immoral. Please tell me: how many times have you been forced to buy a copyrighted CD?
The opposite would be true, because copyright would only apply to parties that had explicitly agreed to the contract's limited terms. To get competing publishers and other organizations on board, companies would have every incentive to make the contract as fair and open as possible.
How many consumers read EULAs before they install software? Not very many; most quickly click "I Agree." If consumers had to sign a EULA every time they wanted to buy a CD, as you wish, they probably would simply check "I Agree" without any thought. Corporations don't have the resources and consumers don't have the patience to negotiate separate agreements for each purchase, and I see no widespread boycotts in the general public (not the Slashdot crowd) against copyright m
Well, if your real disagreement is with copyright, then there's no real sense in blaming the RIAA specifically; at worst, they are prolific users of the mechanism you disagree with, but they are hardly unique. Attack copyright in general, not the RIAA in particular. That said ...
...
In relation to my post's parent post, I was referring to the fact that the RIAA and its ilk want to equate *distribution* (which is sometimes prohibited by copyright law) with reading, hearing, and seeing said materials.
I'm not aware of this, so I cannot comment on it; I certainly don't think viewing materials is the same is distributing them. However, I think it's pretty clear that file-sharing involves distribution of materials, not viewing them.
Copyright and patents are simply government-enforced monopolies to prevent other people from sharing information. While they are somewhat accessible to individuals, they are most easily wielded by powerful corporations to threaten competitors and customers.
A "monopoly" means (roughly) controlling a market and using it to prevent competition. Copyrights are no more "government-enforced monopolies" than physical property laws. Of course I have a monopoly over my own property. That doesn't mean that my ownership prevents you from owning land as well. Similarly, if you own the copyright over a song, that doesn't preclude others from writing their own songs (of course, copyright infringers by definition are merely reproducing other people's music, not creating their own).
"License" is just one term that hides the fact many people (including yourself) want to pervert true personal property with the concept that ideas and data is scarce property. The only way this is practical is if corporations and copyright holders, rather than me, control my computer, my VCR, my TV, and so on. They are working hard to make ownership of many electronics, as well as altering your own equipment, illegal.
Actually, I will argue that you are the one who is portraying ideas and data as "scarce property." The only way to monopolize something is to own all or nearly all of it. How is copyrighting even hundreds of thousands of songs coming anywhere close to owning nearly all of the music universe?
Anyway, circuit boards is outside of the scope of this discussion (music piracy), but the manufacturers you're referring to aren't retaining ownership of the electronics themselves (similarly, the RIAA doesn't claim to own the actual physical components of their CDs). Rather, they claim ownership of the ideas involved in making them (i.e., how the chip works, not the silicon inside it). As a tinkerer myself, I don't welcome this trend; but I, just like anyone else who likes to tinker, can avoid such restrictions by simply not buying such encumbered devices. Again, I'd agree that this was an ethical issue if we were *forced* to abide by these rules, but they are completely voluntary. If you buy the device, you have to abide by the manufacturer's rules; if you don't like the rules, don't buy the device.
Copyrights are designed these days to protect a business model that wouldn't work otherwise. It's easier for a large company to litigate than to innovate or change.
The main purpose of copyright, to give authors control of their works, is the same today as it has always been, even if it has been applied in many different ways. The biggest difference today isn't copyright itself, but the technology that allows users to violate copyright much more easily than before. It's easy to point to copyright holders who litigate but don't innovate (SCO comes to mind), but it's even easier to point to copyright and patent holders who *do* innovate. For example,
All creative and scientific works in this world build on the work of others. Just look at how a creative movie industry sprang up and thrived in California in defiance of Thomas Edison and his movie camera patents.
If they really want to stop online piracy, they need to go after the makers of the software, not the poor people they duped into believing that they had "purchased" music.
Filesharing software can also be used for legal downloading, and if the RIAA can punish the authors of file sharing software because users used the software illegally, that's very dangerous (of course, such episodes have already played out in the courts). As far as I know, these software makers never say that their software's license includes the cost of music licenses. If they did, that would be false advertisement. Unless that's happening users should be held accountable for how they use software, not the authors of the software.
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
:) (that ethics are more important than legal technicalities.) But if you're suggesting that copyright is unethical, I disagree.
Actually, several of premises are actually false, or are putting words in the RIAA's mouth.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
No one ever said copying and sharing are heinous crimes. Unauthorized copying and sharing of copyright materials is against the law (copyright infringement isn't a criminal act, but it can get you sued).
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
I'm not sure what you meant, so I can't refute it. Please elaborate.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
Within the United States, copyright infringement is most certainly against the law; in fact, Congress is explicitly given authority in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to make copyright laws. While the US Constitution obviously has no authority outside the US, copyright is virtually universal through international treaties and most (all?) countries have their own copyright laws.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
I agree with you
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
Actually, in the world of copyright, this is often true. If you buy a copyrighted CD, you do not fully own the material. The copyright owner still owns the copyright to the CD; you own a license to it. When you buy the CD you don't "own" the music; you are, in a sense, leasing it from the copyright owner. Even Richard Stallman, who appears to deeply dislike the *intention* of copyright (I know, the GPL is enforced through copyright; I mean copyright's intention of restricting redistribution) has said this (though in the context of software, not music).
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
I don't know of anyone who is saying this. It's just as easy for you to copyright your own work as it is for a large company. But given the context here, I'm not sure what's so "creative" about copyright infringement.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Profits are rarely, if ever, guaranteed, but your wording is rather misleading. You're trying to appeal to the hatred of the faceless CEO and his corporation by contrasting it with the word "freedom." By "freedom," you really mean "the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." By "guaranteed profits," you certainly mean the RIAA making money through selling music (even though most Slashdotters argue that consumers wouldn't buy many of the CDs they pirate, so that means these profits are hardly "guaranteed"), but the profits could just as well be a small software company selling its copyrighted program and making enough money to stay in business, or a fledgling artist scraping together a living.
In any case, when an individual buys copyrighted material, he is fully aware that he does not have the right to redistribute it; if he doesn't want to be under such restrictions, he is perfectly free to decline to buy it. If I sign a contract with you to clean your toilet every Saturday in exchange for some "guaranteed profits," I am fully aware of the fact that I'm giving up the freedom to do something I'd much rather do on Saturday. But perhaps I can't find any other job, and having the "guaranteed profits" minus my "freedom" on Saturday sounds more appealing than starving.
If you do not oppose the existence of copyright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth (I did so because several of your statements seem to imply that you do oppose it). I most certainly don't defend ever
To paraphrase the famous quote: Those who would give up essential privacy to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither privacy nor safety.
Of course, the actual quote is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
So, if you assert that your paraphrase is accurate, you assert that privacy and liberty are the same thing, which is where I would differ. Losing privacy can mean giving up liberty; there are some things we don't do in public because we don't want people knowing/seeing it. But retaining privacy can also mean giving up liberty. For example, in order to exercise the freedom to vote, you have to fill out a form with personal information on it. In order to exercise your economic freedoms through business transactions, you often have to give out information like your address (to ship an item to your house).
Perhaps you do, but I don't consider keeping my address a secret to be "essential." There simply are some activities that cannot be carried out in anonymity. Privacy is more like your time; don't give it all away to someone, but giving it up for something you value more makes perfect sense.
That's truly dumb. Educating parts of the market by beating people with a piece of legal two-by-four is not productive. Advertise, promote, share information and engage with the people you're trying to reach is healthier and more likely to create understanding.
And how is the MPAA supposed to deal with people who are fully aware that copyright infringement is illegal? You can "advertise, promote, share information and engage" with such people forever, and they'll still pirate copyrighted material. The Slashdot community constantly argues that if the MPAA/RIAA offer legal movie/music online stores and advertises against piracy, it will stop. It's time to face up to the fact that a lot of people out there are simply breaking the law and are fully aware of it. Copyright infringement is a civil offense, which means copyright holders (e.g. MPAA) are responsible for enforcing their copyrights; and when they do enforce copyrights, Slashdot starts criticizing them for it. I know the MPAA/RIAA has done things that are questionable to say the least (the recent Sony DRM debacle being a perfect example), but I don't see why their primary philosophy, that copyright holders should be able to enforce their copyright, is being attacked.
The same way, its not okay for a person to only care about money, it's not okay for an organization to be all about money.
...) What is the result? "Mean" companies won't make any money. But the "mean" companies want to make money, so they will become "nice" to appease consumers.
Being NICE, is a good reputation, treating your smallest client the same as the biggest, is NICE, and we should encourage all organizations to do it, because that way we will be living in a NICE society
If the public cares about companies being "nice," then it won't spend its money on "mean" companies. (The definition of "nice" and "mean" is rather vague
As long as companies don't do anything illegal or coercive, caring mostly about money is generally a *good* thing for society. In order to make money in a capitalist economy, you have to make or do something that makes someone happy enough that they'll pay you for it. If no one likes what you're doing, you definitely won't make any money. The more people that like what you do, the more money you make.
In other words, if a "nice" society is what the public wants, companies will be "nice" because they care about making money. If companies are being "mean," it's probably because the public doesn't care about being friendly. You should probably take your issue up with the general public, not the corporate world.
But, to me, the point of the password is to keep someone looking through files from stumbling across it. It's like hiding Christmas presents under the bed--it's trivial to circumvent, but it prevents truly-accidental discovery.
Anyone looking in your ~/.gaim directory is already "looking under your bed." No one will be using your computer and "accidentally" come across your personal settings in your home directory. If you want security for your passwords, just do 'chmod 700 ~' and you'll be the only one who can see your passwords.
In situations where security is paramount, a third party in your organization will be auditing the security logs and if you cleared them to cover something up, a large chunk of time would be missing from the logs.
Why would it have to be a large chunk of time? Couldn't it be a fraction of a second if you write a script to do it? My point is that if someone has "root" (I know this is Windows we're talking about) access to a machine, if they're clever enough, they can basically cover anything up.
an administrator can be denied access to a file. The admin can change the ACLs by taking ownership, but doing this generates a log event. Deleting the logs generates another log event.
And what happens if the admin deletes the log of the logs? Is there also a log of the logs of the logs? Does this continue until the hard drive is full?
Oddly enough a lot of people I know insist on using Yahoo. They admit that google has a cleaner interface and better results but they still use yahoo.
I use Google over Yahoo, but really it's more because of features like "define: X". When I google myself, I actually get worse results than with Yahoo or MSN. Google used to put my webpage at the top, but now it's down to the 3rd result and has switched around numerous times. Yahoo and MSN have consistently put my page at the top for a while now.
I'm not saying that one search is enough to show one search engine is better than another. But it does raise questions about whether or not Google really is undeniably superior to its rivals.
The publishers are just middlemen (middle-management?) scrambling to keep their distribution means relevant: cut them out like a cancer.
a) Freely download
b) Buy what you like (second hand if possible)
c) Pay to see the artists live
Instead of undermining copyright law by choosing (a), you might want to try the alternative you left out:
d) Ignore them
Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.
Copyright infringement is not theft. But to imply copyright infringement doesn't deprive someone of something is simply false. Copyright infringement deprives a copyright holder of the right to control how his material is distributed and used. Say I were to copy code out of Linux and redistribute it under a proprietary license; that would deprive the copyright holder (Linus Torvalds) of the right to restrict how it is redistributed. Linus Torvalds GPLed Linux because he wanted to force users to contribute back their improvements; pirating Linux source code would deprive him of the right to enforce this.
Copyright infringement doesn't directly deprive people of tangible objects or property. It directly deprives people of the (intangible) right to control their work. This usually indirectly deprives copyright holders of tangibles. In Linus' case, it would deprive him of code; in the MPA's case, it deprives them of royalties.
I agree, copyright infringement isn't theft. But stop claiming that it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
The lyric sites get around this with those cryptic "only for individual private study" disclaimers -- I'd copy and paste the exact text but I don't feel like going to a lyric site right now and festooning my display with twelve pop-ups.
Wow, the only Slashdotter who still uses Internet Explorer.
And me, well I agree with the person who posted way back above that the revenue generation should be taken out of the equation and these things be based solely on the safety aspect.
I agree, but the question of where to set speed limits is a separate question from that of this whole article (whether this device should be implemented). The point is that no matter whether the speed limit is reasonable or unreasonable, there will still be reckless speeders, and according to the person I first responded, they account for a very substantial number (and you argue they are even more numerous).
So I would hazard to guess besides the 3 unreasonable drivers that you don't care about 9 reasonable drivers would also be 'punished' by this device.
Absolutely not. The reasonable drivers would not even notice this device, because if they were reasonable they wouldn't be speeding. If the speed limit is unreasonable, that doesn't give drivers the right to speed; they should take the issue up with whoever's in charge of setting them (that's what democracy is for). But again, people will speed whether the limit is perfectly set or not. This device is designed for them.
We shouldn't muddle two separate problems: artificially low speed limits and speeding drivers. We should address the former by voting for officials who share our views, and we should address the latter with the police, and perhaps this new device.
I agree, setting artificially low speed limits is silly. That said ...
Look, traffic engineers know, and have known for a very long time, that the safest speed to set speed limits at is the 85% percentile speed: the speed which 85% of the free-flowing traffic on that particular road travels at or below. This is because the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, and while they wish to reach their destination in a short amount of time, they also wish to remain alive and unwrecked.
That also means that 15% of drivers are not so reasonable. If three out of every 20 drivers are drive recklessly, that's a serious danger for the other 17. If the device that is being discussed here is implemented, that means that only these three drivers are getting a friendly reminder about what they're doing. The reasonable 85% won't notice that the device is even there.
Without any details, I can't really help you with the network connection, but ...
... IMHO, setting MP3 as the "standard" lossy audio codec is one of the ISO's biggest mistakes ever, given all the patent issues.
I also tried to play some mp3s on it and none of the audio players installed would recognize the file. I've since read that I may need to install additional software to get those programs to use mp3s. WTF? Something that minor, playing an mp3 file, shouldn't be that big a hassle.
The algorithms used in MP3 are patented by the Fraunhofer IIS. For this reason, many Linux distros simply don't include MP3 support to avoid licensing issues and possible lawsuits. There's really nothing in the world Linux programmers can do except wait for the patent to expire. If you want, you can pay Fraunhofer $0.75 for a license.
Or, you can do what I do. When I get ahold of an mp3, I run it through the command-line decoder that Fraunhofer provides (free as in beer, but proprietary), and then encode it to FLAC (not Ogg, because I don't want to convert from one lossy format to another lossy format). Kind of ironic that I'm using Fraunhofer's own tool to avoid playing MP3, but yeah
Anyhow, in short, the MP3 issue you're running into has nothing to do with how good Linux is; it has to do with the legal issues surrounding MP3s.
I find that it is fun to get a new distro going on hardware or VM, but too pita to run on a regular basis.
Care to elaborate?
Come on guys, cut down the flames and lets think... its only a SMALL start but it is a very significant start. While this might be a one-off tactical move its from one of the most important divisions in Microsoft, its an important move. This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.
I agree: good job this time, Microsoft! That said, Microsoft isn't accepting or promoting an "Open Source licensing model;" they're opening one of their previously proprietary formats. Open formats and open source are two different things. An example is PDF and Adobe Acrobat Reader: PDF is an open format that any programmer out there can write a program to support, but Acrobat Reader is closed source. Microsoft isn't really promoting open source with this move; they are supporting open formats, which levels the playing field for open source programmers.
But again, I agree with the general gist of your post. This is definitely a good thing, no matter how you look at it. It means the OpenOffice.org will be able to support MS Office files *perfectly*, and I know that the glitches in opening and saving Office documents is one of the big criticisms of OO.o; now, that will no longer be a problem.
I've looked at small business server and it's a pretty attractive product. For about $80/user you get a pretty full featured server. It includes a full copy of exchange which is hard to beat for calendaring and shared contacts, sharepoint server and of course print and file server.
Disclaimer: I've never used Exchange server, Zimbra or Open-Xchange.
That said, with Linux and Zimbra or Open-Xchange, you get a full featured server for $0/user. I know of no reason why Zimbra or Open-Xchange wouldn't be able to do what Exchange does; please let me know if there is something Zimbra or Open-Xchange.
And of course, Linux doesn't max out at 75 users or any other number.
Anyhow, my point is that the poster I was responding to implicitly distorted what the situation of Linux servers. He implied that only experts are able to do things like add users, and that support for Linux doesn't exist. This is simply not true.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
...
... but you said "out of the box."
Um
This is the primary way companies like Red Hat and Novell make money. They provide support for customers using their Linux products. Of course, support isn't free, but tech support for Linux is every bit as real as it is for Windows.
And what do you mean by "Being able to do some basic features yourself without needing administrators?" Adding users is very simple. Every distro I've tried provides an easy GUI interface for this, or if you prefer the command line, "useradd name" isn't hard either. Please explain what you meant by this.
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
Virtually all Linux distros come with at least one email client, usually more than one. In fact, Linux distros come out of the box with a whole lot more software and features than Windows usually does (this is partly due to Microsoft's antitrust situation, but it's still reality). That's not to say you can't install stuff on Windows computers that doesn't come in the box
So your only reason other for choosing Windows over Linux is that "everyone uses Windows," which is definitely not the case in the server world. And even if it were, "everyone uses it" has no merits behind it.