Did you even read the article you linked to? I quote (from your linked article):
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."
and
However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California
and
And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Why would they include the original copyright if they weren't using the code?
It's true that MS's use of BSD code was perfectly legal, and it's completely unfair to say MS "stole" it. However, the point remains. MS still uses code from BSD (which has ALWAYS been Open Source, just not GPL - the BSD license is an Open Source license) for it's Unix services, FTP, and a few other purposes. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not the point.
The "press release" by Fortify for this claims that Larry Suto performed the test. He has a reputation for faulty, perhaps even fraudulent, testing methods. He also only tested 11 specific Java apps (and Fortify sells "audited" versions of those apps).
The tests were performed using Fortify's software, no other testing software was used. So the accuracy of this test relies on the accuracy of Fortify's software, which hasn't been independently tested as far as I can tell.
The press release also mentions findings by the Forrester Group, who are well known for a history of spreading inaccurate FUD about non-MS software.
So, I guess you're one of those fools who bought into the "any marijuana use is automatically abuse" propoganda? The same has been said about alcohol. Yet the case of alcohol, the bible specifically endorses it's use. Nothing in the bible indicates marijuana is any different. The message the bible gives is one of moderation - not abstinence. Moderate marijuana use is not abuse. Smoking until you can't get the lighter aligned with the bowl, all day, everyday, is abuse. The fact is, the vast majority of marijuana users use it in moderation. The abusers are just much more obvious.
Coffee contains oils that will solute THC. Back when Hash was available I used to put some in my coffee. Warm it first so it's "fluffed" and it will dissolve in hot coffee. You get the stimulant quality of caffiene without getting the jitters, and the relaxing quality of pot without the laziness.
Let's not forget that the hemp flax breaking machine (which revolutionized hemp production the same way Whitney's Cotton Gin did the cotton industry) was also patented in 1937, making hemp much more economically viable than it was previously, much more so than wood pulp or petro-plastics.
Statistically, over 60% of all Americans over the age of 18 have used marijuana at least once. In almost every state that has had a legalization referendum it has passed. The reason politicians haven't made a platform on legalization are two-fold:
1. It doesn't have a big enough impact. People are far more concerned about the economy, terrorism, etc, and being pro-marijuana won't provide a significant increase in votes.
2. Running for office is expensive, and politicians depend on donations from Oil and Pharma companies. These companies have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal, and aren't going to donate money to anyone who comes out in favor of legalization.
Your supposition is erroneous. There is no evidence that marijuana use causes mental disorders, but there is a lot of evidence that people who have mental disorders are more likely to use drugs. In other words, the pot didn't make them crazy - they were already crazy and smoked pot in an attempt to self-medicate the problem. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana can mitigate the effects of a variety of mental disorders, so the pot probably kept them out of the nuthouse longer than they would have without it.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
When I was growing up there was a guy who routinely drove home drunk, about a 10 mile trip. He drove slowly, and would pull over and stop whenever he saw a car coming in either direction. The cops just ignored it, he was no danger to anyone. Mind you, this is a small rural community - that wouldn't fly anywhere there was more traffic.
Of course, things are different now, and there's no way he'd get away with it.
It depends on the person. I have passed urine tests with only 3 days of abstinence, and no "cleaners" even though I was a heavy (all day, every day) user. Much depends on the amount of body fat, and other metabolic factors.
Many people are convicted of OWI (or DUI, whatever your state calls it) without a breath/blood test. Failure to pass a "roadside sobriety" test IS admissible in court.
Most cops these days have been trained on the Horizontal Astigmatism Test (that's the one where the cop says "hold your head straight and follow my pen/finger/flashlight with your eyes). The HAT can detect a wide variety of drugs, legal and otherwise, and even show which type of drug you are on. When performed by a trained officer, and video taped, this is admissible in every state. Currently, in most areas, simply having marijuana and a means to smoke it (a pipe, papers, etc) in the vehicle is sufficient to garner a conviction.
Every point in your argument except the first points out that "it has been suggested" but no-one has every been able to prove any of it with any - even purely statistical - evidence.
Who's suggesting these things? Your article doesn't say. I'll make a suggestion myself - these OPINIONS are "suggested" by the people who sponsored the study and want marijuana to remain illegal. With as much money as the government and pharma companies have put into proving marijuana is hazardous, if those dangers actually existed they would have been proven.
There have been many studies showing marijuana can be used in effective treatment regimes to help treat Bi-Polar disorder, schizophrenia, some forms of autism, ADHD, and quite a few other mental disorders. There has never been ANY evidence that marijuana use alone causes any of the disorders you listed.
Here's a clue - when a study says "it has been suggested" it means "this is what our sponsors wanted us to prove, but our findings didn't substantiate that whatsoever."
Also, some of the commonly prescribed medications for those disorders have adverse interactions with marijuana, and using them together is worse than using nothing at all. Many of the studies that claim marijuana is detrimental are conducted with patients using those medications also, in conjunction with marijuana, but only marijuana is listed as a cause for the adverse reaction.
My primary source for this is my housemate, a degreed pharmacologist. A simple google search will turn up a plethora of sources that verify the rest of the information I've provided.
It could be that the guy was just a slacker/idiot, and marijuana had nothing to do with it. You have absolutely no way of knowing if him being stoned was the cause of the problem, or just another symptom.
That being said, in my experience, excessive consumption and intoxication at work can cause problems at work. However, the vast majority of users don't smoke to that level of excess, especially before/at work. Excessive use of caffeine can cause just as many serious work problems, and many people routinely get wired before and at work.
There is no state (in the USA) where it is legal to grow or manufacture hemp. Even manufacturing with raw hemp is illegal. While hemp goods (clothing, paper, twine for hippie jewelry, etc) are legal, they are manufactured outside the US, and imported as "finished products".
Even if a particular state legalizes hemp production (or medical marijuana) it still violates Federal statutes, and the feds have repeatedly shown that they WILL prosecute. Licensed medical marijuana repositories in CA are routinely raided, and staff arrested and prosecuted.
Actually, the counterweight (which, unlike the article states, is farther out than Geostationary,) would pull any slack out of the cable with centrifugal force. Read up on space elevators - they require no added energy to stay in place. The only energy needed is to move the payloads.
Sure it's fair to ask them to re-invent the wheel. If I want to write photo editing software I can't just include Photoshop code - I have to write my own. That's the way commercial software works, why should OSS be any different? If you want to use OSS or commercial code you must respect the property rights of the people who wrote it. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, releasing code under the GPL does NOT mean relinquishing your property rights to that code. In fact, the intention of the GPL is to prevent someone else from usurping the developers property rights.
To expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code in a commercial app you create is selfish. Why should you make a profit from selling the fruit of another's labor?
If you want to use parts of Photoshop code in your own app, you have to negotiate with Adobe. They may be willing to license their code to you, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.
If you want to use GPL code in your app, you have to negotiate with the developer (or other copyright holder) of that code. They may be willing to dual license their code, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.
I guess you missed the part where real estate prices went up 40%. That's going to make it damn hard for young or first time buyers to own a home, not to mention the fact that people who already do own a home will see their tax assesment go up at least 40% also. For retired people on a fixed income that's going to mean living on cat food or loosing the family homestead. The only people who benefit from a real estate balloon like this are the people who own a lot of investment property - who obviously already have quite a bit of wealth. The rich get richer...
This is pure astroturf. I've seem this EXACT same post (word for word) submitted by an AC many times on this site, and several other forums, going back for over a year now. I suspect this is a RIAA shill who simply cut-and-pastes this every time he comes across a story about music downloading.
Besides, when is the last time you saw a Barney CD or The Gaither Family on a torrent site? The kind of music he claims to be selling isn't pirated hardly at all.
He claims he had a lot of buisiness, then it dropped off. That will happen once you've over saturated your market. Perhaps his buisiness is falling off because the people who want that kind of music already bought all they want? Assuming this guy is for real, and not just the astroturfer I suspect he is.
I've owned more than one buisiness. Some have suceeded, some haven't. The reason some failed is because there wasn't a sufficient market for my goods, or my buisiness model was defective. It was one or the other, sometimes both - but there was never any other reason. There never is ( unless you own a titty bar and they change the laws or zoning on you. I've never been in the adult entertainment business myself, but I've seen that happen.)
I don't condone illegal file sharing, but piracy isn't why this guy is going bankrupt. A poor buisiness model is. Perhaps he charges too much and a local Walmart is undercutting his prices, or people are buying (CDs) from an online store. Perhaps people simply don't like him, and don't want to do buisiness with him. Perhaps your "clean-cut" employees don't know the product - there's a lot more to good service than being friendly. A real enthusiasm for the product makes sales and chances are the young students making minimum wage aren't into "family" music.
The list could go on, but to sum it up - Grow Up and stop blaming others for your mistakes.
BTW, the DEA has admitted that they've lost the "War on Drugs". Drugs are much more common in schools now than they were before. I simply don't see the skill you mentioned, and have little doubt that a "War on Piracy" will simply escalate the problem.
AFAIK this exploit can be used over the net, but only if you've enabled remote logins in your Xconf. I'm not aware of any distro that does that by default, and the Xconf "sample" that comes with XFree86 or Xorg both have remote logins disabled.
I realize that it's too much too assume that anyone geek enough to enable remote X sessions is also geek enough to protect his system adequately, but most of the time that will be the case.
If you don't have an X server, what, pray tell, are the clients going to connect to? There HAS to be an X server running, although it could be on another box. Do you even understand how X windows works?
I think it has a lot to do with not wanting to sell before Christmas. Many people who are buying new PC's for the kids will do that at Christmas, and you'll see a lot of "Vista Ready" PC's being advertised. However, many of the new games that come out starting next year will use DirectX 10, which will only be available for Vista. This will create a lot of kids whining for an upgrade to Vista next Christmas.
Why sell it now (at OEM pricing, around $50US) when you can sell it a few months, maybe a year, later at upgrade prices (at least $100US). They even get to keep the 50 bucks they made selling the OEM copy of XP.
The PC makers like the idea because it will boost PC sales in the early part of the year, a traditionally slow period, but probably won't seriously impact Christmas sales.
I'm certainly no MS fan, but this sounds like another one of their defensive patents. MS has thousands of patents like this that they don't enforce, and don't really plan to. All they are probably doing is making sure someone else doesn't patent the idea and shut them out. Many big companies do this, including IBM.
As a musician I routinely record and mix music on my PC. I've recorded one track (stereo, so actually two tracks, while playing back up to 16 audio tracks with up to three real-time digital effects, plus another dozen MIDI tracks, at once without skipping a beat. All on a 900 Mhz Athlon. I'd be suprised if even my aging system couldn't handle more than 5 connections.
You only get a cut if you join the CRIAA. Also, at least in the US, if someone put his band's disc in a jukebox, the various "musician's guilds" like ASCAP and BMI will collect a "tax" and he won't get any of that unless he joins (and pays hundreds of dollars in dues) each organization. Even then, since payments are distributed according to popularity (as measured by record sales and radio play) he probably still won't get anything. I imagine (but don't know) that the criaa distributes it's ill-gotten booty by a similar scheme.
Actually, most of what you've wished for has been available for quite some time. A stage 3 install uses all binaries for the OS, and Mozilla (not sure about Firefox) is available as a binary. The ability to later re-compile any package from source is also available, though it does require a quick edit of a text file, IIRC.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even read the article you linked to? I quote (from your linked article):
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."
and
However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California
and
And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Why would they include the original copyright if they weren't using the code?
It's true that MS's use of BSD code was perfectly legal, and it's completely unfair to say MS "stole" it. However, the point remains. MS still uses code from BSD (which has ALWAYS been Open Source, just not GPL - the BSD license is an Open Source license) for it's Unix services, FTP, and a few other purposes. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not the point.
The "press release" by Fortify for this claims that Larry Suto performed the test. He has a reputation for faulty, perhaps even fraudulent, testing methods. He also only tested 11 specific Java apps (and Fortify sells "audited" versions of those apps). The tests were performed using Fortify's software, no other testing software was used. So the accuracy of this test relies on the accuracy of Fortify's software, which hasn't been independently tested as far as I can tell. The press release also mentions findings by the Forrester Group, who are well known for a history of spreading inaccurate FUD about non-MS software.
So, I guess you're one of those fools who bought into the "any marijuana use is automatically abuse" propoganda? The same has been said about alcohol. Yet the case of alcohol, the bible specifically endorses it's use. Nothing in the bible indicates marijuana is any different. The message the bible gives is one of moderation - not abstinence. Moderate marijuana use is not abuse. Smoking until you can't get the lighter aligned with the bowl, all day, everyday, is abuse. The fact is, the vast majority of marijuana users use it in moderation. The abusers are just much more obvious.
Coffee contains oils that will solute THC. Back when Hash was available I used to put some in my coffee. Warm it first so it's "fluffed" and it will dissolve in hot coffee. You get the stimulant quality of caffiene without getting the jitters, and the relaxing quality of pot without the laziness.
Let's not forget that the hemp flax breaking machine (which revolutionized hemp production the same way Whitney's Cotton Gin did the cotton industry) was also patented in 1937, making hemp much more economically viable than it was previously, much more so than wood pulp or petro-plastics.
Statistically, over 60% of all Americans over the age of 18 have used marijuana at least once. In almost every state that has had a legalization referendum it has passed. The reason politicians haven't made a platform on legalization are two-fold:
1. It doesn't have a big enough impact. People are far more concerned about the economy, terrorism, etc, and being pro-marijuana won't provide a significant increase in votes.
2. Running for office is expensive, and politicians depend on donations from Oil and Pharma companies. These companies have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal, and aren't going to donate money to anyone who comes out in favor of legalization.
Your supposition is erroneous. There is no evidence that marijuana use causes mental disorders, but there is a lot of evidence that people who have mental disorders are more likely to use drugs. In other words, the pot didn't make them crazy - they were already crazy and smoked pot in an attempt to self-medicate the problem. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana can mitigate the effects of a variety of mental disorders, so the pot probably kept them out of the nuthouse longer than they would have without it. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
When I was growing up there was a guy who routinely drove home drunk, about a 10 mile trip. He drove slowly, and would pull over and stop whenever he saw a car coming in either direction. The cops just ignored it, he was no danger to anyone. Mind you, this is a small rural community - that wouldn't fly anywhere there was more traffic. Of course, things are different now, and there's no way he'd get away with it.
It depends on the person. I have passed urine tests with only 3 days of abstinence, and no "cleaners" even though I was a heavy (all day, every day) user. Much depends on the amount of body fat, and other metabolic factors.
Many people are convicted of OWI (or DUI, whatever your state calls it) without a breath/blood test. Failure to pass a "roadside sobriety" test IS admissible in court. Most cops these days have been trained on the Horizontal Astigmatism Test (that's the one where the cop says "hold your head straight and follow my pen/finger/flashlight with your eyes). The HAT can detect a wide variety of drugs, legal and otherwise, and even show which type of drug you are on. When performed by a trained officer, and video taped, this is admissible in every state. Currently, in most areas, simply having marijuana and a means to smoke it (a pipe, papers, etc) in the vehicle is sufficient to garner a conviction.
Every point in your argument except the first points out that "it has been suggested" but no-one has every been able to prove any of it with any - even purely statistical - evidence. Who's suggesting these things? Your article doesn't say. I'll make a suggestion myself - these OPINIONS are "suggested" by the people who sponsored the study and want marijuana to remain illegal. With as much money as the government and pharma companies have put into proving marijuana is hazardous, if those dangers actually existed they would have been proven. There have been many studies showing marijuana can be used in effective treatment regimes to help treat Bi-Polar disorder, schizophrenia, some forms of autism, ADHD, and quite a few other mental disorders. There has never been ANY evidence that marijuana use alone causes any of the disorders you listed. Here's a clue - when a study says "it has been suggested" it means "this is what our sponsors wanted us to prove, but our findings didn't substantiate that whatsoever." Also, some of the commonly prescribed medications for those disorders have adverse interactions with marijuana, and using them together is worse than using nothing at all. Many of the studies that claim marijuana is detrimental are conducted with patients using those medications also, in conjunction with marijuana, but only marijuana is listed as a cause for the adverse reaction. My primary source for this is my housemate, a degreed pharmacologist. A simple google search will turn up a plethora of sources that verify the rest of the information I've provided.
It could be that the guy was just a slacker/idiot, and marijuana had nothing to do with it. You have absolutely no way of knowing if him being stoned was the cause of the problem, or just another symptom. That being said, in my experience, excessive consumption and intoxication at work can cause problems at work. However, the vast majority of users don't smoke to that level of excess, especially before/at work. Excessive use of caffeine can cause just as many serious work problems, and many people routinely get wired before and at work.
There is no state (in the USA) where it is legal to grow or manufacture hemp. Even manufacturing with raw hemp is illegal. While hemp goods (clothing, paper, twine for hippie jewelry, etc) are legal, they are manufactured outside the US, and imported as "finished products". Even if a particular state legalizes hemp production (or medical marijuana) it still violates Federal statutes, and the feds have repeatedly shown that they WILL prosecute. Licensed medical marijuana repositories in CA are routinely raided, and staff arrested and prosecuted.
Actually, the counterweight (which, unlike the article states, is farther out than Geostationary,) would pull any slack out of the cable with centrifugal force. Read up on space elevators - they require no added energy to stay in place. The only energy needed is to move the payloads.
Sure it's fair to ask them to re-invent the wheel. If I want to write photo editing software I can't just include Photoshop code - I have to write my own. That's the way commercial software works, why should OSS be any different? If you want to use OSS or commercial code you must respect the property rights of the people who wrote it. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, releasing code under the GPL does NOT mean relinquishing your property rights to that code. In fact, the intention of the GPL is to prevent someone else from usurping the developers property rights.
To expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code in a commercial app you create is selfish. Why should you make a profit from selling the fruit of another's labor?
If you want to use parts of Photoshop code in your own app, you have to negotiate with Adobe. They may be willing to license their code to you, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.
If you want to use GPL code in your app, you have to negotiate with the developer (or other copyright holder) of that code. They may be willing to dual license their code, or they may not. If they do, you can expect them to want something out of the deal.
I fail to see any real difference.
Tommy
I guess you missed the part where real estate prices went up 40%. That's going to make it damn hard for young or first time buyers to own a home, not to mention the fact that people who already do own a home will see their tax assesment go up at least 40% also. For retired people on a fixed income that's going to mean living on cat food or loosing the family homestead. The only people who benefit from a real estate balloon like this are the people who own a lot of investment property - who obviously already have quite a bit of wealth. The rich get richer...
Tommy
This is pure astroturf. I've seem this EXACT same post (word for word) submitted by an AC many times on this site, and several other forums, going back for over a year now. I suspect this is a RIAA shill who simply cut-and-pastes this every time he comes across a story about music downloading.
Besides, when is the last time you saw a Barney CD or The Gaither Family on a torrent site? The kind of music he claims to be selling isn't pirated hardly at all.
He claims he had a lot of buisiness, then it dropped off. That will happen once you've over saturated your market. Perhaps his buisiness is falling off because the people who want that kind of music already bought all they want? Assuming this guy is for real, and not just the astroturfer I suspect he is.
I've owned more than one buisiness. Some have suceeded, some haven't. The reason some failed is because there wasn't a sufficient market for my goods, or my buisiness model was defective. It was one or the other, sometimes both - but there was never any other reason. There never is ( unless you own a titty bar and they change the laws or zoning on you. I've never been in the adult entertainment business myself, but I've seen that happen.)
I don't condone illegal file sharing, but piracy isn't why this guy is going bankrupt. A poor buisiness model is. Perhaps he charges too much and a local Walmart is undercutting his prices, or people are buying (CDs) from an online store. Perhaps people simply don't like him, and don't want to do buisiness with him. Perhaps your "clean-cut" employees don't know the product - there's a lot more to good service than being friendly. A real enthusiasm for the product makes sales and chances are the young students making minimum wage aren't into "family" music.
The list could go on, but to sum it up - Grow Up and stop blaming others for your mistakes.
BTW, the DEA has admitted that they've lost the "War on Drugs". Drugs are much more common in schools now than they were before. I simply don't see the skill you mentioned, and have little doubt that a "War on Piracy" will simply escalate the problem.
AFAIK this exploit can be used over the net, but only if you've enabled remote logins in your Xconf. I'm not aware of any distro that does that by default, and the Xconf "sample" that comes with XFree86 or Xorg both have remote logins disabled.
I realize that it's too much too assume that anyone geek enough to enable remote X sessions is also geek enough to protect his system adequately, but most of the time that will be the case.
If you don't have an X server, what, pray tell, are the clients going to connect to? There HAS to be an X server running, although it could be on another box. Do you even understand how X windows works?
I think it has a lot to do with not wanting to sell before Christmas. Many people who are buying new PC's for the kids will do that at Christmas, and you'll see a lot of "Vista Ready" PC's being advertised. However, many of the new games that come out starting next year will use DirectX 10, which will only be available for Vista. This will create a lot of kids whining for an upgrade to Vista next Christmas.
Why sell it now (at OEM pricing, around $50US) when you can sell it a few months, maybe a year, later at upgrade prices (at least $100US). They even get to keep the 50 bucks they made selling the OEM copy of XP.
The PC makers like the idea because it will boost PC sales in the early part of the year, a traditionally slow period, but probably won't seriously impact Christmas sales.
I'm certainly no MS fan, but this sounds like another one of their defensive patents. MS has thousands of patents like this that they don't enforce, and don't really plan to. All they are probably doing is making sure someone else doesn't patent the idea and shut them out. Many big companies do this, including IBM.
As a musician I routinely record and mix music on my PC. I've recorded one track (stereo, so actually two tracks, while playing back up to 16 audio tracks with up to three real-time digital effects, plus another dozen MIDI tracks, at once without skipping a beat. All on a 900 Mhz Athlon. I'd be suprised if even my aging system couldn't handle more than 5 connections.
I'm pretty sure the EULA for Skype's software includes the standard part about "You may not modify ..."
You only get a cut if you join the CRIAA. Also, at least in the US, if someone put his band's disc in a jukebox, the various "musician's guilds" like ASCAP and BMI will collect a "tax" and he won't get any of that unless he joins (and pays hundreds of dollars in dues) each organization. Even then, since payments are distributed according to popularity (as measured by record sales and radio play) he probably still won't get anything. I imagine (but don't know) that the criaa distributes it's ill-gotten booty by a similar scheme.
Actually, most of what you've wished for has been available for quite some time. A stage 3 install uses all binaries for the OS, and Mozilla (not sure about Firefox) is available as a binary. The ability to later re-compile any package from source is also available, though it does require a quick edit of a text file, IIRC.