Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.
The corollary to this, of course, is that 20th Century judges have had 12 years to adjust their intellectual stance to accommodate 21st Century circumstances. GP's point stands.
I don't know what the suitable punishment for such poor punsmanship would be - probably something appropriate but not poetic, like a gag and a straitjacket, just to keep you from making puns about your punishment.
I think you missed the part where he mentions that he *gives* stuff (that he created) for free.
I didn't miss it at all. But his choice to give stuff away doesn't give him the right to take from others.
See? It's exactly this attitude - that you can't share without being a thief - that makes me want to punch someone in the face.
How dare you imply that I don't respect the rights of others? You should be ashamed. Just because you can't imagine a world in which sharing doesn't equate with stealing doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The stuff about an open Internet is 50%genuine principles, and 50% a pompous rationalization from greedy geeks who want free copies.
Ignoring the 'greedy' part, which is a gratuitous characterisation, yes, emphatically yes. I want free copies. It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
What people who bitch about piracy never adequately explain, when they're busy deriding the so-called pirates, is why according to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.
Sharing is a public good; everyone from Jesus to Hobbes to RMS[*] has espoused this principle. And you know what kind of person is most likely to share? The ones with the least. I live in a Least Developed Country, and the generousity shown here makes society in North America look absolutely sick.
And yet here we have the so-called content owners, who insist on transfer of authorship before they'll even consider distributing your material, telling me I can't have a working Internet because I wanted someone else to listen to a song? Imprisoning people just because they want to help me share? Fuck that.
And before you dare call me selfish or a thief, and before you accuse me of taking crumbs from the mouth of the poor, starving artist: I get paid to write, code and take photos, and yet I still manage to give almost all of that output away. If I can do it, then so can others. The plain fact is that others are thriving in this gift economy. The only ones who aren't are those complacent, sclerotic few who think that artificial scarcity is valid economics. Well, as far as I'm concerned, they can go rot.
-----------------
[*] Okay, visually that's not much of a gamut, but you get my point...
Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.
Unfortunately? Think again. According to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.
The National Guard and the U.S. Army live under very different rules my friend.
No argument from me on that count. But I believe the reference was to 'the military', of which the National Guard is most definitely a part.
And while this didn't involve exchange of fire (but did involve tanks and cavalry, whose movements can be deadly in close quarters), the Army has indeed been used against innocent American civilians.
That's assuming the military goes along with it. Having been in the military myself, and having family still in, I can tell you know that there are no orders issued by any commanding officer that would cause them to open fire on U.S. citizens unless their own lives were in imminent danger.
I know you believe this, but the Ohio National Guard beg to differ.
Ever notice that if you go to a pharmacy, even if there's nobody in front of you, it takes like 10-15 minutes to fill a prescription (we are presuming it wasn't filled before hand here)? They aren't being assholes or anything, it is that they take time to make sure things are done right. They check to make sure you aren't taking other meds that interact (doctors don't know all about drug interactions necessarily, pharmacists do) that it is the right drug from the right bottle, that it is not expired, the correct does, and so on. Usually a pharmacy tech will prep the prescription, and then the pharmacist will check it to make sure it is right.
My god, you're right!
Fellow Canadians! We've got to find out more about these 'pharmacy' things! There's not a minute to lose! Stop your seal hunting, feed the dog team later - American lives are at stake! Maybe the US can send us a navy Pharmacy Ship until we can build our own....
I won't VPN to my Alma-mater to Lexis-Nexis for you but if you have a lawful access to that database search for judgment referencing [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13, you will see the broadness of that judgment. Also remember that in a common law regime, judges are supposed to take under great consideration previous interpretation made by upper courts.
Lexis-Nexis?!? Use CanLII!! CanLII (the Canadian Legal Information Institute) is a vastly more valuable service, because it's free, comprehensive and accurate. And given that half the comments in this thread are to do with US corporate interests drowning out Canadian freedom, it's only right that we use the (free - did I mention free?) product of our own ingenuity, rather than relying on some proprietary and prohibitively expensive US commercial venture.
[Full disclosure: I work for the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute, a sibling organisation.]
Why would a developer work on this when there are other, more widely adopted platforms to develop on?
Ask Linus why he didn't just stick with Minix or SCO Unix, or bloody well install Windows on his 386.
Some people are just perversely obstinate about wanting to have things exactly thus and so. Some people don't give a damn whether what they're doing will be popular or not; they just want things to work their way. We call those people geeks.
No WAY am I pronouncing it 'speedy'. I'm a callin' it 'spidey'. That way, I can build wearable network monitors which vibrate at high frequencies when the web server gets bogged down.
And then.... I'll be able to interrupt my boss in mid-sentence and say, "Hang on, my spidey sensors are tingling..."
Well, I don't know about Perth, but in Ballarat last week, Ben Powell delivered an excellent run-down on the status of the AFACT v iiNet case to a fairly large and very interested audience.
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
I don't know what you intended, but what you wrote is patently false.
The output of a GPL program is not affected by the license in any way, shape or form.
If you take someone else's GPL software and you make changes to it, and you distribute those changes, then and only then does the GPL come into play.
Apple's software, on the other hand, is insidious because it does infect the output. You are forbidden from selling the output of that software on any service other than Apple's.
So if what you really meant to say is that GPL has no effect whatsoever on how you use the software (as opposed to how you distribute it), and that Apple's software does... then yes, I couldn't agree more.
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
The emptiness and cynicism of modern culture never ceases to astound me. I sometimes wonder if people don't make empty statements because nobody expects any better of them. Maybe it's all just one big, hollow Kabuki...
Well, I for one still think ideas actually matter more than motives. If Schmidt said something you disagree with, then take issue with that. If he didn't, then man up and admit that he's right.
What a stupid fucking statement about Windows PC. What is that even supposed to mean? How is a modern car comparable to a computer running Windows? What version of Windows are we talking about here?
Actually reading the linked article (pretty strange concept to read the article before posting, I agree, but sometimes we behave irrationally)....
Little known fact: According to my calculations, if fewer than 16 slashdotters actually RTFA, there's no guarantee that we're actually commenting on the same article.
I'd post a link to my research, but nobody's going to read it anyway....
The Linux kernel is 14 million lines of code alone, when I type in a password I'm guessing between the kernel, xorg and the browser at least double that. Even if only a tiny bit of the code paths are touched, what's to say there's not a trigger set up somewhere to peek at some buffers?
Let's say you're walking in a city of 14 million people. You stop at an ATM and enter your PIN. What's to say that one of those 14 million isn't watching, hoping to steal your PIN and then your money?
When you're wandering around in a city full of strangers, there are real security concerns, some of them supported statistically by the sheer impossibility of being able to trust every member of a given community. But even given those limitations, you can still maintain a decent level of confidence simply by keeping tabs on who's watching you.
But you've got other fish to fry when the bank itself says, 'You don't need to know about what security measures we've put into place. Just trust us.'
FOSS is not a cure-all, and making something open source doesn't magically make it secure or even trustworthy. The only benefit is that it makes it possible to verify. Which is more than can be said for proprietary software.
In manufacturing it's all about volume. If you make 10 times as many the price per unit drops by half or so. Make it and sell it everywhere.
You're ignoring the costs of marketing[*], supply chain management, vendor relations, legal compliance. technical certifications, tax and tariff issues, etc. etc.
If you're an existing computer seller (e.g. Dell, Lenovo), you've already got a significant investment in these areas, but if you're a small organisation whose target is the developing world, bootstrapping a global distribution network might seem like a distraction.
Of course, there are a number of ways to work around this, like forming a strategic partnership with a large distributor. But if history is any example, the large vendors are anything but enamoured with OLPC. Nonetheless, there are ways to achieve what you describe. I just don't think they're as trivial as you make them out to be.
------------- [*] I don't mean cheesy advertising shills, I mean marketing in the sense of determining how the whole supply chain is going to be managed, figuring out who to talk to, what volumes to anticipate, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.
The corollary to this, of course, is that 20th Century judges have had 12 years to adjust their intellectual stance to accommodate 21st Century circumstances. GP's point stands.
What's with the curly brackets around {unspoken}?
It's obviously a Perl hash reference. In other words, they're too stoned to talk.
Linus Torvald's words keep coming back to mind... "unholy abomination" I believe they were.
Hey! Don't look at me! I don't touch that GNOME 3 shit. I've been using a Mac for, like, forever.
Regards
Satan J. Lucipher, ESQ
I don't know what the suitable punishment for such poor punsmanship would be - probably something appropriate but not poetic, like a gag and a straitjacket, just to keep you from making puns about your punishment.
Punishment? Ha! You must be Gnu here...
Trampling by herd of angry gnus. That's poetic justice.
So... Gnus for Nerds, when they copy Stuff That Matters?
I think you missed the part where he mentions that he *gives* stuff (that he created) for free.
I didn't miss it at all. But his choice to give stuff away doesn't give him the right to take from others.
See? It's exactly this attitude - that you can't share without being a thief - that makes me want to punch someone in the face.
How dare you imply that I don't respect the rights of others? You should be ashamed. Just because you can't imagine a world in which sharing doesn't equate with stealing doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The stuff about an open Internet is 50%genuine principles, and 50% a pompous rationalization from greedy geeks who want free copies.
Ignoring the 'greedy' part, which is a gratuitous characterisation, yes, emphatically yes. I want free copies. It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
What people who bitch about piracy never adequately explain, when they're busy deriding the so-called pirates, is why according to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.
Sharing is a public good; everyone from Jesus to Hobbes to RMS[*] has espoused this principle. And you know what kind of person is most likely to share? The ones with the least. I live in a Least Developed Country, and the generousity shown here makes society in North America look absolutely sick.
And yet here we have the so-called content owners, who insist on transfer of authorship before they'll even consider distributing your material, telling me I can't have a working Internet because I wanted someone else to listen to a song? Imprisoning people just because they want to help me share? Fuck that.
And before you dare call me selfish or a thief, and before you accuse me of taking crumbs from the mouth of the poor, starving artist: I get paid to write, code and take photos, and yet I still manage to give almost all of that output away. If I can do it, then so can others. The plain fact is that others are thriving in this gift economy. The only ones who aren't are those complacent, sclerotic few who think that artificial scarcity is valid economics. Well, as far as I'm concerned, they can go rot.
-----------------
[*] Okay, visually that's not much of a gamut, but you get my point...
Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.
Unfortunately? Think again. According to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.
The National Guard and the U.S. Army live under very different rules my friend.
No argument from me on that count. But I believe the reference was to 'the military', of which the National Guard is most definitely a part.
And while this didn't involve exchange of fire (but did involve tanks and cavalry, whose movements can be deadly in close quarters), the Army has indeed been used against innocent American civilians.
That's assuming the military goes along with it. Having been in the military myself, and having family still in, I can tell you know that there are no orders issued by any commanding officer that would cause them to open fire on U.S. citizens unless their own lives were in imminent danger.
I know you believe this, but the Ohio National Guard beg to differ.
We need more apprenticeship like learning for lot's of fields.
Less need college for jobs that DON'T need it.
Er, judging by the above, I'd say:
No, son. You really should keep taking English courses. Really. Trust me on this one.
Ever notice that if you go to a pharmacy, even if there's nobody in front of you, it takes like 10-15 minutes to fill a prescription (we are presuming it wasn't filled before hand here)? They aren't being assholes or anything, it is that they take time to make sure things are done right. They check to make sure you aren't taking other meds that interact (doctors don't know all about drug interactions necessarily, pharmacists do) that it is the right drug from the right bottle, that it is not expired, the correct does, and so on. Usually a pharmacy tech will prep the prescription, and then the pharmacist will check it to make sure it is right.
My god, you're right!
Fellow Canadians! We've got to find out more about these 'pharmacy' things! There's not a minute to lose! Stop your seal hunting, feed the dog team later - American lives are at stake! Maybe the US can send us a navy Pharmacy Ship until we can build our own....
I won't VPN to my Alma-mater to Lexis-Nexis for you but if you have a lawful access to that database search for judgment referencing [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13, you will see the broadness of that judgment. Also remember that in a common law regime, judges are supposed to take under great consideration previous interpretation made by upper courts.
Lexis-Nexis?!? Use CanLII!! CanLII (the Canadian Legal Information Institute) is a vastly more valuable service, because it's free, comprehensive and accurate. And given that half the comments in this thread are to do with US corporate interests drowning out Canadian freedom, it's only right that we use the (free - did I mention free?) product of our own ingenuity, rather than relying on some proprietary and prohibitively expensive US commercial venture.
[Full disclosure: I work for the Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute, a sibling organisation.]
Why would a developer work on this when there are other, more widely adopted platforms to develop on?
Ask Linus why he didn't just stick with Minix or SCO Unix, or bloody well install Windows on his 386.
Some people are just perversely obstinate about wanting to have things exactly thus and so. Some people don't give a damn whether what they're doing will be popular or not; they just want things to work their way. We call those people geeks.
"[T]he SPDY (pronounced 'speedy') protocol ....
No WAY am I pronouncing it 'speedy'. I'm a callin' it 'spidey'. That way, I can build wearable network monitors which vibrate at high frequencies when the web server gets bogged down.
And then.... I'll be able to interrupt my boss in mid-sentence and say, "Hang on, my spidey sensors are tingling..."
(sound of crickets)
Well, I don't know about Perth, but in Ballarat last week, Ben Powell delivered an excellent run-down on the status of the AFACT v iiNet case to a fairly large and very interested audience.
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
I don't know what you intended, but what you wrote is patently false.
The output of a GPL program is not affected by the license in any way, shape or form.
If you take someone else's GPL software and you make changes to it, and you distribute those changes, then and only then does the GPL come into play.
Apple's software, on the other hand, is insidious because it does infect the output. You are forbidden from selling the output of that software on any service other than Apple's.
So if what you really meant to say is that GPL has no effect whatsoever on how you use the software (as opposed to how you distribute it), and that Apple's software does... then yes, I couldn't agree more.
Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK?
I dunno, the story lost all credibility for me when I read the phrase 'MySpace engineers'....
FeO is Ferrous Oxide not Iron Monoxide.
And FeB is Ferrous Bueller. What's your point?
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
The emptiness and cynicism of modern culture never ceases to astound me. I sometimes wonder if people don't make empty statements because nobody expects any better of them. Maybe it's all just one big, hollow Kabuki...
Well, I for one still think ideas actually matter more than motives. If Schmidt said something you disagree with, then take issue with that. If he didn't, then man up and admit that he's right.
What a stupid fucking statement about Windows PC. What is that even supposed to mean? How is a modern car comparable to a computer running Windows? What version of Windows are we talking about here?
Funny you should ask....
Dude, this is Slashdot. No car post is complete without a Windows analogy.
... a labio-dental voiceless fricative.
I don't know why, but I feel a little dirty after reading that.... Is that, like, Latin porn or something?
Actually reading the linked article (pretty strange concept to read the article before posting, I agree, but sometimes we behave irrationally)....
Little known fact: According to my calculations, if fewer than 16 slashdotters actually RTFA, there's no guarantee that we're actually commenting on the same article.
I'd post a link to my research, but nobody's going to read it anyway....
The Linux kernel is 14 million lines of code alone, when I type in a password I'm guessing between the kernel, xorg and the browser at least double that. Even if only a tiny bit of the code paths are touched, what's to say there's not a trigger set up somewhere to peek at some buffers?
Let's say you're walking in a city of 14 million people. You stop at an ATM and enter your PIN. What's to say that one of those 14 million isn't watching, hoping to steal your PIN and then your money?
When you're wandering around in a city full of strangers, there are real security concerns, some of them supported statistically by the sheer impossibility of being able to trust every member of a given community. But even given those limitations, you can still maintain a decent level of confidence simply by keeping tabs on who's watching you.
But you've got other fish to fry when the bank itself says, 'You don't need to know about what security measures we've put into place. Just trust us.'
FOSS is not a cure-all, and making something open source doesn't magically make it secure or even trustworthy. The only benefit is that it makes it possible to verify. Which is more than can be said for proprietary software.
In manufacturing it's all about volume. If you make 10 times as many the price per unit drops by half or so. Make it and sell it everywhere.
You're ignoring the costs of marketing[*], supply chain management, vendor relations, legal compliance. technical certifications, tax and tariff issues, etc. etc.
If you're an existing computer seller (e.g. Dell, Lenovo), you've already got a significant investment in these areas, but if you're a small organisation whose target is the developing world, bootstrapping a global distribution network might seem like a distraction.
Of course, there are a number of ways to work around this, like forming a strategic partnership with a large distributor. But if history is any example, the large vendors are anything but enamoured with OLPC. Nonetheless, there are ways to achieve what you describe. I just don't think they're as trivial as you make them out to be.
-------------
[*] I don't mean cheesy advertising shills, I mean marketing in the sense of determining how the whole supply chain is going to be managed, figuring out who to talk to, what volumes to anticipate, etc.