EPROM costs more than software bits. Besides, EPROMs are easily hacked too All modern video cards already have EEPROMs on them. In fact, that's precisely how both nvidia and ati differentiate their "professional" cards from their "consumer" cards. Ease of 'hacking' apparently isn't much of a concern because cards from both vendors have been 'upgradeable' in this manner for more than a decade.
Interesting that Linus himself did not put his name to the statement. One might argue that the Linux Foundation's endorsement is sufficient and that Linus's signature would be redundant. But if that were true, why did Theodore Ts'o put his name on the statement? He is part of the Foundation's management.
It is amazing how the GPL can get away with setting up borders and restrictions everywhere and claim that this is 'freedom'. The GPL has always been about the freedom of the end user. NOT freedom for the developer, nor his employer, nor anyone else.
In the ideal GPL world everything would be GPL, no more closed source software, no other licensed-software... No, in the ideal world, all software would come with complete source code. That's it.
No, the GPL is not free at all. Only fools who don't understand the GPL expect it to be about freedom for everyone.
I was referring to the one that's usually referred to as "free as in freedom". Was I wrong? Yes. You were wrong. That's why I said you were using the wrong definition.
There's no "copyrights are one thing, but the GPL is another" What part of "The GPL uses copyright law" do you fail to understand?
Copyrights are an artist's rights over their work False. If I thought you would listen to me, I would explain why.
information wants to be free, except when it's our information You fail to understand the meaning of that phrase. It is an anthropomorphism that refers to the fact that once you give information to someone, you have no control over what that person will do with that information. There is no "our information" or "their information" there is only information. It is not a collective wish or desire or belief about the status of information, it is simply a recognition of the nature of information itself. THE PHRASE DOES NOT REFER TO THE FREEDOM THAT THE GPL GUARANTEES TO THE END-USER.
But, as this is not the first time you've had this fact explained to you, please continue to ignore that the word "free" has multiple distinct meanings in the English language and pat yourself on the back for discovering this amazing flaw that "we" use the word "free" in multiple, unrelated ways. Its brilliant logic on your part, truly brill!
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
How can we decry copyrights as evil, when we keep trying to enforce the GPL? "We" decry copyrights as evil because they reduce the freedom of the end-user. The GPL uses copyright law to turn that situation around, effectively guaranteeing the freedoms of the end-user. There is no contradiction.
What if a company wants to use that piece of code, and not release the source for it? They are free to do so, the GPL does not restrict how a person or a company uses a piece of code. However, if they wish to distribute it to end-users beyond themselves, then they must ensure that those end users are given the same amount of Freedom that the company received.
Information wants to be free, you know. Precisely. Free as in Liberty, not as in price.
For the most part, they do. You see, no trespassing means no trespassing. Please don't tell me you are one of those lawyers you thinks the law of man trumps the laws of physics.
Sure.. And when you cannot secure it And the point here is that you CAN secure it. It is feasible to secure computer systems. Whereas it is not feasible to secure everyone against being killed in the street.
He got physical access to the machines. Once that happens, any protections in place can be defeated. That's not what the article says. Nor is that necessarily true - physical access to a computer does not yield keys used to encrypt data on the computer.
It doesn't matter how much evidence is left around, there is a law against those actions and people don't generally break the law. No, people break the law ALL THE TIME. The harder to enforce, the less meaningful a law is. Laws regarding computer crimes are almost impossible to enforce. But, computers do have the benefit of being much easier to secure than the real world. Its two sides of the same coin - you can pass all the laws you want against computer crime, but they will not be a deterrent precisely because a poorly secured system can be so easily compromised.
But your failure to deadbolt your house is not an open invitation for me to go in and take things that aren't mine. It doesn't absolve me from any criminal liability. No, but your failure to deadbolt your house DOES increase YOUR liability for the events that follow. Furthermore, just because the law prescribes certain penalties does not mean they are just or reasonable. For example, if the death penalty were mandatory for breaking and entering an unsecured home, you break in well then you deserve the death penalty. Not.
The problem is that he had to break the law and commit crimes to game the system. No, the problem is (lawyers) expecting computers to work like the physical world.
It is reasonable to expect people in the real world to behave lawfully because they tend to leave a lot of evidence behind when they do commit a crime, which makes detection feasible and it is unreasonable to fully secure 'the world' against unlawful actions because 'the world' is essentially an open system with infinite inputs and outputs.
However, a computer system can be made secure because there is only a limited set of attacks (the data in the computer is the only target that matters) so you only need defend against two categories of attack - data copying and data modification and all the variables and inputs and outputs are limited to only what's part of the computer system itself.
Sure it will cost something to completely defend against those two types of attacks, but its still a well defined and limited problem. It seems to me that if the punishment for succeeding with one of those attacks is 38 years of a person's life, then the value of the data is pretty high and thus properly securing it is worth the cost.
You can walk down the street without fear of dieing because murder is illegal. And when someone breaks that trust, they need to be punished. You are actually supporting my argument - killing someone in the street tends to leave a lot of evidence around - witnesses, physical evidence, etc, so deterrence is high because chances are they will be caught after the fact if not sooner. Similarly. it's impossible to 100% secure against getting killed in the street, the street is an open system with an infinite number of variables. So, short of just not using the street, it is infeasible to secure yourself against all possibles methods of being killed there so it is a risk we have no choice but to accept.
Those actions undermine society's trust in the system The emperor has no clothes.
Those actions don't change reality, they only change the perception of reality. We shouldn't put so much trust in the system to begin with -- if a teenager with a piss-poor GPA could rig the system, we ought to be asking how many other people have rigged the system already.
Anyway, because of how business works, WiMax is doomed to fail. If it's being touted as a cure for any current ills, I guarantee that it will fail. That marketing speak is the same as the run up to the war with Iraq. All lies and falsely reported intel. Yeah. Just the other day I saw Colin Powell in an Intel Wi-Max commercial pushing the idea of mobile wi-max labs on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.
Yet, obviously these caches will have to be legal content, which means filtering out illegal content, I don't know if you can make that assumption. We have a mechanism in place by which an ISP is essentially given immunity for hosting 'illegal content' - the much maligned DMCA notice. As long as they respond to DMCA notices, they have very little legal liability.
It seems plausible, at least, that an ISP could deploy a 'torrent sniffer' that automatically joined the swarms of any torrents that the ISP's users were in and then started to serve only local users from its cache. It might be possible to become a tracker spoofer such that the ISP could start redirecting all requests for cached content to itself rather than out over the (expensive/bottlneck) of peered connections.
So every once in a while they have to respond to a DMCA notice and kill a cache. Its not the end of the world, eventually someone else will come along and start a new torrent for the same content anyway and the game begins again.
Unfortunately, I think the only reason ISPs are not more interested in something like that which would deliberately follow the letter of the law is that they want to make nice-nice with the MAFIAA so that they can resell MAFIAA content directly to their own subscribers. If ISPs would stick to being INTERNET service providers and stop trying to diversify into being CONTENT providers I think we would already see such automated 'blind-eye' caching mechanisms in place.
Except what exactly does "material produced in france" actually mean? Are we talking french productions or any content sold in France? Like satellite television? Or BLU-RAY discs? Eh?
I'm thinking its the former, and when the lobbyists are done with it, it will probably be even less useful, like applying only to educational and academic content, or even better just content that is in the public domain.
Do it on a country wide scale (say every/. reader in France) and bingo, law will either be thrown out or the economy will collapse. Or rather it will just be selectively enforced and used to persecute people the authorities don't like, similar to what's happened with so many other laws.
In response to 2 - 4, there simply aren't any such things. We've just collectively as a western world decided that they are good things to have. China disagrees. Unless you care to explain to me why there are such things? All three of those in the list are the natural state of existence if no one were to interfere. Collectively, as a western world, we've decided to claim we don't interfere.
What is it that is "wrong" in the platform? The fact that the base implementation is solid enough that few others found need to rewrite that wheel? Because you get people coding to the bugs of the implementation without even realizing it, since it works after all. And then eventually you reach a point where new versions don't fix the bugs because too many systems depend on them. Sound like a monopolist you know?
If you don't have a secret clearance, then you probably didn't fill out an SF-86. Not sure what you were applying for, but it sounds like it probably didn't go through the same department that does clearances.
It hasn't changed. I've found that the 'youth oriented' shows (mostly CW and Fox content) fit your numbers, specifically 38+ minutes of show in an hour slot. Most of the crime procedurals are in the 41 minutes of content per hours range (CSI Miami which I watch because it's pretty and Cold Case which I archive because it will never be released on DVD due to music rights). I manually edit the commercials out on anything I archive and my standard sanity check to see if I got all the commercials or otherwise screwed up the editing is to look at the length of the edited version. So I am extremely confident in these numbers.
with low pay, be saddled bureaucracy, receive no public recognition, have to pass periodic drug, credit and background checks for security clearance, get crappy benefits and with no stock options. Regular secret clearances do not require drug testing. Background checks for secret clearances are also little more than checking arrest records and credit records - they don't even bother to call the references you put down on the SF-86 form. Also, if you work for a contractor doing the same work you will have the same security clearance requirements.
As for benefits, government jobs tend to have old-school benefits, like 20+ days of vacation and sick time that you can actually use, a pension and good health insurance. Most of the big military contractors don't provide their employees with anything nearly as nice and some of them, at least, reserve stock options for the execs.
I'm skeptical about the idea of malware that secretly downloads and hides kiddie porn--why would the malware developer do that? Because the original author of the malware is duking it out with his competitors and they have compromised his system enough to replace the periodic download and display of regular 'pornado' images with an accelerated rate of downloading a whole new set of images. Essentially a denial-of-service attack aimed at both the bots and the bots' servers.
I think this exchange is proof that RightBad=Insightful and LeftBad=Troll in the minds of some mods. Since mods are just regular people who have posted a few times, or even just meta-moderated sometimes, all you have done is say, "a handful of people out of the hundreds of thousands with accounts on slashdot hold simplistic political beliefs."
Wow! Keen fucking insight there. If it weren't for your magnificent pontification no one would have ever thought things worked like that. You should be on TV! Have you considered applying for Tim Russert's old job?
Is that thing out or what? Was the plan for the GPLv3 to dither until no one cared if it was changed all along? Its been out for just shy of year. Samba and Qt are both GPLv3 now.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, that's precisely how both nvidia and ati differentiate their "professional" cards from their "consumer" cards.
Ease of 'hacking' apparently isn't much of a concern because cards from both vendors have been 'upgradeable' in this manner for more than a decade.
Interesting that Linus himself did not put his name to the statement.
One might argue that the Linux Foundation's endorsement is sufficient and that Linus's signature would be redundant.
But if that were true, why did Theodore Ts'o put his name on the statement? He is part of the Foundation's management.
But, as this is not the first time you've had this fact explained to you, please continue to ignore that the word "free" has multiple distinct meanings in the English language and pat yourself on the back for discovering this amazing flaw that "we" use the word "free" in multiple, unrelated ways. Its brilliant logic on your part, truly brill!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
The GPL uses copyright law to turn that situation around, effectively guaranteeing the freedoms of the end-user.
There is no contradiction. What if a company wants to use that piece of code, and not release the source for it? They are free to do so, the GPL does not restrict how a person or a company uses a piece of code.
However, if they wish to distribute it to end-users beyond themselves, then they must ensure that those end users are given the same amount of Freedom that the company received. Information wants to be free, you know. Precisely. Free as in Liberty, not as in price.
It is reasonable to expect people in the real world to behave lawfully because they tend to leave a lot of evidence behind when they do commit a crime, which makes detection feasible and it is unreasonable to fully secure 'the world' against unlawful actions because 'the world' is essentially an open system with infinite inputs and outputs.
However, a computer system can be made secure because there is only a limited set of attacks (the data in the computer is the only target that matters) so you only need defend against two categories of attack - data copying and data modification and all the variables and inputs and outputs are limited to only what's part of the computer system itself.
Sure it will cost something to completely defend against those two types of attacks, but its still a well defined and limited problem. It seems to me that if the punishment for succeeding with one of those attacks is 38 years of a person's life, then the value of the data is pretty high and thus properly securing it is worth the cost.
You can walk down the street without fear of dieing because murder is illegal. And when someone breaks that trust, they need to be punished. You are actually supporting my argument - killing someone in the street tends to leave a lot of evidence around - witnesses, physical evidence, etc, so deterrence is high because chances are they will be caught after the fact if not sooner. Similarly. it's impossible to 100% secure against getting killed in the street, the street is an open system with an infinite number of variables. So, short of just not using the street, it is infeasible to secure yourself against all possibles methods of being killed there so it is a risk we have no choice but to accept.Those actions don't change reality, they only change the perception of reality. We shouldn't put so much trust in the system to begin with -- if a teenager with a piss-poor GPA could rig the system, we ought to be asking how many other people have rigged the system already.
It seems plausible, at least, that an ISP could deploy a 'torrent sniffer' that automatically joined the swarms of any torrents that the ISP's users were in and then started to serve only local users from its cache. It might be possible to become a tracker spoofer such that the ISP could start redirecting all requests for cached content to itself rather than out over the (expensive/bottlneck) of peered connections.
So every once in a while they have to respond to a DMCA notice and kill a cache. Its not the end of the world, eventually someone else will come along and start a new torrent for the same content anyway and the game begins again.
Unfortunately, I think the only reason ISPs are not more interested in something like that which would deliberately follow the letter of the law is that they want to make nice-nice with the MAFIAA so that they can resell MAFIAA content directly to their own subscribers. If ISPs would stick to being INTERNET service providers and stop trying to diversify into being CONTENT providers I think we would already see such automated 'blind-eye' caching mechanisms in place.
Except what exactly does "material produced in france" actually mean? Are we talking french productions or any content sold in France? Like satellite television? Or BLU-RAY discs? Eh?
I'm thinking its the former, and when the lobbyists are done with it, it will probably be even less useful, like applying only to educational and academic content, or even better just content that is in the public domain.
Collectively, as a western world, we've decided to claim we don't interfere.
If you don't have a secret clearance, then you probably didn't fill out an SF-86. Not sure what you were applying for, but it sounds like it probably didn't go through the same department that does clearances.
It hasn't changed. I've found that the 'youth oriented' shows (mostly CW and Fox content) fit your numbers, specifically 38+ minutes of show in an hour slot. Most of the crime procedurals are in the 41 minutes of content per hours range (CSI Miami which I watch because it's pretty and Cold Case which I archive because it will never be released on DVD due to music rights). I manually edit the commercials out on anything I archive and my standard sanity check to see if I got all the commercials or otherwise screwed up the editing is to look at the length of the edited version. So I am extremely confident in these numbers.
As for benefits, government jobs tend to have old-school benefits, like 20+ days of vacation and sick time that you can actually use, a pension and good health insurance. Most of the big military contractors don't provide their employees with anything nearly as nice and some of them, at least, reserve stock options for the execs.
Wow! Keen fucking insight there. If it weren't for your magnificent pontification no one would have ever thought things worked like that. You should be on TV! Have you considered applying for Tim Russert's old job?
BSD licensed, MIT licensed, etc code does not share in that power.