If you download from a mirror you should always check the MD5/SHA1 Sum to ensure that you are getting the proper files, and that they haven't been tampered with.
Agreed. Sites using mirrors should also provide instructions for less savvy users as to how to verify their binaries are un-tampered-with. A bit of education would mean lower rates of virus infection, which would be good for everyone.
Yes, it does. The copyright is the exclusive legal right to copy, print, publish, perform, etc. the work in question, held by the author or the author's assignees.
Copyright and "the right to make copies" are not logically equivalent and you know it. Copyright includes the right to make copies, but that doesn't make them the same thing. It's like saying "Parisian" and "French" are the same thing.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
I agree with the sentiment, but just want to point out that "copyright" doesn't mean the "right to make copies". Not logically and not etymologically.
IANAL, but do the libraries have the right to transfer the copyright to another entity ?
The Libraries don't have the copyright themselves, so they couldn't transfer it to someone else. The libraries have licence from the actual copyright owners to have the book on their shelves, but other rights are reserved.
You're right, he may or may not be talking about a standard CSS feature, but it's not as if there's no room for improvement in Firefox. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great, but there are still improvements to be made in terms of CSS rendering.
The whole point in this Free Software stuff is, if you think this is a bad thing, you're free to make a competing version.
Agreed, but that doesn't invalidate the original parent's complaint that his suggested patch for a standard CSS feature was ignored. Just because you can build another browser if you want doesn't mean you aren't allowed to want Firefox to support standards more closely.
What are you talking about? The fact you HAD the source code to the firefox browser allowed you to solve the problem within your company with no dependance upon anyone else.
But he didn't have the ability to distribute the fix as part of Firefox. There's no point fixing your own browser if it's client's or the public's browsers that matter.
Ghandi didn't take money from the British imperialists before beginning on his crusade for independence.
No, he took his education.
However, what he may or may not have taken is beside the point. Being a "karma bitch" (as the original parent so tastefully put it) doesn't depend on what you may or may not have taken from someone else. It's a matter of your motives for helping people, i.e. "doing good" so that you will be rewarded in some way at some time in the future, even if that reward is only a clear conscience.
Dude thanks! I finally know how to install this game on Linux. The last time I tried, I ended up causing my mother's computer to wardial her friends from her recipe club.
That was you?!!?? My mum's gonna kick your mum's ass!;)
Sorry for the offtopic, but I just don't like people succumbing to the idea that Ghandi and Mother Theresa somehow are saints and have done only good things.
Good point, in that it's always important to question assumptions. In this case I question the assumption that a 'saint' can't have done anything wrong. For example, St. Paul. But that's going further off topic... I'm stopping now.
I used Ghandi and Mother Theresa as examples because I wanted to get across the point that the original parent's description "karma bitch" could be applied to a much wider group than the musicians in question. I didn't mean to imply that Ghandi and Mother Theresa had never done anything wrong... I think it'd be pretty hard to find someone I could say that about.
You just admitted to my point. Moreover, you have taken the tag I created and posted it on another one of my fave karma bitch types: the bigot.
Have you ever given money for charity? If so, why did you do it? To satisfy your conscience perhaps? That would make you a "karma bitch" by your own definition.
The topic isn't quite as black and white as you're trying to imply.
They did give up all their principles, if they ever had any, when signing for Sony. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
This is the same logic that Bush used. You're either with us or with the terrorists. It's just fallacy. Empty rhetoric. It just sounds good.
Sony are not a "problem" they're a symptom. They're a company, created by commerce-based culture. If they go under, another company will form to take their place. Your problem is with the system that created them.
Also, comparing a bunch of entertainers to mother Theresa and Gandhi is downright laughable, and only serves to reinforce my perception that these guys are some sort of PR hoes.
Why? They're just human beings in the pubic eye. Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people. Just because you have them categorised into neat little boxes doesn't mean they have to conform to your definitions.
Oh, and good_press != heaven so there goes the rest of your argument. Go get some sleep, fanboy.
I'm going to ignore your childish insults and explain again.
You are *assuming* that these musicians are doing this for PR reasons. If they are doing that then, although your label of "karma bitch" might be valid, you have to apply that label in some places you might not expect in order for you critisism to be consistent, and hence for you not to be a hypocrite.
For example, the Catholic church (amongst many others, I apologise for using the easy target) preaches that if you don't follow their ways you will go to hell. It follows that people become Catholic to avoid going to hell. So, a catholic who performs a charitable act could be said to do so under the threat of hell. The same label of "karma bitch" could be applied, it's just that the reward comes in the afterlife instead of at a celebrity record launch.
Personally I disagree with your label of "karma bitch". I think that performing charitable acts in your own interests is perfectly acceptable. In fact, think that performing charitable acts is actually usually in your own interests, even if it's only to satisfy your conscience or to appear generous.
The artists are mere karma bitches, playing Sony for money and the general public for simpathy. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Do they have to give up all principles when they take payment from a record company? No. If doing something for the benefit of others (telling them how to get music onto their PC in this case) is being a "karma bitch" then you might as well make the same accusation of Ghandi and Mother Theresa (that bitch was only doing it so she could get into heaven).
Earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and terrorists and anal warts are all things to worry about, too, but we survive them.
Who survives them? We do not. You do. You have not been killed by one yet. Many, many people have, and will continue to die by hurricane, tornado, flood, earthquake, volcano, etc. in the past, present and future.
Do not judge other peoples' fortune by your own. Just because you survived anal warts, doesn't mean the guy down the street will.
Even WITHOUT the Kyoto Protocol, the planet's mean temperature is expected to increase by 6-8 degrees over the 300 years. I think we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon.
Global warming is predicted to continue, agreed. Just because it may or may not be caused by mankind or prevented by Kyoto doesn't mean it's nothing to worry about.
Try saying "I think we'll survive" in the context of rising water levels to the residents of New Orleans, or Bangladesh, or any of the places that suffered from flooding even at previous water levels. YOU might survive, WE might not be so privelaged.
Maybe it is a wrong impression, but that is what a good business woman
like myself sees.
A good businesswoman would know how to research the comparative costs of two options, she'd also know when to delegate a decision to a qualified professional rather than making a poorly informed decision.
If this is a serious post, rather than a wind-up, then it sounds like you're trying to find some information. However this is the wrong forum to do that. Slashdot is supposed to be for discussing news.
Can anyone suggest an unbiased place for non-technical people to learn about the differences between MS (I assume) and Linux?
Sure, ReiserFS is a full blown filesystem, and WinFS is not a filesystem, however the functionality of WinFS is included in ReiserFS. The fact that they operate at different levels is the reason for Reiser's remarks concerning ReiserFS and WinFS. That's his point. WinFS works on a user level to provide functionality that ReiserFS provides at the filesystem level, and Reiser feels that this is a more mature design.
Just in case anyone else has been watching this all go over their head: WinFS wikipedia entry
Saying: "Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights" Is very much like saying: "surely this is just a problem of buffer overflow. The summary seems to infer that general security issues are involved, rather than just a buffer overflow."
Slight misquote there. Cheeky. You chopped off the bit that said "general IP rights [to the service]". Possibly I could've been clearer but I was distinguishing the service (patents/copyright) from the name (trademarks). I'll ignore the slightly abusive tone of the rest of your post since you didn't understand.
Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights to the service are involved, rather than just the name.
Slashdot Mirror
If you download from a mirror you should always check the MD5/SHA1 Sum to ensure that you are getting the proper files, and that they haven't been tampered with.
Agreed. Sites using mirrors should also provide instructions for less savvy users as to how to verify their binaries are un-tampered-with. A bit of education would mean lower rates of virus infection, which would be good for everyone.
Yes, it does. The copyright is the exclusive legal right to copy, print, publish, perform, etc. the work in question, held by the author or the author's assignees.
Copyright and "the right to make copies" are not logically equivalent and you know it. Copyright includes the right to make copies, but that doesn't make them the same thing. It's like saying "Parisian" and "French" are the same thing.
No, the libraries have printed copies of the books, which they own. There's no "license" held by the library...
Please re-read my post. I didn't say the libraries had a licence, I said they had licence.. it means they have permission.
That's what I just said. Thanks for your time.
That's the "copy" part of "copyright". A library may lend a book to as many people as they like - one at a time. They may not copy it. The right to produce copies of a book is reserved to the author. Copy. Right.
I agree with the sentiment, but just want to point out that "copyright" doesn't mean the "right to make copies". Not logically and not etymologically.
IANAL, but do the libraries have the right to transfer the copyright to another entity ?
The Libraries don't have the copyright themselves, so they couldn't transfer it to someone else. The libraries have licence from the actual copyright owners to have the book on their shelves, but other rights are reserved.
You don't know it was a standard feature.
You're right, he may or may not be talking about a standard CSS feature, but it's not as if there's no room for improvement in Firefox. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great, but there are still improvements to be made in terms of CSS rendering.
The whole point in this Free Software stuff is, if you think this is a bad thing, you're free to make a competing version.
Agreed, but that doesn't invalidate the original parent's complaint that his suggested patch for a standard CSS feature was ignored. Just because you can build another browser if you want doesn't mean you aren't allowed to want Firefox to support standards more closely.
What are you talking about? The fact you HAD the source code to the firefox browser allowed you to solve the problem within your company with no dependance upon anyone else.
But he didn't have the ability to distribute the fix as part of Firefox. There's no point fixing your own browser if it's client's or the public's browsers that matter.
Ghandi didn't take money from the British imperialists before beginning on his crusade for independence.
No, he took his education.
However, what he may or may not have taken is beside the point. Being a "karma bitch" (as the original parent so tastefully put it) doesn't depend on what you may or may not have taken from someone else. It's a matter of your motives for helping people, i.e. "doing good" so that you will be rewarded in some way at some time in the future, even if that reward is only a clear conscience.
I've never given money to charity...
Well at least you're consistent.Dude thanks! I finally know how to install this game on Linux. The last time I tried, I ended up causing my mother's computer to wardial her friends from her recipe club.
That was you?!!?? My mum's gonna kick your mum's ass! ;)
Sorry for the offtopic, but I just don't like people succumbing to the idea that Ghandi and Mother Theresa somehow are saints and have done only good things.
Good point, in that it's always important to question assumptions. In this case I question the assumption that a 'saint' can't have done anything wrong. For example, St. Paul. But that's going further off topic... I'm stopping now.
I used Ghandi and Mother Theresa as examples because I wanted to get across the point that the original parent's description "karma bitch" could be applied to a much wider group than the musicians in question. I didn't mean to imply that Ghandi and Mother Theresa had never done anything wrong... I think it'd be pretty hard to find someone I could say that about.
You just admitted to my point. Moreover, you have taken the tag I created and posted it on another one of my fave karma bitch types: the bigot.
Have you ever given money for charity? If so, why did you do it? To satisfy your conscience perhaps? That would make you a "karma bitch" by your own definition.
The topic isn't quite as black and white as you're trying to imply.
They did give up all their principles, if they ever had any, when signing for Sony. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
This is the same logic that Bush used. You're either with us or with the terrorists. It's just fallacy. Empty rhetoric. It just sounds good.
Sony are not a "problem" they're a symptom. They're a company, created by commerce-based culture. If they go under, another company will form to take their place. Your problem is with the system that created them.
Also, comparing a bunch of entertainers to mother Theresa and Gandhi is downright laughable, and only serves to reinforce my perception that these guys are some sort of PR hoes.
Why? They're just human beings in the pubic eye. Look at Bob Geldof. He's an entertainer and he helps people. Just because you have them categorised into neat little boxes doesn't mean they have to conform to your definitions.
Oh, and good_press != heaven so there goes the rest of your argument. Go get some sleep, fanboy.
I'm going to ignore your childish insults and explain again.
You are *assuming* that these musicians are doing this for PR reasons. If they are doing that then, although your label of "karma bitch" might be valid, you have to apply that label in some places you might not expect in order for you critisism to be consistent, and hence for you not to be a hypocrite.
For example, the Catholic church (amongst many others, I apologise for using the easy target) preaches that if you don't follow their ways you will go to hell. It follows that people become Catholic to avoid going to hell. So, a catholic who performs a charitable act could be said to do so under the threat of hell. The same label of "karma bitch" could be applied, it's just that the reward comes in the afterlife instead of at a celebrity record launch.
Personally I disagree with your label of "karma bitch". I think that performing charitable acts in your own interests is perfectly acceptable. In fact, think that performing charitable acts is actually usually in your own interests, even if it's only to satisfy your conscience or to appear generous.
The artists are mere karma bitches, playing Sony for money and the general public for simpathy. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Do they have to give up all principles when they take payment from a record company? No. If doing something for the benefit of others (telling them how to get music onto their PC in this case) is being a "karma bitch" then you might as well make the same accusation of Ghandi and Mother Theresa (that bitch was only doing it so she could get into heaven).
Earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and terrorists and anal warts are all things to worry about, too, but we survive them.
Who survives them? We do not. You do. You have not been killed by one yet. Many, many people have, and will continue to die by hurricane, tornado, flood, earthquake, volcano, etc. in the past, present and future.
Do not judge other peoples' fortune by your own. Just because you survived anal warts, doesn't mean the guy down the street will.
Um, it _has_ happened in the past. Many many times life has been almost completely wiped out. For example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction wiped out 95+% of life.
Or the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth.
Even WITHOUT the Kyoto Protocol, the planet's mean temperature is expected to increase by 6-8 degrees over the 300 years. I think we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon.
Global warming is predicted to continue, agreed. Just because it may or may not be caused by mankind or prevented by Kyoto doesn't mean it's nothing to worry about.
Try saying "I think we'll survive" in the context of rising water levels to the residents of New Orleans, or Bangladesh, or any of the places that suffered from flooding even at previous water levels. YOU might survive, WE might not be so privelaged.
Wow. You really need to check your facts.
Maybe it is a wrong impression, but that is what a good business woman like myself sees.
A good businesswoman would know how to research the comparative costs of two options, she'd also know when to delegate a decision to a qualified professional rather than making a poorly informed decision.
If this is a serious post, rather than a wind-up, then it sounds like you're trying to find some information. However this is the wrong forum to do that. Slashdot is supposed to be for discussing news.
Can anyone suggest an unbiased place for non-technical people to learn about the differences between MS (I assume) and Linux?
Anyone else find this just a little ironic?
In the Alanis Morissette sense of the word, yes. ;)
Sure, ReiserFS is a full blown filesystem, and WinFS is not a filesystem, however the functionality of WinFS is included in ReiserFS. The fact that they operate at different levels is the reason for Reiser's remarks concerning ReiserFS and WinFS. That's his point. WinFS works on a user level to provide functionality that ReiserFS provides at the filesystem level, and Reiser feels that this is a more mature design.
Just in case anyone else has been watching this all go over their head: WinFS wikipedia entry
Saying: "Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights" Is very much like saying: "surely this is just a problem of buffer overflow. The summary seems to infer that general security issues are involved, rather than just a buffer overflow."
Slight misquote there. Cheeky. You chopped off the bit that said "general IP rights [to the service]". Possibly I could've been clearer but I was distinguishing the service (patents/copyright) from the name (trademarks). I'll ignore the slightly abusive tone of the rest of your post since you didn't understand.
To appear intellectual, call yourself G-Itchy Rich
I used to be called Easy Rich, but Stelios sued my ass back into short trousers.
Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights to the service are involved, rather than just the name.