Well, this thing is better because you don't have to have a mac to use it. It looks like it should work with linux, mac, or windows. So it should appeal to a much wider audience. Now, if the ipod would work with other OSes, then this cd burner would either have to die or drop it's price drasticly to survive. I think the ipod is a really cool device, but as long as it's mac only, it's useless to most people.
I think this burner is supposed to transfer any type of file, not just mp3s.
What happened to the days when you could install a perfectly functional Linux system with X, apache, perl,gcc, etc. in less than 40 MB ?
The same thing that happened to the days when a 486 was top of the line. If your idea of linux perfection is a 40 mb install, then Mandrake is probably not for you.
Oh, I've only been using Linux for a little more than two years, but I find it hard to believe that you could ever install all of that in 40 mb.
I'm thinking in terms of being able to do almost anything you want to do without wanting for memory. I think 128 would be just fine, but with memory as cheap as it is now why not beef it up. You can get 256 mb for around $80 US. I remember paying that much for two 8 mb simms in 1996.
I was talking about the clients too. If your telneting or ftping to a remote server, all your info (id, password) is transmitted clear text. These can be sniffed. I don't know the specifics of how this is done, but I do know someone who recently had his box rooted because of this.
Losing ftp and telnet is an inconvenience of course, but security often has such trade offs. I don't really miss telnet, ssh is just as easy, but I do miss ftp. I suppose you could always keep the ftp client for use on anonymous servers only and use scp for anything that requires a secret id, password.
Mandrake does have a lot of bells and whistles, but I think their target user is someone who wants the best of both worlds, a powerful unix system and a beautiful, easy to use system. And as far as telnet and ftp are concerned, I applaud them for leaving them out. They're terribly insecure. People should use ssh instead.
64 megs just isn't enough now days. I'm still using Windows 95 here at work and my system is really bogged down with only 64 mb of ram (mostly because of the apps I use, not the OS). I would say that 128 mb is the new minimum. And if you're going to try to run the latest greatest software (like the Mandrake 8.1 distro), you're going to need 256 or better. Don't expect to be able to keep upgrading to the newest software unless you upgrade your hardware as well.
There's a story on Newsforge about the LinuxDA device. Their CEO sounds like a jerk. If what the article suggests is true, I certainly wouldn't given them my business.
All of your posts that I read up to the point where I first responded where about why people are angry at the US. And guess what, I agree, but your timing stinks and it comes across as trying to justify the terrorist attacks. If you were'nt trying to justify it, then you should have made your intentions more clear. Personally I think the creation Israel where it is was a real boneheaded move, it's caused more problems than any other single event I can think of. And I have never been in favor of our sending money and weapons to them. But as an ordinary citizen, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. And the recent events pretty much guarantee that we won't stop supporting Israel. That would look like we were giving in to terrorism, and we can't do that.
If you want to educate people about the other side of an issue like this, then fine, but remember that there is a time and place for everything. And the day of the attack was definately not the right time to explain the side of the people we see burning our flag on TV. I've been sick of the anti-American attitude of what seems like the rest of the world for a long time, and the recent events have pushed me over the edge. Where I might have been willing to see their side of things before, I can have no sympathy for them right now.
Why am I fucked up, because I don't buy in to your inane comments, your support for this terrible act? You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about something and you've finally found a forum that listens to your ranting.
And what people think I'm wrong, the slashdot moderators? Do you think that I'm in the minority because I'm infuriated by what happened and at anyone who supports it. Do you think that you're in the majority in thinking that the US deserves this attack. If so, then you have not only not paid attention to the news today, but you've completely lost touch with reality. You've done nothing today but make excuses as to why the US deserves this attack. How can you call yourself human when you take such great pleasure in great suffering?
You seem quite happy about todays events. You've been posting all day about this and I've seen several of your comments. You obviously have a hatred of the US and you're using the events in Israel and Palestine to try and justify what happened today. And don't say that you aren't, don't say that you abhor today's events, because you know deep in your heart that you love it. You've made your feelings quite clear. You're a real piece of shit if you can justify the number of innocent lives taken today, you're no better than the terrorists themselves.
I have to start with this comment. If you don't think that putting cameras like this on every street is a loss of a Right, then you are blind.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
We're not talking about being observed, or in other words seen. We're talking about being monitored, about having your face scanned and compared to a database. That is fundamentaly different than being observed. And it's very different than simply having your picture taken. "Expectation of privacy" is not a legal term. There is a "Right to privacy" in my legal dictionary which I think is what you're talking about. According to that, there is a right to privacy, in the absence of a reasonable public interest. Now, I'm not going to argue with you about the term "reasonable", but the fact is that this right of privacy does exist, even in public. I don't know where you get your legal advice, but I hope you didn't pay a lot for it.
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public?
I never said that, why do you pretend that I've said something I haven't and then proceed to argue that non-existent statement? I don't think that we should ban police from the street, I'm talking about surviellance camers.
What about if a tourist video tapes you and they happen to see someone that looks similar on America's Most Wanted? Should we ban all cameras in public? What's the difference?
The difference is that the tourist isn't actively scanning every face in the crowd against a database. Of course you know that, but you ignore the fact because it doesn't support your position. A tourist's tape may be used as evidence after the fact, but the goal and design of a survielance camera is completly different. It scrutinizes you whether you've done anything illegal or not. And who is to say that these devices will always be used in the right way? Can you honestly say that you think every law on the books is good and just. These things can be used to enforce unjust laws as easily as they're used to enforce just laws. That's the real fear with these devices. It's a very powerful weapon which can be used in forcing the will of the government over that of the people, instead of the other way around which is one of the ideals this country was founded on.
to tell me what my expectations are. Of course I have an expectation of privacy on the street, in a restaraunt, where ever. I expect not to be constantly monitored by the police, I expect to be innocent until proven guilty. Just because your willing to give up all your rights in exchange for this "public saftey" you talk about (what ever the hell that is), doesn't mean everyone is. In case you haven't figured this out yet, life is dangerous, you cannot make it perfectly safe with legislation or more police or cameras on every corner. And if you think you can, you're an idiot with no sense of historical perspective.
I've got a deal for you, why don't you and everyone else who doesn't mind being monitored 24/7 just wear a radio collar so the police can keep up with you and make sure you're not doing anything wrong. The rest of us will just continue with our lives as they are.
The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught.
Wrong! The only people who do want this are the sheep who don't understand that by agreeing to this kind of thing in the name of public saftey, they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have. Another poster said it, but's it's worth repeating, Rights just don't disappear, they're slowly eroded away over time.
Thats a pretty poor excuse for an apology. He didn't mention all of the pseudonyms he used and I don't think he came clean as to why he did it. "fostering lively debate" my ass. He was trying to influence the debate and in a dishonest manner. Anonymous postings are fine for readers, but an editor should be held to a higher standard, at least where his own paper/website are concerned.
A lot of the talkbacks left on the page so far really astound me, how can these people be so quick to forgive something like this. Personnaly, I would find it hard to trust anything this guy, or Linux Today publishes.
We are not criticizing the open source community, nor do we have any wish to do so. We are raising concerns about one specific open source license - the GPL - because we believe these concerns are important to the future of the software industry and the customers we serve.
Mundie is basically trying to separate the the people who support open source software into two groups, those that think the GPL is good and will continue to support it, and those who either already don't like it or can be convinced that it's bad.
They're attacking what they see as the biggest threat to their way of business, the GPL. I see this as a sort of proof that the GPL works. It's point is to ensure that software is kept free (as in speech). This is exactly the opposite of Microsoft's goal, which is to control every bit of software you use. Don't be mistaken, Microsoft doesn't like any sort of open source software, they're simply using tactics designed to separate the whole and detroy it one piece at a time.
Is it really protected, I mean in terms of it continuing to be worked on. Aren't the majority of developers Netscape employees? Sure the source will be there, but unless someone fixes it, I don't consider it to be a viable browser. On windows, I'd rather stick with IE. On linux, I'll probably use Konq.
Flay's arrogance is embarrasing to me as an American. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that he made an ass of himself on the first Iron Chef. It's ok for him to act like that in a US event in front of a US audience where they expect and even desire that kind of thing, but in an international setting, it's completely out of place.
Maybe he'll get electrocuted for real this time.
I use R&R Report Writer for this type of thing. Its extremely easy to use and can create some very complex reports. It has a number of exporting options, although the only ones I've really found useful are export to dbf, spreadsheet, or delimited text. You can of course create a pdf out of it if you've got Adobe Exchange. Although I use the version that works with dbf files, there is also an SQL version which I think supports ODBC. You can also use their "runtime" facility to create batch report jobs. This way you can run multiple reports automatically or you can run a string of reports that each use data exported from the previous one. You can call these jobs from a.bat file or from within a FoxPro program (I think there may be some other methods as well).
I see a lot of comments which mention Crystal Reports. I've got it installed on my computer, but every attempt to use it has left me frustrated. It is a truely evil piece of software. R&R is far easier to learn in my opinion, and there has been very little I haven't been able to do with it, and I don't think Crystal Reports would have helped in those situations either. Being able to create an informative, professional looking report quickly is very valuable and I don't think the added complexity of Crystal Reports is beneficial.
No, my argument doesn't use the buzz word of the year "IP". It also has nothing to do with right and wrong. Right and wrong are largely subjective and I try to stay out of the business of deciding which is which. My point is that no one has shown that the RIAA has been economically harmed by Napster or its like.
Are you implying that individuals can't be pirates, or that pirates aren't individuals?
No, I simply needed two different terms, for the purpose of this discussion, to differentiate people who download music for their own use and those who duplicate CDs for sale (Yes there are differences, and scale is just one. The other relates to harm done).
Just because the RIAA charges artificially high prices does not make it any more right to steal from them.
There you go with that right and wrong stuff again. Think about where you get your idea of right and wrong. What's your reasoning? It's a very difficult thing to quantify. Also, what is it that I'm supposed to have stolen from them (and please don't say IP). Tell me what's their actual real world loss? Is it the $20 I would have spent on a cd? Like I said before, there's no guarantee that I would have bought the cd if the download wasn't there. If cd sales have increased as a result of Napster, how have they been harmed. This is a key point, for example, you must show that you have been damaged in order to receive damages in a lawsuit.
Pardon me? No, it isn't. Hackers are those who jury-rig or recode stuff (the "Scottys" of the computer world) and crackers are people who break other people's systems or software for fun or profit. Pirates are just pirates.
I meant only in terms of people using the wrong terminology. A person who downloads a song off of Napster for their own use is not a pirate. The term pirate is a loaded word used to elicit a predictable emotional response. By labeling someone who downloads a few mp3s off of Napster a pirate, you demonize that person by assinging to him every negative image that the word pirate brings with it.
In either case, your argument needs rethinking.
My argument is fine as long as we agree on a few assumptions. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it, economics and logic do. The RIAA/MPAA is taking these measures to maintain their monopoly power, not because some kid is stealing metallica songs(Do you really think they care about right or wrong? What they care about is money). They won't say this of course because it would sound bad. You seem to accecpt their lies and you even go so far as to help spread the lies around for them.
A corporation is a rational thing, they're not going to go after someone on Napster/Gnutella just because. If they go after them, they have a reason for it. All I'm trying to do is point out the real reason, it's not because they think they're losing cd sales. Its because they are afraid of losing control over the supply of music.
Slashdot has continually said that the MPAA should got after individual copyright infrigers rather than services like Napster.
There is a difference between an individual downloading a Brittney Spears song and a music pirate who copies CDs/DVDs in bulk and sells them for profit. It has not been shown, and I do not believe that individuals downloading mp3s for their own use has harmed artists or the RIAA. First of all, it can not be proven that the individuals do not already have the cd or that they will not purchase the cd in the future. Secondly, and most importantly, it can not be proven that the individual would have ever bought the cd if the download wasn't available. By confusing individuals with pirates, your helping spread RIAA/MPAA propaganda and contributing to their efforts to maintain their monopolies and in turn to harm consumers by charging artificially inflated prices. Its sort of like the whole hacker/cracker debate.
The bottom line is that the MPAA should not be going after individuals, the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits they receive from forcing that individual to buy a tape,cd,dvd or whatever. I think they know this and are just trying to use intimidation to help maintain their monopoly. That's one of the reasons they're going after individuals, first, its much easier than tackling some overseas pirate operation and second, the profits they receive from being a monopoly are much greater than those they lose to pirates who are selling their movies/music.
The people most harmed are the musicians. When you pirate music, you are stealing from the artist who slaved to create it for you. Gnutella and Napster are theft on a huge and organised scale.
There's one important point that you, the MPAA, the RIAA, and almost everyone else is missing. No one, especially not you, has shown that artists have been harmed by the trading of music over the internet. In fact, I've heard that CD sales have actually increased due to the existence of Napster. I myself have actually used Gnotella to research different types of music and to make a CD purchase. That's a CD I probably never would have bought without the help of Gnotella.
The fact that millions of ordinary Americans engage in this theft is no excuse - ethically and legally, it is wrong.
Congradulations, you've apparently fallen for the industry's (MPAA, RIAA) propaganda. Not all users of these systems are thieves. Consumers want choice, and will do what's in their best interest. If the industry continues to fight basic economic priniples, the consumers will continue to suffer. The industry is basically trying to extract every bit of profit from the consumer. They are in fact trying to extract monopolistic profit (Or do you have another explaination for region coded DVDs? Can you say price fixing? That practice has been found to harm consumers and the economy and is actually illegal in the US.) The industry has created this black market through their bullying of consumers. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Also, it is not a forgone conclusion that this trading of music is unethical. People are simply behaving as economics would have them behave. Give people a better choice and they'll take it. Also remember that some degree of music trading is be inevitable and should be ignored (Because the cost of trying to stamp out the last few percent far outweighs the benefits).
I've actually been working on a program that will make my computer be an intelligent ringer for my phone. It will also print out the caller-id info to the screen and log it. It will also check the time and decide whether or not its too late to ring the phone. It's still in a very primitive stage right now though. There are alot of caller-id progs out there to learn from, although I'm having a hard time reading and understanding other people's code. Just do a search for caller id on Freshmeat.
I had the idea that I wanted to log that info to a database where I could then assign a priority number to each record in a table that contained unique numbers. Telemarketers and pests might get a priority of 0 which would mean the phone wouldn't ring. If a standard format for a blackhole list existed, maybe it could be distributed a la junkbuster. Maybe then we could do for ourselves what the phone company should be doing in the first place, block telemarketers.
A more polished service might even be built around this to provide this sort of functionality to those who don't have computers, which is what I think your talking about, a smart answering machine. I believe that this is a product you will eventually see on the market, its just a matter of when. In the mean time, some people will make their own.
As far as the law is concerned, OpenSSH should probably be able to keep its name. But like the commercial says, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should.
OSS should take the high road and just rename itself. If OpenSSH does it now, then they can say they made their own decision and did it because they wanted to. If they wait too long, then stronger words will be used by both sides, and pretty soon emotions take over and you can kiss common sense and cooperation goodbye.
So, OpenSSH, change your name, not because you have to, but because you can. Be altruistic. I think that's the best outcome that will make everyone feel good about themselves and others.
My situation concerns state government agencies, where the organizational chart of each agency would be viewed by people outside the organization, such as legislators, executive branch personnel, etc..
That combined with a large number of people (about 40,000 statewide), creates the need for something more efficient than the methods currently being used. My major desire is for a system which uses a database to store data and generate graphs. I've read about tree traversal algorithms which describe the location of each position on a chart, and which sounds like good logic to use in such an application. Relative to other complex software out there, this should be a fairly simple thing (although still beyond my capabilities I'm afraid), and it suprises me that it hasn't already been done. Many companies use org charts, they're not necesarry for most, but it allows information to be absorbed more easily when its presented as a graph.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this burner is supposed to transfer any type of file, not just mp3s.
Oh, I've only been using Linux for a little more than two years, but I find it hard to believe that you could ever install all of that in 40 mb.
I'm thinking in terms of being able to do almost anything you want to do without wanting for memory. I think 128 would be just fine, but with memory as cheap as it is now why not beef it up. You can get 256 mb for around $80 US. I remember paying that much for two 8 mb simms in 1996.
Losing ftp and telnet is an inconvenience of course, but security often has such trade offs. I don't really miss telnet, ssh is just as easy, but I do miss ftp. I suppose you could always keep the ftp client for use on anonymous servers only and use scp for anything that requires a secret id, password.
If you want to educate people about the other side of an issue like this, then fine, but remember that there is a time and place for everything. And the day of the attack was definately not the right time to explain the side of the people we see burning our flag on TV. I've been sick of the anti-American attitude of what seems like the rest of the world for a long time, and the recent events have pushed me over the edge. Where I might have been willing to see their side of things before, I can have no sympathy for them right now.
And what people think I'm wrong, the slashdot moderators? Do you think that I'm in the minority because I'm infuriated by what happened and at anyone who supports it. Do you think that you're in the majority in thinking that the US deserves this attack. If so, then you have not only not paid attention to the news today, but you've completely lost touch with reality. You've done nothing today but make excuses as to why the US deserves this attack. How can you call yourself human when you take such great pleasure in great suffering?
I have to start with this comment. If you don't think that putting cameras like this on every street is a loss of a Right, then you are blind.
Obviously you don't know what the phrase "expectation of privacy" means. In legal terms, it means that you expect to be unobserved. In public (particularly a restaurant, sheesh), by definition, you can't expect to be unobserved.
We're not talking about being observed, or in other words seen. We're talking about being monitored, about having your face scanned and compared to a database. That is fundamentaly different than being observed. And it's very different than simply having your picture taken. "Expectation of privacy" is not a legal term. There is a "Right to privacy" in my legal dictionary which I think is what you're talking about. According to that, there is a right to privacy, in the absence of a reasonable public interest. Now, I'm not going to argue with you about the term "reasonable", but the fact is that this right of privacy does exist, even in public. I don't know where you get your legal advice, but I hope you didn't pay a lot for it.
So then, do you think that all police should be banned from the streets, unless there is a crime in progress? No policeman should be allowed to view you in public?
I never said that, why do you pretend that I've said something I haven't and then proceed to argue that non-existent statement? I don't think that we should ban police from the street, I'm talking about surviellance camers.
The difference is that the tourist isn't actively scanning every face in the crowd against a database. Of course you know that, but you ignore the fact because it doesn't support your position. A tourist's tape may be used as evidence after the fact, but the goal and design of a survielance camera is completly different. It scrutinizes you whether you've done anything illegal or not. And who is to say that these devices will always be used in the right way? Can you honestly say that you think every law on the books is good and just. These things can be used to enforce unjust laws as easily as they're used to enforce just laws. That's the real fear with these devices. It's a very powerful weapon which can be used in forcing the will of the government over that of the people, instead of the other way around which is one of the ideals this country was founded on.
I've got a deal for you, why don't you and everyone else who doesn't mind being monitored 24/7 just wear a radio collar so the police can keep up with you and make sure you're not doing anything wrong. The rest of us will just continue with our lives as they are.
The only people who don't want this are 1) criminals, and 2) people who cheat on their spouses and don't want to get caught.
Wrong! The only people who do want this are the sheep who don't understand that by agreeing to this kind of thing in the name of public saftey, they are slowly giving up every shred of personal freedom they have. Another poster said it, but's it's worth repeating, Rights just don't disappear, they're slowly eroded away over time.
A lot of the talkbacks left on the page so far really astound me, how can these people be so quick to forgive something like this. Personnaly, I would find it hard to trust anything this guy, or Linux Today publishes.
Mundie is basically trying to separate the the people who support open source software into two groups, those that think the GPL is good and will continue to support it, and those who either already don't like it or can be convinced that it's bad.
They're attacking what they see as the biggest threat to their way of business, the GPL. I see this as a sort of proof that the GPL works. It's point is to ensure that software is kept free (as in speech). This is exactly the opposite of Microsoft's goal, which is to control every bit of software you use. Don't be mistaken, Microsoft doesn't like any sort of open source software, they're simply using tactics designed to separate the whole and detroy it one piece at a time.
I see a lot of comments which mention Crystal Reports. I've got it installed on my computer, but every attempt to use it has left me frustrated. It is a truely evil piece of software. R&R is far easier to learn in my opinion, and there has been very little I haven't been able to do with it, and I don't think Crystal Reports would have helped in those situations either. Being able to create an informative, professional looking report quickly is very valuable and I don't think the added complexity of Crystal Reports is beneficial.
No, my argument doesn't use the buzz word of the year "IP". It also has nothing to do with right and wrong. Right and wrong are largely subjective and I try to stay out of the business of deciding which is which. My point is that no one has shown that the RIAA has been economically harmed by Napster or its like.
Are you implying that individuals can't be pirates, or that pirates aren't individuals?
No, I simply needed two different terms, for the purpose of this discussion, to differentiate people who download music for their own use and those who duplicate CDs for sale (Yes there are differences, and scale is just one. The other relates to harm done).
Just because the RIAA charges artificially high prices does not make it any more right to steal from them.
There you go with that right and wrong stuff again. Think about where you get your idea of right and wrong. What's your reasoning? It's a very difficult thing to quantify. Also, what is it that I'm supposed to have stolen from them (and please don't say IP). Tell me what's their actual real world loss? Is it the $20 I would have spent on a cd? Like I said before, there's no guarantee that I would have bought the cd if the download wasn't there. If cd sales have increased as a result of Napster, how have they been harmed. This is a key point, for example, you must show that you have been damaged in order to receive damages in a lawsuit.
Pardon me? No, it isn't. Hackers are those who jury-rig or recode stuff (the "Scottys" of the computer world) and crackers are people who break other people's systems or software for fun or profit. Pirates are just pirates.
I meant only in terms of people using the wrong terminology. A person who downloads a song off of Napster for their own use is not a pirate. The term pirate is a loaded word used to elicit a predictable emotional response. By labeling someone who downloads a few mp3s off of Napster a pirate, you demonize that person by assinging to him every negative image that the word pirate brings with it.
In either case, your argument needs rethinking.
My argument is fine as long as we agree on a few assumptions. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it, economics and logic do. The RIAA/MPAA is taking these measures to maintain their monopoly power, not because some kid is stealing metallica songs(Do you really think they care about right or wrong? What they care about is money). They won't say this of course because it would sound bad. You seem to accecpt their lies and you even go so far as to help spread the lies around for them.
A corporation is a rational thing, they're not going to go after someone on Napster/Gnutella just because. If they go after them, they have a reason for it. All I'm trying to do is point out the real reason, it's not because they think they're losing cd sales. Its because they are afraid of losing control over the supply of music.
There is a difference between an individual downloading a Brittney Spears song and a music pirate who copies CDs/DVDs in bulk and sells them for profit. It has not been shown, and I do not believe that individuals downloading mp3s for their own use has harmed artists or the RIAA. First of all, it can not be proven that the individuals do not already have the cd or that they will not purchase the cd in the future. Secondly, and most importantly, it can not be proven that the individual would have ever bought the cd if the download wasn't available. By confusing individuals with pirates, your helping spread RIAA/MPAA propaganda and contributing to their efforts to maintain their monopolies and in turn to harm consumers by charging artificially inflated prices. Its sort of like the whole hacker/cracker debate.
The bottom line is that the MPAA should not be going after individuals, the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits they receive from forcing that individual to buy a tape,cd,dvd or whatever. I think they know this and are just trying to use intimidation to help maintain their monopoly. That's one of the reasons they're going after individuals, first, its much easier than tackling some overseas pirate operation and second, the profits they receive from being a monopoly are much greater than those they lose to pirates who are selling their movies/music.
There's one important point that you, the MPAA, the RIAA, and almost everyone else is missing. No one, especially not you, has shown that artists have been harmed by the trading of music over the internet. In fact, I've heard that CD sales have actually increased due to the existence of Napster. I myself have actually used Gnotella to research different types of music and to make a CD purchase. That's a CD I probably never would have bought without the help of Gnotella.
The fact that millions of ordinary Americans engage in this theft is no excuse - ethically and legally, it is wrong.
Congradulations, you've apparently fallen for the industry's (MPAA, RIAA) propaganda. Not all users of these systems are thieves. Consumers want choice, and will do what's in their best interest. If the industry continues to fight basic economic priniples, the consumers will continue to suffer. The industry is basically trying to extract every bit of profit from the consumer. They are in fact trying to extract monopolistic profit (Or do you have another explaination for region coded DVDs? Can you say price fixing? That practice has been found to harm consumers and the economy and is actually illegal in the US.) The industry has created this black market through their bullying of consumers. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Also, it is not a forgone conclusion that this trading of music is unethical. People are simply behaving as economics would have them behave. Give people a better choice and they'll take it. Also remember that some degree of music trading is be inevitable and should be ignored (Because the cost of trying to stamp out the last few percent far outweighs the benefits).
I had the idea that I wanted to log that info to a database where I could then assign a priority number to each record in a table that contained unique numbers. Telemarketers and pests might get a priority of 0 which would mean the phone wouldn't ring. If a standard format for a blackhole list existed, maybe it could be distributed a la junkbuster. Maybe then we could do for ourselves what the phone company should be doing in the first place, block telemarketers.
A more polished service might even be built around this to provide this sort of functionality to those who don't have computers, which is what I think your talking about, a smart answering machine. I believe that this is a product you will eventually see on the market, its just a matter of when. In the mean time, some people will make their own.
OSS should take the high road and just rename itself. If OpenSSH does it now, then they can say they made their own decision and did it because they wanted to. If they wait too long, then stronger words will be used by both sides, and pretty soon emotions take over and you can kiss common sense and cooperation goodbye.
So, OpenSSH, change your name, not because you have to, but because you can. Be altruistic. I think that's the best outcome that will make everyone feel good about themselves and others.
That combined with a large number of people (about 40,000 statewide), creates the need for something more efficient than the methods currently being used. My major desire is for a system which uses a database to store data and generate graphs. I've read about tree traversal algorithms which describe the location of each position on a chart, and which sounds like good logic to use in such an application. Relative to other complex software out there, this should be a fairly simple thing (although still beyond my capabilities I'm afraid), and it suprises me that it hasn't already been done. Many companies use org charts, they're not necesarry for most, but it allows information to be absorbed more easily when its presented as a graph.