Additionally, a scripting language is just stupid overkill for a configuration file that needs to turn on and off options and specify a path. By definition, a configuration file shouldn't be doing anything *conditionally*. If something like that is in a.conf file, than you put it in the wrong place. Sadly, many linux daemans are guilty of this (especially apache, which is otherwise a nice and powerful web server).
I think Apache would have been much worse as a web server *without* the conditions in the configuration. There are a whole bunch of things that wouldn't be possible to do in a simple manner without conditions.
Keep in mind that Apache isn't for J. Random User. It's targeted at computer technicians, who (hopefully) know what they are doing. In this scenario, a text file is as good as it could be. It's easy to edit and, with a bit of education on the topic, you can even make those configurations without too much pain.
I am shocked that someone has moderated this as "Troll". This is my real opinion, and it is on-topic. As such it can't be a troll. Are all Slashdot moderator points bought by the copyright industry?
In what sense do he "own" the piece? He has created it, yes, but he owns one copy of it, not every copy. The artwork in itself can't be owned as long as it can be copied without anyone losing his/her copy.
And in what way is it terrible for mankind that this video has leaked on the Internet? It isn't even bad for the company, 'cause they can still have it's release party. It's just silly of them to cancel the premiere just because it's out already. There's no logic behind that, and it's still only bad for the company. We will still get the video regardless of whether they sell it to us or if we choose to download it, regardless of whether they choose to have a big premiere or if we choose to download it before them releasing it.
There are no "majority parties" in Sweden anymore. We have two "blocks", the red ones (socialists) and the blue ones (capitalists). In each block there are three (the red) or four (the blue) parties. They have to work together or else they won't be in majority.
If the Pirate Party had got into the parliament, they would get enough seats to be in a position where both blocks would need them to form majority. The Pirate Party could choose the ones they liked the most, i.e. the ones that would be willing to reform the copyright and patent laws.
If they are only targetting PC makers that have agreed to only sell PCs with their OS on them, then they have a legal, though morally questionable, right to do this
In Sweden it's illegal for the market-leading company to have such deals with it's resellers.
The only thing one could assume should a.safe domain be implemented is that anything in.safe should be, well, safe. It's not saying that microsoft.com is pr0n, just that microsoft.safe is not pr0n.
Why not? Why can't pr0n sites be ".safe"? Don't say "it's obvious", because it isn't.
In Sweden we have a special law named something like "Law about the responsibility of electronic messageboards" (An ISP could very well get caught by that law). The law states that the one who provides the messageboard is responsible for it's content.
"Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch."
A lot of European countries are taking opensource alternatives seriously. Swedish governemtn has done research and found out that it probably isn't too hard to switch to opensource.
You can't compare two different art forms. Rasmus Fleischer (known in Sweden as an anti-copyright activist, but he even writes about culture in many forms) wrote in his blog a few days ago about a newspaper comparing comics to poetry, and he didn't like the way they placed poetry as the highest and best art form.
Yes, there's IP laws (even though they are good ones in Sweden), but that doesn't mean you can't break them. Does that sound silly? Of course it does, but let me say as someone on The Pirate Bureau of Sweden once said: "People have broken the laws all through history. That's one way to change laws you don't agree with".
Filesharing of copyrighted music is not theft in the usual meaning. If I copy a music track, I make a COPY of it. I don't take it away from the person who made it.
Your point number four is good. That's exactly what I do.
But I would never buy those big artists anyway, 'cause they aren't that good and they're played on the radio every day. So, is it stealing (or even loss of money) from the companies if I wouldn't buy it at all?
And you know what? If I hadn't downloaded music, I wouldnät find the GOOD musicians out there. I didnät listen to music at all before I started downloading (except for one artist which I have bought all CDs from:))
Like it or not, but I have another view on IP laws than you do. And you're right - I'm not going to admit that I'm a thief, 'cause I am no thief in my point of view.
So when the music industry talks about those billions of money they've lost, doesn't that sound like REALLY bad management, if they've lost billions of dollars in producing the music?
And where the heck did you get "stealing" from? RIAA?
Copying is not the same as stealing, regardless of what the music industry try to say.
You don't steal music. You copy it. That's a BIG difference.
If you don't have the money, you wouldn't buy the music anyway. So by downloading the music you can't afford, you listen to the artist and the artist gets something from this too. It's advertisement for the artist which is rather important.
The GP said he buy as much music he can afford and download the rest. Is this stealing? Is he STEALING something? When the recording industry talks about how much money we STEAL from them they're just making up something. It's lies. You can't steal anything they didn't have from the beginning, can you? Would we buy that music anyway? Have they counted the money they get from concerts and such? And most important - have they given any good alternative? Have they tried to sell the music cheap online, without DRM? Have they tried to make it cheaper to produce the music?
In Sweden we got a new book this week. It's called "Copy Me", released by The Pirate Bureau (same people who started the famous Pirate Bay). The book try to change the strange view on copyright and intellectual property we have in the society of today. It's sad it's just in swedish; I hope they will release it in english some day.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been up on ThinkGeek for eons of time.
Or is my browser able to look into the future and see upcoming products at ThinkGeek? You never know with this new "Core Duo" mechanism.
I think Apache would have been much worse as a web server *without* the conditions in the configuration. There are a whole bunch of things that wouldn't be possible to do in a simple manner without conditions.
Keep in mind that Apache isn't for J. Random User. It's targeted at computer technicians, who (hopefully) know what they are doing. In this scenario, a text file is as good as it could be. It's easy to edit and, with a bit of education on the topic, you can even make those configurations without too much pain.
I am shocked that someone has moderated this as "Troll". This is my real opinion, and it is on-topic. As such it can't be a troll. Are all Slashdot moderator points bought by the copyright industry?
In what sense do he "own" the piece? He has created it, yes, but he owns one copy of it, not every copy. The artwork in itself can't be owned as long as it can be copied without anyone losing his/her copy.
And in what way is it terrible for mankind that this video has leaked on the Internet? It isn't even bad for the company, 'cause they can still have it's release party. It's just silly of them to cancel the premiere just because it's out already. There's no logic behind that, and it's still only bad for the company. We will still get the video regardless of whether they sell it to us or if we choose to download it, regardless of whether they choose to have a big premiere or if we choose to download it before them releasing it.
There are no "majority parties" in Sweden anymore. We have two "blocks", the red ones (socialists) and the blue ones (capitalists). In each block there are three (the red) or four (the blue) parties. They have to work together or else they won't be in majority.
If the Pirate Party had got into the parliament, they would get enough seats to be in a position where both blocks would need them to form majority. The Pirate Party could choose the ones they liked the most, i.e. the ones that would be willing to reform the copyright and patent laws.
Nice? In what way would THAT be nice? :/
If they are only targetting PC makers that have agreed to only sell PCs with their OS on them, then they have a legal, though morally questionable, right to do this
In Sweden it's illegal for the market-leading company to have such deals with it's resellers.
No, he didn't find it. That's the reason why there are no links.
But then he would have to repell many megabits/s :|
No, they won't switch. They will buy this one too, so they will have both the .com and .xxx domain.
The only thing one could assume should a .safe domain be implemented is that anything in .safe should be, well, safe. It's not saying that microsoft.com is pr0n, just that microsoft.safe is not pr0n.
Why not? Why can't pr0n sites be ".safe"? Don't say "it's obvious", because it isn't.
In Sweden we have a special law named something like "Law about the responsibility of electronic messageboards" (An ISP could very well get caught by that law).
The law states that the one who provides the messageboard is responsible for it's content.
"Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch."
A lot of European countries are taking opensource alternatives seriously. Swedish governemtn has done research and found out that it probably isn't too hard to switch to opensource.
You can't compare two different art forms.
r -inte-jmfras-med-poesi.html
Rasmus Fleischer (known in Sweden as an anti-copyright activist, but he even writes about culture in many forms) wrote in his blog a few days ago about a newspaper comparing comics to poetry, and he didn't like the way they placed poetry as the highest and best art form.
Here's the blog in Swedish:
http://copyriot.blogspot.com/2006/03/serier-behve
This was shown on /. about half a year ago or more and they still haven't made a consumer version.
Nothing new to see here.
Yes, but it's always nice with a discussion ;)
In my opinion, there's no such thing as IP, so I can't steal it.
Yes, there's IP laws (even though they are good ones in Sweden), but that doesn't mean you can't break them. Does that sound silly? Of course it does, but let me say as someone on The Pirate Bureau of Sweden once said:
:))
"People have broken the laws all through history. That's one way to change laws you don't agree with".
Filesharing of copyrighted music is not theft in the usual meaning. If I copy a music track, I make a COPY of it. I don't take it away from the person who made it.
Your point number four is good. That's exactly what I do.
But I would never buy those big artists anyway, 'cause they aren't that good and they're played on the radio every day.
So, is it stealing (or even loss of money) from the companies if I wouldn't buy it at all?
And you know what? If I hadn't downloaded music, I wouldnät find the GOOD musicians out there. I didnät listen to music at all before I started downloading (except for one artist which I have bought all CDs from
Like it or not, but I have another view on IP laws than you do. And you're right - I'm not going to admit that I'm a thief, 'cause I am no thief in my point of view.
So when the music industry talks about those billions of money they've lost, doesn't that sound like REALLY bad management, if they've lost billions of dollars in producing the music? And where the heck did you get "stealing" from? RIAA? Copying is not the same as stealing, regardless of what the music industry try to say.
Yeah, but do those browsers run Linux?
As far as I can see, that's exactly the way he was using the word...
Well, most companies doesn't want any hype around betas. They are SUPPOSED to pass by quietly.
How much money which they possessed earlier have they literaly lost due to downloading?
"Less income" is NOT the same thing as "cost".
If I download a track I hadn't bought anyway, do that COST them money? Have they LOST money?
You don't steal music. You copy it. That's a BIG difference.
If you don't have the money, you wouldn't buy the music anyway. So by downloading the music you can't afford, you listen to the artist and the artist gets something from this too. It's advertisement for the artist which is rather important.
The GP said he buy as much music he can afford and download the rest. Is this stealing? Is he STEALING something? When the recording industry talks about how much money we STEAL from them they're just making up something. It's lies. You can't steal anything they didn't have from the beginning, can you? Would we buy that music anyway? Have they counted the money they get from concerts and such?
And most important - have they given any good alternative? Have they tried to sell the music cheap online, without DRM? Have they tried to make it cheaper to produce the music?
In Sweden we got a new book this week. It's called "Copy Me", released by The Pirate Bureau (same people who started the famous Pirate Bay). The book try to change the strange view on copyright and intellectual property we have in the society of today. It's sad it's just in swedish; I hope they will release it in english some day.