And btw, just to make things clear, the default configuration is a part of the security model. Which means a file with wrong permissions, or wrong owner, created by the system installer, shows misunderstandings in the security model chosen. It's like you'd have file belonging to root on your desktop.
Another thing is surprising: how can you do privilege escalation without entering your password/authentification of any kind? How is it more secure if there is no user entry? It's just like a sudoers file with the "NOPASSWD" directive on your user; you can become root as you wish (without entering password), but then, malicious programs can, too. If this is the default configuration on Vista, there won't be any benefit except in corporate networks where admins supposedly know their job (I suppose only the "main user" has the "sudoers" rights, but these people will be the ones who are now admin on their Windows [zombified] computer, and they are a huge part of the problem [think spamming, DdoS'ing, etc..]).
Regarding the link posted by parent, the problem is: why the Hell doesn't this file (a shortcut), which actually seems to be on the main user's desktop, BELONG to the corresponding user?? Why does it belong to "SYSTEM"? I can't understand how Microsoft succeeds in screwing up things so much each and every time. It's not like there aren't easier, working and well-thought security models (look at UNIX's perms simplicity and efficiency, and they can be completed with a more thorough ACL system).
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly
Wrong argument. I'm saying here there would be something like Free Software (but we can't be sure) OR Open Source Movement. At least some "free spirit" around code like with BSD. However, the GPL itself is a clever idea that came from Stallman (with the help of Eblen Moglen) and NO, I don't think it would exist now otherwise. It's clever and cocky, the whole contrary of our modern ideas. And I say the GPL is the tool we needed to make the Free Software movement wider. It's an extraordinary appeal to developers who wish to make their code free but fear to feel spoiled when finding their code in proprietary products later (without royalties).
Furthermore, RMS has always defended *ideals*. I'm not worshipping him as a hero, I just respect him for what he's done.
Without him, there would be no GPL (and maybe no "Free Software", who knows? There would be BSD but the concept and ideology behind Free Software may not exist -- BSD may be filed under "university science" ideology only). Linux wouldn't have been GPL'd. There wouldn't have been the GPL domino effect as we know it that made it possible for us to have these thousand packages (most of which are GPL'd and wouldn't be even Free Software if it weren't for the GPL). Without the full free stack and GPL, there would be no company investing in GNU/Linux (no IBM, etc). In fact, Linux would not be a famous kernel but maybe it would have remained a small project just for fun. And without Linux being what it is, there would be no "Open Source" movement (of which I'm no fan, but we must admit it created a hype around GNU/Linux and gave us [for the most part] tons of Free Software even running on different OS'es).
So Stallman may not have been the top contributor in terms of code, but he's I think more significant than many developpers (including some kernel developing trollmaster) in the F/OSS movement (even if he's not a part of the Open Source movement, there would be no such thing without him). Anyway, I wouldn't ask his autograph either:)
Yep, or as in "I love to smoke good wee...":). Anyway the "ii" in Japanese is always "ee" in English (in the Chobits anime, the heroin is called Chii and pronounced Chee).
How about going to http://slashdot.org/ with your favourite browser, File > Save Page As, then save the CSS file, and modify the CSS on the fly locally without any web server. Try to get it to work with every template from every/. page. Then upload the whole (2 files) thing to some free static webhosting?
There's no need to run Slashcode (who would want to anyway?;)) for this contest, and it's really not a good reason for installing Debian. Installing Debian and getting rid of Windows is a higher purpose for itself.:)
I read Schwartz's blog and I find him incredibly arrogant and pathetic, he's constantly in a pissing contest with IBM, he's pedantic, and [...] so I understand and agree to your comment. Maybe he'll change as a CEO but I have little faith here, you can't change your true self. Schwartz is a politics in the IT industry (pretty much like a PR people but worse) and I think he will only help Sun's demise.
Wasn't this comment meant to be Funny and not Insightful? Either the mod is on crack or I am, 'cause I fail to see the link between child porn and terrorism. To me, terrorism may lead more to zoophilia since Bin Laden and his friends must only have sheeps and goatses to get pleasure with during their retirement in middle east landscape:). Their beards are used as dupes for wool in the lover's parade.
Well, in a quantum mechanics experiments, you cannot physically test because you'd change the environment. Does it mean we don't have to simulate, even if we cannot physically test?
The testing the merger of two black holes is quite the contrary,, and we'd be the ones destroyed if we'd get too close. The only solution is through astronomic observation, so we're waiting for the phenomenon to appear. However, how to compare with our current laws of physics (in the case, Einstein's theories) if we don't simulate them before to check if the result we get is somewhat close to our observations? This is called testing.
It's pretty similar to unit testing in software design/programmation. We put some assertions through the code, and we execute it, if works as planned, and if we checked all the border-cases, we can guess if some code is OK. The same goes with physics theories. In fact, it's so much the same that some say that the whole universe is a quantum computer:).
How about making science progress by testing a part of one of the most important theory in physics? It's not my funding, however I'd love my country to invest more in science even if only for the sake of science. We're in an era where everything has to be justified by money, it feels like the Dark Age of information. I'm waiting for the next era where new thoughts, science and knowledge progress get some value back.
Call me utopist if you want, but finding something that "increase our safety, or decrease power of madmen and dictators" gets the #1 naive award (always thinking big shields and weapons, what a world).
The question isn't why something should fall under free speech protections, but rather why something shouldn't. For something not to, a very, very compelling reason should be offered, and there are very, very few things to which the free speech law does not apply.
I agree with that. However, I am a proponent of more "shouldn't" cases. I have no problem with free speech "zones" as you name them. Not that I want to invoke Godwin's law, but Slashdotters often use the svatiska or Mein Kampf and the restrictions in Germany and in France as an example, however I am OK with these restrictions. The restrictions don't preclude education on the matter, on the contrary. In the US, the First Amendment is invoked for everything, from NAMBLA to homo-haters and neo-nazi groups. It's not because Free Speech is a Good Thing(tm) that one should abuse of it, so I have no problem with regulating free speech. It has nothing to do with censorship as long as you can get information (education on the matter from different sources) and think what you like.
As far as I'm concerned, NAMBLA should be illegal, but then again, it's just me. I'm not American so it's not my problem after all. I still prefer "full free speech" than censorship, and luckily the Internet was born under that free speech spirit. The Web is a "request and get" system, so I don't request neo-nazis websites, and even if there are certainly many, I don't see them, that's fine by me (I'd still prefer them not to exist but everyone has the right to his beliefs, yet I think those people are either simple-minded, retards or pyschotics). But I know there have been neo-nazis or such demonstrations in some american towns, I couldn't imagine hearing those fuckers yelling hate speech just under my window. For the sake of MY FREEDOM not to be harassed with hate speech. Their freedom stops where mine starts.
Well, that's not a picture you're describing here, but a message which takes the form of a picture. A picture of a specific fashion dress is hardly any kind of message:). A satirical cartoon, may it have text or not, has definitely another goal. A picture alone is not a message (except for computers;)). Now I think it's futile to ask a website to remove the picture of a freaking dress nobody cares about, but that's another problem. Tell me how this is message that requires to be protected by free speech. I receive some kind of message from the model, but not from her clothes;)
I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but is it really speech? Well if it's OK, can I post any picture on my website? For the sake of free speech. Let's say, pictures I took in a theater (so I have the copyright on the pictures themselves). Let's say a screener without the sound. Isn't the video part of a screener just tons of pictures taken of copyrighted work?
Well I guess the problem is the difference in what is considered "copyrighted" work. Then, it's not a matter of free speech anymore. Either the court decides to adhere to the principle of comity the article speaks of, or decides that since fashion designs aren't "copyrightable" in the US, the french ruling shouldn't be applied.
The true problem here is the EFF (which I usually support) who's doing too much and jumps on the gun whenever they feel someone's trying to mess with the first amendment when the matter isn't really the first amendment. However, when courts have no problem telling us that blogging isn't journalism and don't fall under the First Amendment (e.g, the ThinkSecret lawsuit), I don't see how one can argue that posting a picture falls under it, no matter what's on it. Well the EFF has battled for the blogging case too, so I guess they're just being themselves:)
As for the matter of the ruling itself, who cares?
There is no such test, but there was once such a spirit (what we call here "L'Esprit des Lois", The Spirit of Laws, which is first and foremost a book by Montesquieu). When making new laws, our MPs (we call them "députés" but that's no sheriff deputee) used to check a few things before voting: is the new law giving a special advantage to a category of citizen or is it the same for all? does it protect the weak, or does it make the strong already stronger (or does it make the weak even weaker?!) ? When you reach a good equilibrium, then it's a good law. At least this is my vision. Anyway this time is over since the majority of our Parliament (Assemblée Nationale) has changed and we have been witness of incredibly poor, unfair, and partial laws these last years; ie: DRMs just passed, work precarity passed (CDIs no more under a certain age), police spying passed,... Let's just hope our next presidential elections may 2007 won't be won by the same ass-licking demagogic but tyrannic and antidemocratic bastards (aka Chirac, Sarkozy, Villepin, Copé, Perben, etc)
Nope, the law protects the weakest. Please not that everything I'm telling you is subject to change, and that's why there have been demonstrations in Paris these last weeks (and I've got friends right there now demonstrating, too bad it was my exams week). Anyway, let's see how it (used to?) work(s):
There are two main types of contracts (and 1 quite recent called CNE I won't talk of because it sucks, and the other one is CPE and that's the reason of the demos so, I won't elaborate either)... CDD or "Contrat à Durée Déterminée" (Contract with a determined duration) and CDI (Contrat à Durée Indeterminée, Contract with an indetermined duration).
If you've got a CDD, it will finish some day (decided when signing your contract) and may be renewed with a CDD or a CDI. If you've got a CDI, you *CANNOT* be fired unless you make serious/repetitive mistakes and respect your contract *WITHOUT* indemnities. Your employer may ask you to leave in 3 monthes (minimal time), give you a day per week to find a new job (and often give you a recommendation to get rid of you). If you refuse, or if he wants to fire you directly, he'll have to pay you the 3 (more or less) months of salary.
CDD are often relatively short so the employer prefers to wait when it's over, then they don't have to renew if they don't want.
Gael was of course under a CDI, thus he can sue for abusive layoff if he's not ok with the indemnities already proposed.
Now employers can of course sue an employee if he doesn't respect his contract (ie: not coming to the job, breaking a NDA, etc) however I never heard of an employee under a CDI quitting his job impromptly, and under a CDD, well the employer won't care, he'll find someone else.
Once again, this system is unfortunately subject to change (because employers hate CDI, of course, but keep it mind that it allows employees to buy houses, cars, and have a project for their family life, because it's a guarantee of a regular income).
As you may be aware, there are other countries with their own laws. Mandriva being based in France, which has laws to protect employees against abusive (ie, not motivated by repetitive mistakes of the employee, and a bunch of other factors) layoffs, Gael can sue Mandriva. Then some particular kind of judges (called "juges des prud'hommes") will decide if it's ok or not, and of course, if it's not, they won't force him back into Mandriva, but Mandriva may have to give some indemnities.
Well, Java is a programming language AND the common shortcut name for SUN's implementation (everyone here, at least (non techies), calls Java "Sun Java JDK", especially when talking about the J2SE VM on desktop computers) and don't we Slashdotters all wish Java was free software, and that the trademark would be used to enforce the compliance? Now there's not such a big difference between a communication protocol and a programming language.
Or isn't it the same with the enforcement of the Linux trademark? And doesn't Mozilla already do this (with their logo, too)?
I, for one, am all in favor of trademark enforcement. It gives the guarantee that the name will only be used for legitimate purposes (ie: not breaking the Java standard, or prevent spyware and adware in BitTorrent). What matters most is the software freedom (and that the implementation is not covered by patents).
OK some much needed explanation. I have been following all parliament debate over streaming (and I have to use a w32codec;)).
The things were bad. We were horrified. Our bastard government and so-called "Culture" minister wanted to pass something very much like your Digital Content Security Act along with the transcription of the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) in the "DADVSI" law. So they wanted DRMs to be forced in each "cultural" format and forbid to bypass DRMs. It would have effectively banned all free software that act as a "transmitter" or makes copies because they would have needed them to implement DRMs and force the software editor to prevent people from bypassing the DRMs. However, it's in the 4 fundamental freedoms of free software that people are allowed to modify the source code, so it would have been bad.
The project is in parliament since tuesday. Yesterday, the socialists and communists MEPs (along with very few right-wings) surprised everyone with the approval (59 MEPs, 30 for, 28 against) of the "optionnal global license": those who want to pay 7euros/month will be able to download any music (or movie older than 4 years) from p2p networks, FTP servers, newsgroups, etc. Software is excluded. But the global license removes the need of obligatory DRMs.
Only few amendments (included the global license) was voted yet. The law isn't voted, and it is being (as I watch right now) delayed because this amendment changes pretty much everything. They will certainly do whatever they can to cancel it. However they'll have a hard time doing it. They're trying to remove the amendment as we speech.
Woops. Reading again it looks like the distinction I make between Open Source and Free Software isn't clear. Well, it's not in the license, and maybe not really in the code. Yet there is a difference anyway, even if it's only(?) ideological.
What you call "open source" programs are just some loosely assembled code lines stolen from companies that make real software.
Real software? You mean, like Real Player? No loosely assembled code lines for sure.
Do you think a bunch of hippies would do something useful, apart smoking their pot.
At least I'm doing something useful right now! Thanks for the support, I'll keep up the good wo.. err.. smokin':)
No, they write software that is outmoded since 1983, and call thelm "free".
Mhh, there's a misunderstanding here sir. Open source may be what you describe, but free (as in speech) software isn't at all. It isn't about code, it's about the software liberty, and in my experience, the code is often better than proprietary code (which nobody sees so there's nothing to be ashamed of, maybe FOSS haters are just jalous that some people can actually produce code that can be shown?:)). Some would say: Software libre takes more than a license, it takes a design.
ROFL thanks for your sweetness:). I just love ACs (well.. at least coward:)). Btw you're right, I was totally digging myself deeper into that hole of ignorance that I reside in. Eniak is not the first computer, even if it has been thought for a long time to be the first turing-complete computer (and definitely long enough so that my source of information was wrong). I will meditate on my repent. Still hesitating to shoot myself right now =). Just love the way people read only the parts they want to read and ignore all the rest (like when I was saying something like "I'm not an historian, I say things like I recall them, that's definitely not the point").
Oh come on now. You were absolutely trying to give examples as to why history is important in this example. You fudged it up quite badly with very inaccurate examples. You should be doubly embarressed because of the prevailing view in Europe that Americans are uneducated, particulary in the field of world history. In reality what is taught in Europe as 'history' tends to be extremely euro-centric and chauvanistic, as were your examples, and in fact your argument in the first place.
Are you used to "reverse quoting", ie reversing the orders of things I said before? Changing context is easy. Read again my first post, why didn't you comment our evolving from apes? Just because my *whole* post wasn't meant as an authoritative source of history! I am sick of the neverending messages "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "DARPA is American so the the DNS root zone must remain under american control", yet you still shift the discussion towards a *general* point I made: Internet is a HUMAN and global achievement. Maybe you don't understand irony? Or more probably, you just forget the whole point to dicuss details.
I am not embarrassed anyhow; your quote says it all, even if I'm not sure Oscar Wilde's exactly this one. I'm not generalizing on Americans, but you are definitely generalizing on Europeans. Anyway, I think I'm done here. Btw, I'm not refuting any contribution of Presber and Eckert and the contribution they made with ENIAC which was indeed the first actual computer (nor the contribution of Americans in the history of computing). Anyway, I think Türing was a true genius, and maybe he had lost some time cracking Enigma... and was harrassed later in his life for personal reasons... to make his "vision" come true. Oh no, forget it:).
Slashdot Mirror
And btw, just to make things clear, the default configuration is a part of the security model. Which means a file with wrong permissions, or wrong owner, created by the system installer, shows misunderstandings in the security model chosen. It's like you'd have file belonging to root on your desktop.
Another thing is surprising: how can you do privilege escalation without entering your password/authentification of any kind? How is it more secure if there is no user entry? It's just like a sudoers file with the "NOPASSWD" directive on your user; you can become root as you wish (without entering password), but then, malicious programs can, too. If this is the default configuration on Vista, there won't be any benefit except in corporate networks where admins supposedly know their job (I suppose only the "main user" has the "sudoers" rights, but these people will be the ones who are now admin on their Windows [zombified] computer, and they are a huge part of the problem [think spamming, DdoS'ing, etc..]).
Regarding the link posted by parent, the problem is: why the Hell doesn't this file (a shortcut), which actually seems to be on the main user's desktop, BELONG to the corresponding user?? Why does it belong to "SYSTEM"? I can't understand how Microsoft succeeds in screwing up things so much each and every time. It's not like there aren't easier, working and well-thought security models (look at UNIX's perms simplicity and efficiency, and they can be completed with a more thorough ACL system).
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly
Wrong argument. I'm saying here there would be something like Free Software (but we can't be sure) OR Open Source Movement. At least some "free spirit" around code like with BSD. However, the GPL itself is a clever idea that came from Stallman (with the help of Eblen Moglen) and NO, I don't think it would exist now otherwise. It's clever and cocky, the whole contrary of our modern ideas. And I say the GPL is the tool we needed to make the Free Software movement wider. It's an extraordinary appeal to developers who wish to make their code free but fear to feel spoiled when finding their code in proprietary products later (without royalties).
Furthermore, RMS has always defended *ideals*. I'm not worshipping him as a hero, I just respect him for what he's done.
Without him, there would be no GPL (and maybe no "Free Software", who knows? There would be BSD but the concept and ideology behind Free Software may not exist -- BSD may be filed under "university science" ideology only). Linux wouldn't have been GPL'd. There wouldn't have been the GPL domino effect as we know it that made it possible for us to have these thousand packages (most of which are GPL'd and wouldn't be even Free Software if it weren't for the GPL). Without the full free stack and GPL, there would be no company investing in GNU/Linux (no IBM, etc). In fact, Linux would not be a famous kernel but maybe it would have remained a small project just for fun. And without Linux being what it is, there would be no "Open Source" movement (of which I'm no fan, but we must admit it created a hype around GNU/Linux and gave us [for the most part] tons of Free Software even running on different OS'es).
:)
So Stallman may not have been the top contributor in terms of code, but he's I think more significant than many developpers (including some kernel developing trollmaster) in the F/OSS movement (even if he's not a part of the Open Source movement, there would be no such thing without him). Anyway, I wouldn't ask his autograph either
Yep, or as in "I love to smoke good wee..." :). Anyway the "ii" in Japanese is always "ee" in English (in the Chobits anime, the heroin is called Chii and pronounced Chee).
How about going to http://slashdot.org/ with your favourite browser, File > Save Page As, then save the CSS file, and modify the CSS on the fly locally without any web server. Try to get it to work with every template from every /. page. Then upload the whole (2 files) thing to some free static webhosting?
;)) for this contest, and it's really not a good reason for installing Debian. Installing Debian and getting rid of Windows is a higher purpose for itself. :)
There's no need to run Slashcode (who would want to anyway?
mhh.. Meant to be replied to GrandParent, whatever...
I read Schwartz's blog and I find him incredibly arrogant and pathetic, he's constantly in a pissing contest with IBM, he's pedantic, and [...] so I understand and agree to your comment. Maybe he'll change as a CEO but I have little faith here, you can't change your true self. Schwartz is a politics in the IT industry (pretty much like a PR people but worse) and I think he will only help Sun's demise.
Wasn't this comment meant to be Funny and not Insightful? Either the mod is on crack or I am, 'cause I fail to see the link between child porn and terrorism. To me, terrorism may lead more to zoophilia since Bin Laden and his friends must only have sheeps and goatses to get pleasure with during their retirement in middle east landscape :). Their beards are used as dupes for wool in the lover's parade.
Well a future era, maybe, if Mankind still exists :). I'm not really seeing this happening either anyway, I'd just like to.
Well, in a quantum mechanics experiments, you cannot physically test because you'd change the environment. Does it mean we don't have to simulate, even if we cannot physically test?
:).
The testing the merger of two black holes is quite the contrary,, and we'd be the ones destroyed if we'd get too close. The only solution is through astronomic observation, so we're waiting for the phenomenon to appear. However, how to compare with our current laws of physics (in the case, Einstein's theories) if we don't simulate them before to check if the result we get is somewhat close to our observations? This is called testing.
It's pretty similar to unit testing in software design/programmation. We put some assertions through the code, and we execute it, if works as planned, and if we checked all the border-cases, we can guess if some code is OK. The same goes with physics theories. In fact, it's so much the same that some say that the whole universe is a quantum computer
PS: I'm no physicist.
How about making science progress by testing a part of one of the most important theory in physics? It's not my funding, however I'd love my country to invest more in science even if only for the sake of science. We're in an era where everything has to be justified by money, it feels like the Dark Age of information. I'm waiting for the next era where new thoughts, science and knowledge progress get some value back.
Call me utopist if you want, but finding something that "increase our safety, or decrease power of madmen and dictators" gets the #1 naive award (always thinking big shields and weapons, what a world).
The question isn't why something should fall under free speech protections, but rather why something shouldn't. For something not to, a very, very compelling reason should be offered, and there are very, very few things to which the free speech law does not apply.
I agree with that. However, I am a proponent of more "shouldn't" cases. I have no problem with free speech "zones" as you name them. Not that I want to invoke Godwin's law, but Slashdotters often use the svatiska or Mein Kampf and the restrictions in Germany and in France as an example, however I am OK with these restrictions. The restrictions don't preclude education on the matter, on the contrary. In the US, the First Amendment is invoked for everything, from NAMBLA to homo-haters and neo-nazi groups. It's not because Free Speech is a Good Thing(tm) that one should abuse of it, so I have no problem with regulating free speech. It has nothing to do with censorship as long as you can get information (education on the matter from different sources) and think what you like.
As far as I'm concerned, NAMBLA should be illegal, but then again, it's just me. I'm not American so it's not my problem after all. I still prefer "full free speech" than censorship, and luckily the Internet was born under that free speech spirit. The Web is a "request and get" system, so I don't request neo-nazis websites, and even if there are certainly many, I don't see them, that's fine by me (I'd still prefer them not to exist but everyone has the right to his beliefs, yet I think those people are either simple-minded, retards or pyschotics). But I know there have been neo-nazis or such demonstrations in some american towns, I couldn't imagine hearing those fuckers yelling hate speech just under my window. For the sake of MY FREEDOM not to be harassed with hate speech. Their freedom stops where mine starts.
Well, that's not a picture you're describing here, but a message which takes the form of a picture. A picture of a specific fashion dress is hardly any kind of message :). A satirical cartoon, may it have text or not, has definitely another goal. A picture alone is not a message (except for computers ;)). Now I think it's futile to ask a website to remove the picture of a freaking dress nobody cares about, but that's another problem. Tell me how this is message that requires to be protected by free speech. I receive some kind of message from the model, but not from her clothes ;)
I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but is it really speech? Well if it's OK, can I post any picture on my website? For the sake of free speech. Let's say, pictures I took in a theater (so I have the copyright on the pictures themselves). Let's say a screener without the sound. Isn't the video part of a screener just tons of pictures taken of copyrighted work?
:)
Well I guess the problem is the difference in what is considered "copyrighted" work. Then, it's not a matter of free speech anymore. Either the court decides to adhere to the principle of comity the article speaks of, or decides that since fashion designs aren't "copyrightable" in the US, the french ruling shouldn't be applied.
The true problem here is the EFF (which I usually support) who's doing too much and jumps on the gun whenever they feel someone's trying to mess with the first amendment when the matter isn't really the first amendment. However, when courts have no problem telling us that blogging isn't journalism and don't fall under the First Amendment (e.g, the ThinkSecret lawsuit), I don't see how one can argue that posting a picture falls under it, no matter what's on it. Well the EFF has battled for the blogging case too, so I guess they're just being themselves
As for the matter of the ruling itself, who cares?
There is no such test, but there was once such a spirit (what we call here "L'Esprit des Lois", The Spirit of Laws, which is first and foremost a book by Montesquieu). When making new laws, our MPs (we call them "députés" but that's no sheriff deputee) used to check a few things before voting: is the new law giving a special advantage to a category of citizen or is it the same for all? does it protect the weak, or does it make the strong already stronger (or does it make the weak even weaker?!) ? When you reach a good equilibrium, then it's a good law. At least this is my vision. Anyway this time is over since the majority of our Parliament (Assemblée Nationale) has changed and we have been witness of incredibly poor, unfair, and partial laws these last years; ie: DRMs just passed, work precarity passed (CDIs no more under a certain age), police spying passed, ... Let's just hope our next presidential elections may 2007 won't be won by the same ass-licking demagogic but tyrannic and antidemocratic bastards (aka Chirac, Sarkozy, Villepin, Copé, Perben, etc)
Nope, the law protects the weakest. Please not that everything I'm telling you is subject to change, and that's why there have been demonstrations in Paris these last weeks (and I've got friends right there now demonstrating, too bad it was my exams week). Anyway, let's see how it (used to?) work(s):
There are two main types of contracts (and 1 quite recent called CNE I won't talk of because it sucks, and the other one is CPE and that's the reason of the demos so, I won't elaborate either)... CDD or "Contrat à Durée Déterminée" (Contract with a determined duration) and CDI (Contrat à Durée Indeterminée, Contract with an indetermined duration).
If you've got a CDD, it will finish some day (decided when signing your contract) and may be renewed with a CDD or a CDI. If you've got a CDI, you *CANNOT* be fired unless you make serious/repetitive mistakes and respect your contract *WITHOUT* indemnities. Your employer may ask you to leave in 3 monthes (minimal time), give you a day per week to find a new job (and often give you a recommendation to get rid of you). If you refuse, or if he wants to fire you directly, he'll have to pay you the 3 (more or less) months of salary.
CDD are often relatively short so the employer prefers to wait when it's over, then they don't have to renew if they don't want.
Gael was of course under a CDI, thus he can sue for abusive layoff if he's not ok with the indemnities already proposed.
Now employers can of course sue an employee if he doesn't respect his contract (ie: not coming to the job, breaking a NDA, etc) however I never heard of an employee under a CDI quitting his job impromptly, and under a CDD, well the employer won't care, he'll find someone else.
Once again, this system is unfortunately subject to change (because employers hate CDI, of course, but keep it mind that it allows employees to buy houses, cars, and have a project for their family life, because it's a guarantee of a regular income).
As you may be aware, there are other countries with their own laws. Mandriva being based in France, which has laws to protect employees against abusive (ie, not motivated by repetitive mistakes of the employee, and a bunch of other factors) layoffs, Gael can sue Mandriva. Then some particular kind of judges (called "juges des prud'hommes") will decide if it's ok or not, and of course, if it's not, they won't force him back into Mandriva, but Mandriva may have to give some indemnities.
Well, Java is a programming language AND the common shortcut name for SUN's implementation (everyone here, at least (non techies), calls Java "Sun Java JDK", especially when talking about the J2SE VM on desktop computers) and don't we Slashdotters all wish Java was free software, and that the trademark would be used to enforce the compliance? Now there's not such a big difference between a communication protocol and a programming language.
Or isn't it the same with the enforcement of the Linux trademark? And doesn't Mozilla already do this (with their logo, too)?
I, for one, am all in favor of trademark enforcement. It gives the guarantee that the name will only be used for legitimate purposes (ie: not breaking the Java standard, or prevent spyware and adware in BitTorrent). What matters most is the software freedom (and that the implementation is not covered by patents).
Please do not confuse the whole continent with the backward looking french. :)
:)
Please do not confuse the backward looking french with the french
OK some much needed explanation. I have been following all parliament debate over streaming (and I have to use a w32codec ;)).
The things were bad. We were horrified. Our bastard government and so-called "Culture" minister wanted to pass something very much like your Digital Content Security Act along with the transcription of the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) in the "DADVSI" law. So they wanted DRMs to be forced in each "cultural" format and forbid to bypass DRMs. It would have effectively banned all free software that act as a "transmitter" or makes copies because they would have needed them to implement DRMs and force the software editor to prevent people from bypassing the DRMs. However, it's in the 4 fundamental freedoms of free software that people are allowed to modify the source code, so it would have been bad.
The project is in parliament since tuesday. Yesterday, the socialists and communists MEPs (along with very few right-wings) surprised everyone with the approval (59 MEPs, 30 for, 28 against) of the "optionnal global license": those who want to pay 7euros/month will be able to download any music (or movie older than 4 years) from p2p networks, FTP servers, newsgroups, etc. Software is excluded. But the global license removes the need of obligatory DRMs.
Only few amendments (included the global license) was voted yet. The law isn't voted, and it is being (as I watch right now) delayed because this amendment changes pretty much everything. They will certainly do whatever they can to cancel it. However they'll have a hard time doing it. They're trying to remove the amendment as we speech.
Woops. Reading again it looks like the distinction I make between Open Source and Free Software isn't clear. Well, it's not in the license, and maybe not really in the code. Yet there is a difference anyway, even if it's only(?) ideological.
What you call "open source" programs are just some loosely assembled code lines stolen from companies that make real software.
:)
:)). Some would say: Software libre takes more than a license, it takes a design.
Real software? You mean, like Real Player? No loosely assembled code lines for sure.
Do you think a bunch of hippies would do something useful, apart smoking their pot.
At least I'm doing something useful right now! Thanks for the support, I'll keep up the good wo.. err.. smokin'
No, they write software that is outmoded since 1983, and call thelm "free".
Mhh, there's a misunderstanding here sir. Open source may be what you describe, but free (as in speech) software isn't at all. It isn't about code, it's about the software liberty, and in my experience, the code is often better than proprietary code (which nobody sees so there's nothing to be ashamed of, maybe FOSS haters are just jalous that some people can actually produce code that can be shown?
ROFL thanks for your sweetness :). I just love ACs (well .. at least coward :)). Btw you're right, I was totally digging myself deeper into that hole of ignorance that I reside in. Eniak is not the first computer, even if it has been thought for a long time to be the first turing-complete computer (and definitely long enough so that my source of information was wrong). I will meditate on my repent. Still hesitating to shoot myself right now =). Just love the way people read only the parts they want to read and ignore all the rest (like when I was saying something like "I'm not an historian, I say things like I recall them, that's definitely not the point").
Are you used to "reverse quoting", ie reversing the orders of things I said before? Changing context is easy. Read again my first post, why didn't you comment our evolving from apes? Just because my *whole* post wasn't meant as an authoritative source of history! I am sick of the neverending messages "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "DARPA is American so the the DNS root zone must remain under american control", yet you still shift the discussion towards a *general* point I made: Internet is a HUMAN and global achievement. Maybe you don't understand irony? Or more probably, you just forget the whole point to dicuss details.
I am not embarrassed anyhow; your quote says it all, even if I'm not sure Oscar Wilde's exactly this one. I'm not generalizing on Americans, but you are definitely generalizing on Europeans. Anyway, I think I'm done here. Btw, I'm not refuting any contribution of Presber and Eckert and the contribution they made with ENIAC which was indeed the first actual computer (nor the contribution of Americans in the history of computing). Anyway, I think Türing was a true genius, and maybe he had lost some time cracking Enigma... and was harrassed later in his life for personal reasons... to make his "vision" come true. Oh no, forget it