While I don't like the idea of a 1-click patent, they did not lie to the judge. Their arguement was that the patent covered uses on their web site, which it does. The patent can be used for other things, but their patent was originally for the use of 1-click on their site. It is not a fund transfer system, although it can be adapted to be used as one. Basically, they are saying the main use is as a web site purchasing tool, and any other methods are secondary to that. Just because it can be adapted to operate similar to another system, does not mean it is that system. Just think of the patent as if it were on a baseball bat. The patent would be for it's use as a piece of sports equipment. It could be used for self-defense, but that doesn't mean it is a piece of self defense equipment.
If you want to argue about the morality of the issue, think about it this way... If my buddy was dying of hunger and I had a way to give him free food, would it be moral or immoral to give him the food? How much more abstract is it to fulfill the desire for a song? I don't think it's that abstract. Stallman argues the same thing one of his philosophy articles. Is it radical to want to please your friends, or is it simply human nature? I'm sorry, but comparing music to starving does not help your arguement. What if your friend wanted heroin? Would it be moral for you to give it to him? Music is not a necessity. It is a luxory that no one every "needs".
Secondly, lets say my buddy goes out and buys the used CD which is totally legal. The author does not benefit from this transaction either, yet somehow it's a morally "better" solution? That seems strange to me. Please explain how the author doesn't benefit. The musician may not make as much money as you would like, but they d make money from every album sold. Yes, they have to use this money to pay back the loan they took from the record company first, but they do make money from every sale.
Thirdly, as a fan of someone's music, what action can I take that is better for an artist than to expose others to their art? It's hard to sell concert tickets, CDs, website memberships, or whatever without exposure. Up until recently exposure meant radio and MTV but technology is changing that. The question is how can the artist benefit from the change, not how to preserve the status quo? While I in some respects agree with this, you believe you are leaving out the traditional methods of advertising. You're friend already heard the song and asked you for it. How did he hear of it? Most probably through one of these traditional means. As much as I love the idea of intenret bands, it is extremely hard to build a foloowing, because you need to drive people to your website. The traditional means of advertising are still far and away the best way to get fans, because they get to hear your music. Sure, they can hear it on your website, but you have to get them there. Which means they need a reason to go there, which is what is missing from the internet only equation. Lastly, also from a moral standpoint, what did the publisher or record company do for my buddy? Nothing that he can put his finger on. Yet if he goes and buys the CD, they get most of the cash?! How many artists would be better off with a paypal button on their website that people could use to donate money directly to them if they like their music? I have no clue, perhaps most would be better off, perhaps they would die of starvation. I don't know how you answer that one. What did anyone do for your buddy? What did the artist do for your buddy? Most artists would not be better with internet only advertising, because then very few people will every hear of them. Without the publisher, your buddy would have probably never heard the song he wanted, so he couldn't even ask you for it. People like to write off the labels as useless, but they front all the money and do all the advertising. That is a huge thing and it makes or breaks many records. When was the last time you heard a Britney Spears song? When was the last time you heard a song by My Lost Cause (http://www.mylostcause.com/)? That's because Britney is on a major label and My Lost Cause (while being an incredible band) isn't signed and only has a web site. That is what a label does for you.
This comes down to what can be and what should be. Music can be copied for free. That doesn't mean it should be. That music still has value. We can copy any information for free, but that doesn't mean we should. Credit card information can be copied for free as well, but it certainly shouldn't be. Yes, music isn't nearly as important as CC#s, but it illustrates that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Most criminals are idiots. Most criminals are not computer experts, so they don't know anything about encryption, much less how to use it to secure their communications. The readers of/. understand encryption because we deal with technology issues every day. Most criminals don't do this, so they don't understand that encryption could save their ass. There are some who understand this I'm sure, but they are in the minority.
As far as wiretapping havin the potential for abuse, you are correct. So do guns, cars, presciption drugs, P2P, and anything else in the world. Having a potential to be abused doesn't mean we should ban something. We should deal with the abuses and abusers.
While I think there is no need for the general internet monitoring, I think you miss the point of this law on the VOIP side. The point is to make it so they can monitor VOIP calls with a wiretap warrant. As far as I know, they are not trying to get around needing a warrant (for a change) but trying to make sure that when they have a warrant it can be executed, even on VOIP phone equipment. They are extending the law for current phone equipment to the new phone equipment of VOIP, which I have no problem with.
I have no problem with the authorities being able to monitor things like phone calls with a properly obtained warrant. That means there is a legitimate reason for them to be doing it, since they had to go to a judge with evidence of a potential crime to get the warrant. Just because something can be abused doesn't make it evil (see P2P). You deal with the abuse and abusers if it happens, not ban the entire process.
You also fail to report that most of the Windows viruses (or worms or trojans) exploit holes that MS has already patched. How is MS at fault if you refuse to patch your box?
They are not exclusive, but you can't have the top security and top usability at the same time. Take something as simple as email attachments. It is much better from a usability standpoint to be able to just double-click them from within the email and open them. It is harder to have to save them, then go to that directory and run them (and maybe have to mark them as exectuable as well). But providing this level of usability lessens security, as we have seen with the rash of worms going around. The most usable solution is also the least secure solution.
While you are right it is not fair to compare coding from 20 years ago with that of today, it is also unfair to compare OpenBSD with MS. They are aiming at 2 completely seperate goals, so of course they will be different. OpenBSD has the goal of being as secure as possible. They are extremely good at this. They also do not support many of the newest and greatest things and their usability is pretty bad. MS has the opposite goal. They want to have an incredibly usable OS which supports all the latest and greatest hardware and innovations.
Security and usability are on 2 ends of the same spectrum. If you want usability, you have to give up security and vice versa. MS for years has tried to get as close to usability as they could and they gave up security to do it. They are now trying to strike a balance between the 2. They will never be secure as BSD, because they can't give up all usability like BSD can, because their user base is Joe Average.
VoIP will have to suffer plenty of FUD of the credible variety
This has to be one of the stupider statments I have ever read. IF it's true, it's not FUD. Either it is a legitimate concern (which I think this is) or it is a load of higwash and is FUD. Legitimate issues can certainly bring up legitimate concerns, but that doesn't make them FUD.
While I completely agree that there should be no limits on recorded programs off of regular channels (like CBS or HBO), you seemt o not know what PPV stands for. PPV means Pay Per View. The entire concept is that you pay and you get to watch it then. You pay for 1 viewing of the movie. Why in the hell would you think that you should be able to record that and watch it a different time? The entire concept is based around you paying for it and watching it then. That's like paying to see a movie in a theater and expecting to be able to come back and watch it 2 weeks later, because the first time was inconvient for you. If you don't like the concept of Pay Per View, then don't use it, that's fine. But don't bitch because it works exactly as described. You know the terms before you get a PPV movie.
While I think the INDUCE act goes WAY to far in criminalizing things, I think something needs to be done about P2P networks that thrive on copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses for P2P (as many torrents show), but when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done. If I ran a flea market and rented booth, I couldnst claim I didn't have any control over what was being sold. And if 99% of the booths sold illegal merchandise (stolen merchandise, illegal fireworks, drugs, etc) you can guarantee that the flea market would be shut down eventually. Plausible deniablility can and should only go so far.
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
While JG didn't do that well, it wasn;t a mega-bomb. It made back it's money, just didn't do excedingly well. As for going back to Clerks after he said it was done, a huge part of the reason he left the Jersey series was Jason Mewes' addiction. Mewes was extremely messed up, and that was a huge reason for him not wanting to using Jay and Silent Bob anymore. He even said that if Mewes ever got clean he would make another J&SB movie. Well, Mewes is clean and now he's doing it.
I find it interesting how many people are against this hack. IT seems it is Google's own fault for not finding a better revenue model. This seems exactly the same as an Xbox Linux hack. Sure, MS loses money on every XBox, but that's their fault for selling them at a lose. The same thing goes for ad stripping from web sites and apps like AIM. The vast majority of/.ers are for these hacks because they are innovative, useful and cool. Yet when this one comes up that uses Google in the same way, there seems to be a decent number of people against it. It seems if it is okay to cost MS and AOL money by hacking their stuff, hacking Google is just as allowable.
Except that a random system works the best of any system you can come up with. With the "black-list" system, a terrorist just has to fly a couple time to see if he is on the list. If he isn't on the list he can bring whatever he wants next time to sneak through. If we target "muslims" (which I assume you mean anyone with dark skin) then the terrorists just recruit other people without dark skin to perform the job. (Not to mention terrrorists like Timothy McVeigh who was white).
The best way to catch a terrorist is random checks, it is simple math. If we check 5% of the people, there is a 5% chance of catching the terrorist. If we follow rule on who to check, the terrorists just need to have someone fly a couple times until they know they aren't being checked. There is then a 0% chance of catching them, because the terrorists already know they won't be checked. Any system with rules means the bad guys can figure out the rules and work around them.
The law is made by the people. The people elect their congress-critters. Yes, said congress-critters listen to companies a lot, because that is where their money comes from, but the companies do not elect them. In the US, the people get the kind of government they deserve, since they elect them. Unfortunatley, most people in thsi country want a crappy government so they vote for the same people over and over again. It also doesn't help that our election system only works with 2 parties, and any more than that means the least popular person will probably be elected.
The problem I see is how do you prove you didn't send the spam? Proving you didn't do something that is basically untraceable is very difficult. Unless you can actually track the spam to a competitor there is no way to prove you didn't send it. Even if it came from a 3rd party, there is no way to see who paid that 3rd party (or who is controlling the 3rd party in the case of zombies). Even if they didn't send it, they still lose valuable resources trying to prove they didn't send it, and still may have their site shut down if they can't conclusively prove it. Either way, whoever really sent the spam gets what they were after.
I think you're not understanding. You send an email actually advertising the other site. It lists the current deals at site X (easily found from their web site) and directs people to their site. Then site X gets shut down by their ISP for spamming, hopefully driving more people to you're operational site. Since there is no way to tell where the spam truly originated from (especially if a 3rd party is used to send it) this will be an easy way to take down up and coming companies.
If the council doesn't have the expertise to roll out and operate an OSS solution, then why in the hell is this guy recommending that they do exactly that? If they don't have the expertise to switch to OSS, then the obvious and best solution is to not do it, because it will be a total disaster. It seems the council made the right decision here.
How about saying that you are not allowed to go x miles over the speed of the vehicle you are passing? This way the speed differential would be more of a factor. First, how do you determine the speed of the car you are passing? I know I can't tell if I am going 10 or 15 MPH faster than the car I am passing.
And I realize it was a mistake, but your last sentence is Freudian. Let's assume there are no other cars on the road, what is the speed limit? Can you then go as fast as you want? And what happens when you come across a car? Do you have to slow down to close to their speed, even if they are travelling 10 MPH and you were going 80 MPH? And what about 4 lane highways? So I can only go 10 MPH faster than the car who I am passing, who can only go 10 MPH over the car he is passing, who can only go 10 MPH over the car he is passing, who is doing 60. So I can go 30 MPH faster than another car on the highway? (And that's only if it is limited to 10MPH, which is a slower passing speed.) Or can I onyl go 10 over the slowest person?
Actually, driving 50 on an icy road in a blizzard would not be legal, even if you were under the speed limit. The speed limit is the maximum you are legally allowed to drive under safe conditions. If the conditions are bad, you can still be stopped for reckless driving, even if you are under the speed limit.
And since you are so against fixed speed limits, what exactly is your solution? Do we let each person decide what is safe for them? Do we let each cop decide what they think is safe for that road at that time? And let's not forget that accidents are not caused by speed, but by speed differentials. So if it is not a fixed speed limit, it is inherently more dangerous, as you have cars travelling at different speeds.
While you are correct there are a lot of FDA regulation, it is nowhere near as bad as you describe. I work at a CRO (Contract Research Organization) that does nothing but work on drug studies. You do NOT have to this process except for the first time you roll out your software. You have to do comprehensive testing on any software that touches patient data, but it is the same type of testing that should be done on any software. You then have to test the functionality of any changes you make, but you don't have to retest the entire software package. You do NOT have to do any 6 month testing for data entry screens or anything of the like.
Is it well regulated? Yes, certainly. But not so much that it impedes more than it helps.
How exactly does using Linux instead of Windows solve any of these problems? What do you do when there is a critical update to Linux (say a kernel update)? Do you install the unsupported, untested patch, or leave the system unpatched and vulnerable? You shouldn't be using Windows or Linux in these machines, but something like QNX, that is super hardened and tested for enbedded systems. Linux is not the holy grail of OSes, and shouldn't be used for every single application.
While you are absolutely correct about this, it is also important to note that almost everything people refer to as "fair use" is not in fact fair use. Fair use refers to (generally) using small pieces of a work for either review or educational purposes. Time-shifting and making backups is NOT covered under fair use.
The first thing you need to learn is that you shouldn't be doing large scale testing on your own systems. That is just setting yourself up for failure, since the only real testing is independent testing. Preferably you should have full-time testers who not only design what needs to be tested, but how the testing will be done and who will do the actual testing. Where I work, we have 2 testers who write up the test plans, and then recruit actual users to do the testing (because they can then not only get some exporsure to the system, they can suggest any enhancements for the next version). Testing your own work is a huge no-no, as you are much more likely to let small things slide than an independent tester is.
While you are correctly ou can't "call it back", they can make it illegal to use. If I release software X, that infringes on a patent Y, person or company Z (remember, not all patents are held by big companies) can sure me over my software. If they win, it was essentially illegal for me to release my software, since I didn't have the rights to patent Y. So at that point, the software I wrote is no longer under the GPL, as I didn't have the rights to release it. So it essential null and void. It would be like stealing the source of Windows and releasing it under the GPL. You can't stop people from trading it, but it still isn't legal, since you didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
The flip side of this though is that he is using the music to enhance his business, so why don't they deserve something (for using CDs, not the radio). The music is obviously worth something, as dentists are using it in their business. And many (probably most) are willing to pay a fee rather than go completely without music in their office. So why would they assume they can use music for free to enhance their business?
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't like the idea of a 1-click patent, they did not lie to the judge. Their arguement was that the patent covered uses on their web site, which it does. The patent can be used for other things, but their patent was originally for the use of 1-click on their site. It is not a fund transfer system, although it can be adapted to be used as one. Basically, they are saying the main use is as a web site purchasing tool, and any other methods are secondary to that. Just because it can be adapted to operate similar to another system, does not mean it is that system. Just think of the patent as if it were on a baseball bat. The patent would be for it's use as a piece of sports equipment. It could be used for self-defense, but that doesn't mean it is a piece of self defense equipment.
If you want to argue about the morality of the issue, think about it this way... If my buddy was dying of hunger and I had a way to give him free food, would it be moral or immoral to give him the food? How much more abstract is it to fulfill the desire for a song? I don't think it's that abstract. Stallman argues the same thing one of his philosophy articles. Is it radical to want to please your friends, or is it simply human nature?
I'm sorry, but comparing music to starving does not help your arguement. What if your friend wanted heroin? Would it be moral for you to give it to him? Music is not a necessity. It is a luxory that no one every "needs".
Secondly, lets say my buddy goes out and buys the used CD which is totally legal. The author does not benefit from this transaction either, yet somehow it's a morally "better" solution? That seems strange to me.
Please explain how the author doesn't benefit. The musician may not make as much money as you would like, but they d make money from every album sold. Yes, they have to use this money to pay back the loan they took from the record company first, but they do make money from every sale.
Thirdly, as a fan of someone's music, what action can I take that is better for an artist than to expose others to their art? It's hard to sell concert tickets, CDs, website memberships, or whatever without exposure. Up until recently exposure meant radio and MTV but technology is changing that. The question is how can the artist benefit from the change, not how to preserve the status quo?
While I in some respects agree with this, you believe you are leaving out the traditional methods of advertising. You're friend already heard the song and asked you for it. How did he hear of it? Most probably through one of these traditional means. As much as I love the idea of intenret bands, it is extremely hard to build a foloowing, because you need to drive people to your website. The traditional means of advertising are still far and away the best way to get fans, because they get to hear your music. Sure, they can hear it on your website, but you have to get them there. Which means they need a reason to go there, which is what is missing from the internet only equation.
Lastly, also from a moral standpoint, what did the publisher or record company do for my buddy? Nothing that he can put his finger on. Yet if he goes and buys the CD, they get most of the cash?! How many artists would be better off with a paypal button on their website that people could use to donate money directly to them if they like their music? I have no clue, perhaps most would be better off, perhaps they would die of starvation. I don't know how you answer that one.
What did anyone do for your buddy? What did the artist do for your buddy? Most artists would not be better with internet only advertising, because then very few people will every hear of them. Without the publisher, your buddy would have probably never heard the song he wanted, so he couldn't even ask you for it. People like to write off the labels as useless, but they front all the money and do all the advertising. That is a huge thing and it makes or breaks many records. When was the last time you heard a Britney Spears song? When was the last time you heard a song by My Lost Cause (http://www.mylostcause.com/)? That's because Britney is on a major label and My Lost Cause (while being an incredible band) isn't signed and only has a web site. That is what a label does for you.
This comes down to what can be and what should be. Music can be copied for free. That doesn't mean it should be. That music still has value. We can copy any information for free, but that doesn't mean we should. Credit card information can be copied for free as well, but it certainly shouldn't be. Yes, music isn't nearly as important as CC#s, but it illustrates that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Most criminals are idiots. Most criminals are not computer experts, so they don't know anything about encryption, much less how to use it to secure their communications. The readers of /. understand encryption because we deal with technology issues every day. Most criminals don't do this, so they don't understand that encryption could save their ass. There are some who understand this I'm sure, but they are in the minority.
As far as wiretapping havin the potential for abuse, you are correct. So do guns, cars, presciption drugs, P2P, and anything else in the world. Having a potential to be abused doesn't mean we should ban something. We should deal with the abuses and abusers.
While I think there is no need for the general internet monitoring, I think you miss the point of this law on the VOIP side. The point is to make it so they can monitor VOIP calls with a wiretap warrant. As far as I know, they are not trying to get around needing a warrant (for a change) but trying to make sure that when they have a warrant it can be executed, even on VOIP phone equipment. They are extending the law for current phone equipment to the new phone equipment of VOIP, which I have no problem with.
I have no problem with the authorities being able to monitor things like phone calls with a properly obtained warrant. That means there is a legitimate reason for them to be doing it, since they had to go to a judge with evidence of a potential crime to get the warrant. Just because something can be abused doesn't make it evil (see P2P). You deal with the abuse and abusers if it happens, not ban the entire process.
You also fail to report that most of the Windows viruses (or worms or trojans) exploit holes that MS has already patched. How is MS at fault if you refuse to patch your box?
They are not exclusive, but you can't have the top security and top usability at the same time. Take something as simple as email attachments. It is much better from a usability standpoint to be able to just double-click them from within the email and open them. It is harder to have to save them, then go to that directory and run them (and maybe have to mark them as exectuable as well). But providing this level of usability lessens security, as we have seen with the rash of worms going around. The most usable solution is also the least secure solution.
While you are right it is not fair to compare coding from 20 years ago with that of today, it is also unfair to compare OpenBSD with MS. They are aiming at 2 completely seperate goals, so of course they will be different. OpenBSD has the goal of being as secure as possible. They are extremely good at this. They also do not support many of the newest and greatest things and their usability is pretty bad. MS has the opposite goal. They want to have an incredibly usable OS which supports all the latest and greatest hardware and innovations.
Security and usability are on 2 ends of the same spectrum. If you want usability, you have to give up security and vice versa. MS for years has tried to get as close to usability as they could and they gave up security to do it. They are now trying to strike a balance between the 2. They will never be secure as BSD, because they can't give up all usability like BSD can, because their user base is Joe Average.
VoIP will have to suffer plenty of FUD of the credible variety
This has to be one of the stupider statments I have ever read. IF it's true, it's not FUD. Either it is a legitimate concern (which I think this is) or it is a load of higwash and is FUD. Legitimate issues can certainly bring up legitimate concerns, but that doesn't make them FUD.
While I completely agree that there should be no limits on recorded programs off of regular channels (like CBS or HBO), you seemt o not know what PPV stands for. PPV means Pay Per View. The entire concept is that you pay and you get to watch it then. You pay for 1 viewing of the movie. Why in the hell would you think that you should be able to record that and watch it a different time? The entire concept is based around you paying for it and watching it then. That's like paying to see a movie in a theater and expecting to be able to come back and watch it 2 weeks later, because the first time was inconvient for you. If you don't like the concept of Pay Per View, then don't use it, that's fine. But don't bitch because it works exactly as described. You know the terms before you get a PPV movie.
While I think the INDUCE act goes WAY to far in criminalizing things, I think something needs to be done about P2P networks that thrive on copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses for P2P (as many torrents show), but when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done. If I ran a flea market and rented booth, I couldnst claim I didn't have any control over what was being sold. And if 99% of the booths sold illegal merchandise (stolen merchandise, illegal fireworks, drugs, etc) you can guarantee that the flea market would be shut down eventually. Plausible deniablility can and should only go so far.
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
While JG didn't do that well, it wasn;t a mega-bomb. It made back it's money, just didn't do excedingly well. As for going back to Clerks after he said it was done, a huge part of the reason he left the Jersey series was Jason Mewes' addiction. Mewes was extremely messed up, and that was a huge reason for him not wanting to using Jay and Silent Bob anymore. He even said that if Mewes ever got clean he would make another J&SB movie. Well, Mewes is clean and now he's doing it.
I find it interesting how many people are against this hack. IT seems it is Google's own fault for not finding a better revenue model. This seems exactly the same as an Xbox Linux hack. Sure, MS loses money on every XBox, but that's their fault for selling them at a lose. The same thing goes for ad stripping from web sites and apps like AIM. The vast majority of /.ers are for these hacks because they are innovative, useful and cool. Yet when this one comes up that uses Google in the same way, there seems to be a decent number of people against it. It seems if it is okay to cost MS and AOL money by hacking their stuff, hacking Google is just as allowable.
Except that a random system works the best of any system you can come up with. With the "black-list" system, a terrorist just has to fly a couple time to see if he is on the list. If he isn't on the list he can bring whatever he wants next time to sneak through. If we target "muslims" (which I assume you mean anyone with dark skin) then the terrorists just recruit other people without dark skin to perform the job. (Not to mention terrrorists like Timothy McVeigh who was white).
The best way to catch a terrorist is random checks, it is simple math. If we check 5% of the people, there is a 5% chance of catching the terrorist. If we follow rule on who to check, the terrorists just need to have someone fly a couple times until they know they aren't being checked. There is then a 0% chance of catching them, because the terrorists already know they won't be checked. Any system with rules means the bad guys can figure out the rules and work around them.
The law is made by the people. The people elect their congress-critters. Yes, said congress-critters listen to companies a lot, because that is where their money comes from, but the companies do not elect them. In the US, the people get the kind of government they deserve, since they elect them. Unfortunatley, most people in thsi country want a crappy government so they vote for the same people over and over again. It also doesn't help that our election system only works with 2 parties, and any more than that means the least popular person will probably be elected.
The problem I see is how do you prove you didn't send the spam? Proving you didn't do something that is basically untraceable is very difficult. Unless you can actually track the spam to a competitor there is no way to prove you didn't send it. Even if it came from a 3rd party, there is no way to see who paid that 3rd party (or who is controlling the 3rd party in the case of zombies). Even if they didn't send it, they still lose valuable resources trying to prove they didn't send it, and still may have their site shut down if they can't conclusively prove it. Either way, whoever really sent the spam gets what they were after.
I think you're not understanding. You send an email actually advertising the other site. It lists the current deals at site X (easily found from their web site) and directs people to their site. Then site X gets shut down by their ISP for spamming, hopefully driving more people to you're operational site. Since there is no way to tell where the spam truly originated from (especially if a 3rd party is used to send it) this will be an easy way to take down up and coming companies.
If the council doesn't have the expertise to roll out and operate an OSS solution, then why in the hell is this guy recommending that they do exactly that? If they don't have the expertise to switch to OSS, then the obvious and best solution is to not do it, because it will be a total disaster. It seems the council made the right decision here.
How about saying that you are not allowed to go x miles over the speed of the vehicle you are passing? This way the speed differential would be more of a factor.
First, how do you determine the speed of the car you are passing? I know I can't tell if I am going 10 or 15 MPH faster than the car I am passing.
And I realize it was a mistake, but your last sentence is Freudian. Let's assume there are no other cars on the road, what is the speed limit? Can you then go as fast as you want? And what happens when you come across a car? Do you have to slow down to close to their speed, even if they are travelling 10 MPH and you were going 80 MPH? And what about 4 lane highways? So I can only go 10 MPH faster than the car who I am passing, who can only go 10 MPH over the car he is passing, who can only go 10 MPH over the car he is passing, who is doing 60. So I can go 30 MPH faster than another car on the highway? (And that's only if it is limited to 10MPH, which is a slower passing speed.) Or can I onyl go 10 over the slowest person?
Actually, driving 50 on an icy road in a blizzard would not be legal, even if you were under the speed limit. The speed limit is the maximum you are legally allowed to drive under safe conditions. If the conditions are bad, you can still be stopped for reckless driving, even if you are under the speed limit.
And since you are so against fixed speed limits, what exactly is your solution? Do we let each person decide what is safe for them? Do we let each cop decide what they think is safe for that road at that time? And let's not forget that accidents are not caused by speed, but by speed differentials. So if it is not a fixed speed limit, it is inherently more dangerous, as you have cars travelling at different speeds.
While you are correct there are a lot of FDA regulation, it is nowhere near as bad as you describe. I work at a CRO (Contract Research Organization) that does nothing but work on drug studies. You do NOT have to this process except for the first time you roll out your software. You have to do comprehensive testing on any software that touches patient data, but it is the same type of testing that should be done on any software. You then have to test the functionality of any changes you make, but you don't have to retest the entire software package. You do NOT have to do any 6 month testing for data entry screens or anything of the like.
Is it well regulated? Yes, certainly. But not so much that it impedes more than it helps.
How exactly does using Linux instead of Windows solve any of these problems? What do you do when there is a critical update to Linux (say a kernel update)? Do you install the unsupported, untested patch, or leave the system unpatched and vulnerable? You shouldn't be using Windows or Linux in these machines, but something like QNX, that is super hardened and tested for enbedded systems. Linux is not the holy grail of OSes, and shouldn't be used for every single application.
While you are absolutely correct about this, it is also important to note that almost everything people refer to as "fair use" is not in fact fair use. Fair use refers to (generally) using small pieces of a work for either review or educational purposes. Time-shifting and making backups is NOT covered under fair use.
The first thing you need to learn is that you shouldn't be doing large scale testing on your own systems. That is just setting yourself up for failure, since the only real testing is independent testing. Preferably you should have full-time testers who not only design what needs to be tested, but how the testing will be done and who will do the actual testing. Where I work, we have 2 testers who write up the test plans, and then recruit actual users to do the testing (because they can then not only get some exporsure to the system, they can suggest any enhancements for the next version). Testing your own work is a huge no-no, as you are much more likely to let small things slide than an independent tester is.
While you are correctly ou can't "call it back", they can make it illegal to use. If I release software X, that infringes on a patent Y, person or company Z (remember, not all patents are held by big companies) can sure me over my software. If they win, it was essentially illegal for me to release my software, since I didn't have the rights to patent Y. So at that point, the software I wrote is no longer under the GPL, as I didn't have the rights to release it. So it essential null and void. It would be like stealing the source of Windows and releasing it under the GPL. You can't stop people from trading it, but it still isn't legal, since you didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place.
The flip side of this though is that he is using the music to enhance his business, so why don't they deserve something (for using CDs, not the radio). The music is obviously worth something, as dentists are using it in their business. And many (probably most) are willing to pay a fee rather than go completely without music in their office. So why would they assume they can use music for free to enhance their business?