The idea of the laptop is to make schools and children responsible for and in control of their own technology, rather than being passively spoon fed technology.
Therefore the idea is that people fix things themselves. This is a good thing if things are built with this in mind. Repair your own thinkpad (no problem), repair your own ipod (no chance).
If we have any hope of saving the planet from being one giant landfill dump, then we really need to learn to fix electronic devices ourselves.
While the majority of society is not always on the correct moral path, democracy (greek for mob-rule) is the only model we got. Would you rather have the nobility tell you what to think?
The poor little Indians cannot handle democracy, don't worry London knows what do to, the Empire will look after you.
Interesting point, however you are wrong. They have a sophisticated argument about privacy in the digital age. That what private persons do, on a non-commercial basis, has no relevance to the government.
Whether those two people are man and wife in bed, or two people connected only by a bittorrent, they still have a right to privacy.
I may, or may not be a moron, however that does not does not constitute a relevant argument. Neither the level of moronity nor the level of fucking affects whether I am right or wrong.
Maybe "Judeo-Christian" could be replaced by Western-Enlightenment.
What I mean is whatever we call the historical values that got us from subsistence farming to discussing on Slashdot.
The idea of "Intellectual Property" is only 20 years old. The idea that copyrights, patents and trademarks were more than a temporary government intervention in the market, and making a complete value system out of it, that is not what got us here.
A new multi-national nobility (/mafia) who could fit into the average conference venue, are trying to obtain the wealth and power of the whole world. To do this they are willing subvert all governmental and non-governmental institutions into following the cause of this new monarchy.
The particular aim is to stop any competition or checks and balances that might restrain the growth of their power. Conflicts of interests and corruption don't matter to them, they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.
So a police follows old media companies rather than the good of society. To him he feels no shame because he does not believe in democracy, he believes in "Intellectual Property", a doctrine not unlike the divine right of kings. Like Tudor monarchs gave out monopolies to the nobility and enforced them with the sword, so does the new nobility.
Researchers are so lazy, interviewing people on campus, just because they are there next to you, does not seem to be a very credible methodology. Students are probably not a representative sample of anything.
Just because some guy with a political agenda picks a common word loosely related to his goals as a name, doesn't mean that the word changes it's meaning to match that guy's goals.
It does if they trademark it. Open Source is a trademarked term, software has to meet the Open Source definition in order to be open source.
Indeed. Non-commercial is not "open source" or free software. It has to be free to use for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. If you can't resell it then it is not open source or free software,
Not everyone who buys software can read code or understand the hardware which it controls.
Sure, but that does not affect my point, that often people are pretending that something can be trusted when there is no basis for that trust.
If you can't read code then you have even less basis on which to trust it. Likewise, I am not a lawyer so I have no basis on which to trust the contract with my ISP.
If you meet a skilled hacker, no matter what you throw at him/her they will be able to beat it. However most security holes aren't a huge deal because as long as there isn't a.exe that Joe Script-Kiddy can execute its not going to be exploited.
You are missing the vital link here.
1. Skilled Cracker will find your security hole. 2. Skilled Cracker will then brag about it on a forum and provide example code. 3. Not-so-skilled cracker-wanabee will fill it out and package it as a.exe 4. Joe Script-Kiddy executes the.exe
On the Web, this cycle does not take very long. Imagine 1+2 happens on Friday, by the time you come back to work on Monday your server is being accessed.
I agree that any attempts for security by proxy will always have vulnerabilities. If you haven't checked the code yourself, you can never trust it 100%. If no one can check the code but crackers with fuzzing tools, then you can't trust it at all.
For most of readers here it will no doubt be obvious, but sadly this is lost on many people who buy software, even those who buy software for large companies.
If you want to see how the open source world responds to threats, look no further than SCO. Many Linux fans are also Unix admins at work, and many of them got their employers to switch from SCO to *anything other Unix-like OS* in response to the threats. Now SCO is in bankruptcy and not likely to come out.
There is a clear and well defined path. Continue to write code against the two series (2.5, 2.6, and so on) until the whole world has moved to 3.0.
During this time, an automated tool will provide a 3.0 version of your 2.6 code. Don't edit the 3.0 code but instead keep adding the changes to the 2.6 version and regenerate the 3.0 code.
Slashdot Mirror
... when does Linux get ZFS?
The idea of the laptop is to make schools and children responsible for and in control of their own technology, rather than being passively spoon fed technology.
Therefore the idea is that people fix things themselves. This is a good thing if things are built with this in mind. Repair your own thinkpad (no problem), repair your own ipod (no chance).
If we have any hope of saving the planet from being one giant landfill dump, then we really need to learn to fix electronic devices ourselves.
What has Islamic slavery got to do with the price of fish? It is not a competition to see who can restrict the most freedom.
Interesting but isolated incidents. That does not really equate to anything like the all-encompassing view of copyright being promoted today.
While the majority of society is not always on the correct moral path, democracy (greek for mob-rule) is the only model we got. Would you rather have the nobility tell you what to think?
The poor little Indians cannot handle democracy, don't worry London knows what do to, the Empire will look after you.
Interesting point, however you are wrong. They have a sophisticated argument about privacy in the digital age. That what private persons do, on a non-commercial basis, has no relevance to the government.
Whether those two people are man and wife in bed, or two people connected only by a bittorrent, they still have a right to privacy.
I may, or may not be a moron, however that does not does not constitute a relevant argument. Neither the level of moronity nor the level of fucking affects whether I am right or wrong.
Off topic maybe, but interesting none the less.
Maybe "Judeo-Christian" could be replaced by Western-Enlightenment.
What I mean is whatever we call the historical values that got us from subsistence farming to discussing on Slashdot.
The idea of "Intellectual Property" is only 20 years old. The idea that copyrights, patents and trademarks were more than a temporary government intervention in the market, and making a complete value system out of it, that is not what got us here.
That is an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Most people do not commit murder, most people will never commit murder. Almost all societies agree on that.
Whether sharing bits of data between you and others is a crime or not depends on the value of that particular society.
A new multi-national nobility (/mafia) who could fit into the average conference venue, are trying to obtain the wealth and power of the whole world. To do this they are willing subvert all governmental and non-governmental institutions into following the cause of this new monarchy.
The particular aim is to stop any competition or checks and balances that might restrain the growth of their power. Conflicts of interests and corruption don't matter to them, they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.
So a police follows old media companies rather than the good of society. To him he feels no shame because he does not believe in democracy, he believes in "Intellectual Property", a doctrine not unlike the divine right of kings. Like Tudor monarchs gave out monopolies to the nobility and enforced them with the sword, so does the new nobility.
If we really lived in a democracy, then filesharing would be legal, because more people fileshare than vote for the government.
I think it is a quote from Robocop, referring to Dick Jones' speech
"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation program. Spare parts for the next decade. Who cares if it worked or not?"
Did you read this?
or this
Researchers are so lazy, interviewing people on campus, just because they are there next to you, does not seem to be a very credible methodology. Students are probably not a representative sample of anything.
Its mine, my precious, get away pesky data-mining hobbits.
Just because some guy with a political agenda picks a common word loosely related to his goals as a name, doesn't mean that the word changes it's meaning to match that guy's goals.
It does if they trademark it. Open Source is a trademarked term, software has to meet the Open Source definition in order to be open source.
Indeed. Non-commercial is not "open source" or free software. It has to be free to use for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. If you can't resell it then it is not open source or free software,
They are mostly free too because no one has bought them. But perhaps useful in this case,
... who knew Steve Ballmer could skateboard?
Not everyone who buys software can read code or understand the hardware which it controls.
Sure, but that does not affect my point, that often people are pretending that something can be trusted when there is no basis for that trust.
If you can't read code then you have even less basis on which to trust it. Likewise, I am not a lawyer so I have no basis on which to trust the contract with my ISP.
If you meet a skilled hacker, no matter what you throw at him/her they will be able to beat it. However most security holes aren't a huge deal because as long as there isn't a .exe that Joe Script-Kiddy can execute its not going to be exploited.
.exe .exe
You are missing the vital link here.
1. Skilled Cracker will find your security hole.
2. Skilled Cracker will then brag about it on a forum and provide example code.
3. Not-so-skilled cracker-wanabee will fill it out and package it as a
4. Joe Script-Kiddy executes the
On the Web, this cycle does not take very long. Imagine 1+2 happens on Friday, by the time you come back to work on Monday your server is being accessed.
I agree that any attempts for security by proxy will always have vulnerabilities. If you haven't checked the code yourself, you can never trust it 100%. If no one can check the code but crackers with fuzzing tools, then you can't trust it at all.
For most of readers here it will no doubt be obvious, but sadly this is lost on many people who buy software, even those who buy software for large companies.
If you want to see how the open source world responds to threats, look no further than SCO. Many Linux fans are also Unix admins at work, and many of them got their employers to switch from SCO to *anything other Unix-like OS* in response to the threats. Now SCO is in bankruptcy and not likely to come out.
There is a clear and well defined path. Continue to write code against the two series (2.5, 2.6, and so on) until the whole world has moved to 3.0.
During this time, an automated tool will provide a 3.0 version of your 2.6 code. Don't edit the 3.0 code but instead keep adding the changes to the 2.6 version and regenerate the 3.0 code.
Well the FSF do hold copyright of the licence.
Imagine the following:
A distributes software X to B under the GPL.
A pulls this stunt and tries to revoke B's copy of X.
B refuses and even redistributes the software.
A attempts to take legal action against B.
B calls FSF the authors of the licence to present evidence about the meaning of the licence.
It is FSF's view of what the licence means is not irrelevant.
A did not licence the code of what they thought the GPL meant in their own heads, the licenced it under what the FSF wrote.
It is the same with money, if I promise to pay you £10, it is not my interpretation of the £10 note but what it says on the note that matters.
Probably lots, I mean you don't have to actually every get to trial, if you have sold the stock then the cash is in the bag (e.g. SCO).
Still not the best example, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas#The_patent