Uhm, did you even read the article? They didn't lie about their earnings. Their overall earnings remain constant. Whats changing is when they are counting their income on individual subscriptions. Instead of it being agregated monthly it's going to be amortised over the life of the contract on a daily basis so that it matches up with the losses incurred for the contract. The previouse methodology was in no way weird, non standerd nor sneaky. This way is just better.
He's wrong, you can make money with free software. I have made money with free software. Free software doesn't reduce the amount of work available, instead it makes the work that is available more interesting and more usefull to society.
Instead of reinventing the wheel for each client I can add the features the customer desires, getting paid by the person with the itch and benefiting myself, the customer, all of my previouse customers and all my potential customers.
What software product does everything you want it too? If you need a delta in free software bad enough you can hire somone (such as the original author) to add the feature you need, or to remove the bug thats bothering you.
Think of programming as a service and it works. As for giving it away completly, you just providing the service to yourself.
I think having a self sufficient breeding population off of this rock is a problem for 2004. It's the best investment in our future we currently have available. When the rock hits, it will not matter that the US has managed to reduce it's particulate emissions by 0.01% because it will A) be dwarfed by the ejecta and B) there won't be anyone around down here to care.
Without a self sufficent population off planet, we are one slip up from lacking existance. A moon base is a good first step (although an asteroid base or twenty would be a better first step)...
Take someones property from them and they are possibly within their rights to drop you where you stand.
Do you REALLY know that they are bootleging RIAA material as opposed to selling their own or their friends material? (I've personally never witnessed a streetcorner bootleger, I have witnessed local musicians selling their burned CDs of their own songs on the sidewalks of Seattle... one of those high concealed carry areas)
They had to do that anyway. Even if he hadn't hacked their site, they still havethe responsibility to do everything they are doign now as soon as they found the problem. He has potentially cost them at most the interest on the money they are spending now as opposed to in the future. He has potentially saved them their very existance.
Likely it won't be because one of the other hundred people who walks by will pick it up and keep it.
Now, consider that you are storeing something of mine in your wallet and you drop it on the sidewalk and don't notice. Isn't it my right, and to some extent my responsibility to attempt to return it to you if I notice that you droped it, possibly with a note telling you when you droped it and how to secure your pocket such that it doesn't fall out again?
Thats all he's doing, it's just the wallets he's returning happen to have things important to a lot of people. If you gave someone something to keep safe and they weren't doing it, wouldn't you want to be told?
The metaphor is accurate, though some levels are missing. Would you be happier with the following:
The T1 guy does buisness out of a room. The room is subleased from a company that controls a floor of the office building. The floor is subleased from another company that owns the top half of the building. The building as a whole is owned and operated by UUbuildingco, and they, in their great wisdom, lease the ground level and rooms on other floors to a company that knowingly subleases individual rooms to crack dealers and meth labs.
Some People against Excessive Wack Stuff publish a list of nasty establishments that people may want to know about. Some taxi companies happen to trust and agree with the opinions provided in the list and in the interests of protecting their staff and customers, refrain from driveing near the address on the list. Sure, there are some legitamate buisnesses (like T1) that don't get customers because of the Taxi companies policies, but if the customer really wanted to visit them, they could just go to another Taxi company, or better yet, the T1 guy could move to another building that actually cares about the safety and well being of the rest of the town and their tenants.
Simple things should be easy. Complex things should be possible.
VB gets some of the first and soem of the second, but there are a lot of simple things that are not even possible with VB, and a large set that are by no means easy. Some of these things intersect with things that people want to do.
Stumbler is not capable of generating the traffic pattern observed in the initial and ongoing network traffic. Stumbler is the copycat that mimics a few of the publicly known charecteristics of still rising window size 55808 traffic with forged damn near everything.
Aggain, assuming that SCO is correct in their accusations (something I am not actually doing but as the situation of them being incorrect is to some extent trivial...)
Oh, I fully understand that the work as a whole is tainted (I even included language to that effect), however, no one BUT SCO and the original infringer KNEW that it was tainted, everyone else was acting in good faith. Additionally, as SCO was the party whose code was infringed, they did have the oportunity to untaint everything by knowingly releasing their missapropriated ip under the GPL.
I'm not saying that this would untaint previouse versions, what I'm saying is that just before SCO releases, every thing in their is either partially copyright by SCO and not intended to be there or intended to be there. At this point the only one who is knowingly infringing is the original basterd. At this point, SCO has the oportunity to make things right as they are the ones who could release (in actuality as opposed to just being as far as people knew) those parts of the code that they have the copyright of or that is derivative of their copyright as they know that every other author intended for the code to be released under the GPL.
We still don't know that SCO is right so we (everyone who doesn't have direct knowledge of the original infringement) are still acting in good faith and not knowingly infringing, any infringement we have perpatrated is the responsibility of the entities that missrepresented the state of the project to us (up untill SCO knew about things that was the individual, individuals or corporation responsible for the infringement). The problem for SCO is that they are knowingly infringing on a LOT of peoples ip IF (as the threat letters are indicating) they did not in fact intend to release the code they held the copyright too and at this point it's entirely their own doing. For the entire period from when they knew about the infringement and the actual state of things, untill the rest of us get evidence that they are correct, they (and the original infringer) are the only ones responsible for the ongoing infringement of both their ip and everyone elses.
Assuming that somone did in fact missapropriate SCO ip (if such a beast exists) and get it into the kernal, falsely under the GPL, the following seems to be the case:
At the point where it was inserted, the GPL license for distributing that specific bit of code (and as a result, anything containing that code) becomes invalid and we revert to copyright.
However, the code (by way of the kernal) was distributed in good faith by other parties, claiming to be GPLed (while not in fact being GPLed).
SCO gets ahold of it and redistributes it, the non missapropriated portions are certainly GPLed by the missapropriated versions aren't and as a result the whole isn't, but SCO has the copyright on the missapropriated parts and can distribute those parts under the GPL, and further as the other parts are certainly GPLed, the whole can again be GPLed. However, so long as SCO is unaware of the missapropriation, things are in limbo as a fraud has been perpatrated upon them that they are unaware of.
At some later point SCO discovers that some of the code in what they have been distributing under the GPL is their ip and that it should not be there. Now, up untill this point SCO has been acting in good faith (as has everyone else except the original infringer). However, now SCO has to make a few choices: Continue distributing the kernel and either be commiting KNOWING copyright infringement; continue distributing the kernel and KNOWINGLY release their missapropriated ip under the GPL while persuing a case against the original infringer; or STOP distributing the kernel, taking measures to mitigate damages and persuing a case against the original infringer.
Apparently they chose the first option as there appears to have been a lag time of 18months between when they knew their was infringement and when they stoped distributing other peoples copyrighted materials while being aware that they did not have a valid license for said distribution. This isn't good faith behavior and deserves a good beating. Either the second or third options would have been fine and deserving of praise or at least understanding, but that isn't what they chose to do, instead they have engaged in significant copyright infringment, exacerbated damages and refused to work with those who made good faith efforts to correct the problem.
This of course is based on the assumption that they are correct and that their ip was included in the linux kernel without their permission. I don't personally bellieve that to be the case, but even if it is, their actions are deplorable.
That only saves them from further infringement, it doesn't fix the infringement they have allready committed. In the case of derivative works, it is not unheard of for unauthorized derivative works to be turned over to the original copyright holders as part of the remedy of a copyright infringement suit (it's not normally what happens, but it has happened).
If I burn out on a game after only 3 weeks then it hasn't even made it from the ok to good camp. If I still play the game regularly after having it for 3 months then it's probably in the great camp, and, if a year leater, I still play it regularly, it's in the classic camp.
A quick survey of the other five gamers present nets similar (though not identicle) responses, but we may just be weird.
Take a look here. The truth of the statement depends on what you mean by 'produce'. If you mean 'release into the enviroment' then under current US regulations, Coal Power releases more radiological materials and has a greater impact on background radiation levels than Nuclear Power. If you mean produces nastier material on a kilogram by kilogram basis then the Nukeplant is much nastier, but it produces significantly less material and (with current regulations) is much safer in the disposal of that material.
On the other hand, if a shop just sends me something unsolicited, even if it's a mistake, I can keep it. In my previouse apartment I never signed up for cable, I didn't modify any of their equipment nor did I use any special equipment to decode their signals. My first and only contact with the cable company (with regards to service at that apartment) was a single bill they sent and my response to it. When I moved in I was given a form to sign up for cable that I specifically did not fill out as I didn't want cable at that time.
Things are differnt in my current location as I am paying for it and wish to keep it, but I still didn't have any contact with the company (actually I think it's a different company than the first one) beyond them sending me bills and providing the cable. I signed no agreements, I made no calls, I filled out no forms.
I have NEVER signed anything with regards to my cable service.
In my last apartment I had a simple arangement with the cable company, they send me bills, I tell them I never signed up for cable and don't want it, they don't bother to turn it off and don't send me bills.
Things are different in my current location (I do want cable and am paying), but I still never signed up for anything and the bills neither contain nor referance a contract...
Even if the hypertori topology of the universe is correct it doesn't imply that the universe has any particular curvature, it's still possible that it has positive, negative or flat intrinsic curvature.
You have to remember that the curvature of a torus embeded in 'flat' 3 space is purely an artifact of that embeding and not intrinsic in the topology of the torus. More specifically, there exist mappings from the embeded (intrinsicly curved) surface of the three dimensionally embeded torus to topologically identicle spaces that have everywhere flat intrinsic curvature.
As a thought experiment, consider a cube where the faces are portals to their oposites. Internally, this construct has the topology of a hypertorus but an everywhere flat topology.
For some nice diagrams and comentary that explain curvature (of the important, intrinisic kind) rather well, take a look at this, just skip over any of the math thats beyond your abilities, it's not really needed to understand the concepts.
The email address is equivelent to a phone number. The host portion of the email address is more akin to the exchange as oposed to a specific phone number, as such, resending when the mail server is down isn't redialing when you don't get an answer, it's redialing when you get an error in the phone system. Aka, your exchange never makes contact with the target exchange so you AREN'T redialing the number as only the first bit of it is being interpreted at all, you never dialed the number in the first place.
Actually, I bellieve the "taking away rights" crowd is more in referance to the US "doctrine of first sale". Basically, if you have a copy of a work that was not created in violation of copyright (the entity that made the copy is the copyright holder or has been given the right to create copies of the work by the copyright holder) and you obtained your particular copy legally (payed for it over the counter at a retail store for example) and did not explicitly agree to any more limited contract at the point where you made the transaction to aquire the copy of the work, then you DO in fact have a right to use the work as you see fit so long as you do not violate copyright (which you can't really do unless you both make copies AND distribute those copies).
Basically, the position is that no post transaction licensing is valid, and anything that claims to do so is invalid (and if it ends up being helf valid, is taking away the rights of the user for no consideration).
Where on Earth are you planning on finding 10^24kgs of rock rich in all sorts of metals?
Where on Earth are you planning on finding 10^17 Watts of solar Power?
Well, those resources are down here, but do you realise the cost we'll incurr if we harvest even a thousandth of that in the one resource that isn't out there in abundence?
For our future, for our children, we must go OUT, to turn inwards is to stagnate and consume ourselves and everything that makes Earth's problems worth dealing with. The resources to deal with those problems is out there, not down here, we may have enough down here to make a temporary bandage, but only at the cost of our childrens future and the opertunity to have even the slightest glimmer of a chance of solving the problems we have.
Manned colonization of the solar system, do it to protect the children from the greatest monster of all... death of hope.
It's not gender specific. I've had traceroute explained to me multiple times for no aparent reason even after sending dumps of what it's showing. As for the scamming, it's done to everyone who doesn't project an air of hollier than thou condescension that will burn the face off of the trangressor with a single glance...
I wish you luck in developing said aura, I certainly haven't had any luck getting it going on demand 8(
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, did you even read the article? They didn't lie about their earnings. Their overall earnings remain constant. Whats changing is when they are counting their income on individual subscriptions. Instead of it being agregated monthly it's going to be amortised over the life of the contract on a daily basis so that it matches up with the losses incurred for the contract. The previouse methodology was in no way weird, non standerd nor sneaky. This way is just better.
Except, to be a contract it needs to be an EXCHANGE of promises. With no quid-pro-quo it's not a promise (though it could be other things).
He's wrong, you can make money with free software. I have made money with free software. Free software doesn't reduce the amount of work available, instead it makes the work that is available more interesting and more usefull to society.
Instead of reinventing the wheel for each client I can add the features the customer desires, getting paid by the person with the itch and benefiting myself, the customer, all of my previouse customers and all my potential customers.
What software product does everything you want it too? If you need a delta in free software bad enough you can hire somone (such as the original author) to add the feature you need, or to remove the bug thats bothering you.
Think of programming as a service and it works. As for giving it away completly, you just providing the service to yourself.
No, what it REALLY means is we weren't trying hard enough and that what we really need is Orion/Archangel. (So long Bellingham)
I think having a self sufficient breeding population off of this rock is a problem for 2004. It's the best investment in our future we currently have available. When the rock hits, it will not matter that the US has managed to reduce it's particulate emissions by 0.01% because it will A) be dwarfed by the ejecta and B) there won't be anyone around down here to care.
Without a self sufficent population off planet, we are one slip up from lacking existance. A moon base is a good first step (although an asteroid base or twenty would be a better first step)...
Take someones property from them and they are possibly within their rights to drop you where you stand.
Do you REALLY know that they are bootleging RIAA material as opposed to selling their own or their friends material? (I've personally never witnessed a streetcorner bootleger, I have witnessed local musicians selling their burned CDs of their own songs on the sidewalks of Seattle... one of those high concealed carry areas)
If you send spam to someone in California you ARE doing buisness in California.
They had to do that anyway. Even if he hadn't hacked their site, they still havethe responsibility to do everything they are doign now as soon as they found the problem. He has potentially cost them at most the interest on the money they are spending now as opposed to in the future. He has potentially saved them their very existance.
Likely it won't be because one of the other hundred people who walks by will pick it up and keep it.
Now, consider that you are storeing something of mine in your wallet and you drop it on the sidewalk and don't notice. Isn't it my right, and to some extent my responsibility to attempt to return it to you if I notice that you droped it, possibly with a note telling you when you droped it and how to secure your pocket such that it doesn't fall out again?
Thats all he's doing, it's just the wallets he's returning happen to have things important to a lot of people. If you gave someone something to keep safe and they weren't doing it, wouldn't you want to be told?
The metaphor is accurate, though some levels are missing. Would you be happier with the following:
The T1 guy does buisness out of a room. The room is subleased from a company that controls a floor of the office building. The floor is subleased from another company that owns the top half of the building. The building as a whole is owned and operated by UUbuildingco, and they, in their great wisdom, lease the ground level and rooms on other floors to a company that knowingly subleases individual rooms to crack dealers and meth labs.
Some People against Excessive Wack Stuff publish a list of nasty establishments that people may want to know about. Some taxi companies happen to trust and agree with the opinions provided in the list and in the interests of protecting their staff and customers, refrain from driveing near the address on the list. Sure, there are some legitamate buisnesses (like T1) that don't get customers because of the Taxi companies policies, but if the customer really wanted to visit them, they could just go to another Taxi company, or better yet, the T1 guy could move to another building that actually cares about the safety and well being of the rest of the town and their tenants.
Simple things should be easy.
Complex things should be possible.
VB gets some of the first and soem of the second, but there are a lot of simple things that are not even possible with VB, and a large set that are by no means easy. Some of these things intersect with things that people want to do.
It properly describes what copyrights, patents and trade secrets do, aka, shackle and enslave the mind.
Of course, that might be a bit loaded.
Stumbler is not capable of generating the traffic pattern observed in the initial and ongoing network traffic. Stumbler is the copycat that mimics a few of the publicly known charecteristics of still rising window size 55808 traffic with forged damn near everything.
Aggain, assuming that SCO is correct in their accusations (something I am not actually doing but as the situation of them being incorrect is to some extent trivial...)
Oh, I fully understand that the work as a whole is tainted (I even included language to that effect), however, no one BUT SCO and the original infringer KNEW that it was tainted, everyone else was acting in good faith. Additionally, as SCO was the party whose code was infringed, they did have the oportunity to untaint everything by knowingly releasing their missapropriated ip under the GPL.
I'm not saying that this would untaint previouse versions, what I'm saying is that just before SCO releases, every thing in their is either partially copyright by SCO and not intended to be there or intended to be there. At this point the only one who is knowingly infringing is the original basterd. At this point, SCO has the oportunity to make things right as they are the ones who could release (in actuality as opposed to just being as far as people knew) those parts of the code that they have the copyright of or that is derivative of their copyright as they know that every other author intended for the code to be released under the GPL.
We still don't know that SCO is right so we (everyone who doesn't have direct knowledge of the original infringement) are still acting in good faith and not knowingly infringing, any infringement we have perpatrated is the responsibility of the entities that missrepresented the state of the project to us (up untill SCO knew about things that was the individual, individuals or corporation responsible for the infringement). The problem for SCO is that they are knowingly infringing on a LOT of peoples ip IF (as the threat letters are indicating) they did not in fact intend to release the code they held the copyright too and at this point it's entirely their own doing. For the entire period from when they knew about the infringement and the actual state of things, untill the rest of us get evidence that they are correct, they (and the original infringer) are the only ones responsible for the ongoing infringement of both their ip and everyone elses.
Assuming that somone did in fact missapropriate SCO ip (if such a beast exists) and get it into the kernal, falsely under the GPL, the following seems to be the case:
At the point where it was inserted, the GPL license for distributing that specific bit of code (and as a result, anything containing that code) becomes invalid and we revert to copyright.
However, the code (by way of the kernal) was distributed in good faith by other parties, claiming to be GPLed (while not in fact being GPLed).
SCO gets ahold of it and redistributes it, the non missapropriated portions are certainly GPLed by the missapropriated versions aren't and as a result the whole isn't, but SCO has the copyright on the missapropriated parts and can distribute those parts under the GPL, and further as the other parts are certainly GPLed, the whole can again be GPLed. However, so long as SCO is unaware of the missapropriation, things are in limbo as a fraud has been perpatrated upon them that they are unaware of.
At some later point SCO discovers that some of the code in what they have been distributing under the GPL is their ip and that it should not be there. Now, up untill this point SCO has been acting in good faith (as has everyone else except the original infringer). However, now SCO has to make a few choices: Continue distributing the kernel and either be commiting KNOWING copyright infringement; continue distributing the kernel and KNOWINGLY release their missapropriated ip under the GPL while persuing a case against the original infringer; or STOP distributing the kernel, taking measures to mitigate damages and persuing a case against the original infringer.
Apparently they chose the first option as there appears to have been a lag time of 18months between when they knew their was infringement and when they stoped distributing other peoples copyrighted materials while being aware that they did not have a valid license for said distribution. This isn't good faith behavior and deserves a good beating. Either the second or third options would have been fine and deserving of praise or at least understanding, but that isn't what they chose to do, instead they have engaged in significant copyright infringment, exacerbated damages and refused to work with those who made good faith efforts to correct the problem.
This of course is based on the assumption that they are correct and that their ip was included in the linux kernel without their permission. I don't personally bellieve that to be the case, but even if it is, their actions are deplorable.
That only saves them from further infringement, it doesn't fix the infringement they have allready committed. In the case of derivative works, it is not unheard of for unauthorized derivative works to be turned over to the original copyright holders as part of the remedy of a copyright infringement suit (it's not normally what happens, but it has happened).
If I burn out on a game after only 3 weeks then it hasn't even made it from the ok to good camp. If I still play the game regularly after having it for 3 months then it's probably in the great camp, and, if a year leater, I still play it regularly, it's in the classic camp.
A quick survey of the other five gamers present nets similar (though not identicle) responses, but we may just be weird.
Take a look here. The truth of the statement depends on what you mean by 'produce'. If you mean 'release into the enviroment' then under current US regulations, Coal Power releases more radiological materials and has a greater impact on background radiation levels than Nuclear Power. If you mean produces nastier material on a kilogram by kilogram basis then the Nukeplant is much nastier, but it produces significantly less material and (with current regulations) is much safer in the disposal of that material.
On the other hand, if a shop just sends me something unsolicited, even if it's a mistake, I can keep it. In my previouse apartment I never signed up for cable, I didn't modify any of their equipment nor did I use any special equipment to decode their signals. My first and only contact with the cable company (with regards to service at that apartment) was a single bill they sent and my response to it. When I moved in I was given a form to sign up for cable that I specifically did not fill out as I didn't want cable at that time.
Things are differnt in my current location as I am paying for it and wish to keep it, but I still didn't have any contact with the company (actually I think it's a different company than the first one) beyond them sending me bills and providing the cable. I signed no agreements, I made no calls, I filled out no forms.
I have NEVER signed anything with regards to my cable service.
In my last apartment I had a simple arangement with the cable company, they send me bills, I tell them I never signed up for cable and don't want it, they don't bother to turn it off and don't send me bills.
Things are different in my current location (I do want cable and am paying), but I still never signed up for anything and the bills neither contain nor referance a contract...
Even if the hypertori topology of the universe is correct it doesn't imply that the universe has any particular curvature, it's still possible that it has positive, negative or flat intrinsic curvature.
You have to remember that the curvature of a torus embeded in 'flat' 3 space is purely an artifact of that embeding and not intrinsic in the topology of the torus. More specifically, there exist mappings from the embeded (intrinsicly curved) surface of the three dimensionally embeded torus to topologically identicle spaces that have everywhere flat intrinsic curvature.
As a thought experiment, consider a cube where the faces are portals to their oposites. Internally, this construct has the topology of a hypertorus but an everywhere flat topology.
For some nice diagrams and comentary that explain curvature (of the important, intrinisic kind) rather well, take a look at this, just skip over any of the math thats beyond your abilities, it's not really needed to understand the concepts.
The email address is equivelent to a phone number. The host portion of the email address is more akin to the exchange as oposed to a specific phone number, as such, resending when the mail server is down isn't redialing when you don't get an answer, it's redialing when you get an error in the phone system. Aka, your exchange never makes contact with the target exchange so you AREN'T redialing the number as only the first bit of it is being interpreted at all, you never dialed the number in the first place.
Actually, I bellieve the "taking away rights" crowd is more in referance to the US "doctrine of first sale". Basically, if you have a copy of a work that was not created in violation of copyright (the entity that made the copy is the copyright holder or has been given the right to create copies of the work by the copyright holder) and you obtained your particular copy legally (payed for it over the counter at a retail store for example) and did not explicitly agree to any more limited contract at the point where you made the transaction to aquire the copy of the work, then you DO in fact have a right to use the work as you see fit so long as you do not violate copyright (which you can't really do unless you both make copies AND distribute those copies).
Basically, the position is that no post transaction licensing is valid, and anything that claims to do so is invalid (and if it ends up being helf valid, is taking away the rights of the user for no consideration).
Where on Earth are you planning on finding 10^24kgs of rock rich in all sorts of metals?
Where on Earth are you planning on finding 10^17 Watts of solar Power?
Well, those resources are down here, but do you realise the cost we'll incurr if we harvest even a thousandth of that in the one resource that isn't out there in abundence?
For our future, for our children, we must go OUT, to turn inwards is to stagnate and consume ourselves and everything that makes Earth's problems worth dealing with. The resources to deal with those problems is out there, not down here, we may have enough down here to make a temporary bandage, but only at the cost of our childrens future and the opertunity to have even the slightest glimmer of a chance of solving the problems we have.
Manned colonization of the solar system, do it to protect the children from the greatest monster of all... death of hope.
It's not gender specific. I've had traceroute explained to me multiple times for no aparent reason even after sending dumps of what it's showing. As for the scamming, it's done to everyone who doesn't project an air of hollier than thou condescension that will burn the face off of the trangressor with a single glance...
I wish you luck in developing said aura, I certainly haven't had any luck getting it going on demand 8(