No, the whole anticircumvention clause in the DMCA is completely invalid here, since there was no access control whatsoever. And their trade secret claims are also pretty much bunk, since they distributed it to anyone and everyone, and once it got posted to the net, it's over. So all they seem to have left is claim of copyright over the material--which is shaky, too since they don't even own Kerberos, it's an open IETF standard released under the BSD license. So even if they're legally right, we're doing the right thing, no doubt.
Well, it's way to early to criticize the interface. This is basically just a hacked-together, "good enough to make it work" interface; they will be spending much more time on it in the future.
If you read any of the documentation, then you clearly know that they make it quite obvious that this is not ready for release, or even serious testing. The README not only states that it's pre-alpha, but incredibly hard to compile. They cast no illusions about it's state of readiness, so what's your beef? Perhaps they are trying to concentrate more on the overall structure of the application first, before they add in email functionality. If you read the parts about bonobo, you'd know this sort of design is still experimental. And since designing things with bonobo would take precedence, considering its cool application design implications, maybe they think that's more important than releasing yet another email client.
If they make it original, you complain that it's too different. If they make it real similar you complain it's not different enough.
As long as you get the job done with a minimum of swearing, it has fulfilled its purpose. The real difference is in the backend, which, ironically, was not coded by monkeys. You will not have to worry about having your critical system files overwritten by viewing an attachment, or even viewing an email. You will not have to worry about the safety of your personal stored information, and, most importantly, you will not have to worry about Evolution being forced unwillingly on a whole userbase of people.
I think this "roiling mass of bile and ignorance" you speak of is actually attributable to the trolls in the discussion forums, not Slashdot authors themselves. I don't ever recall seeing a headline reading "Those f*ckers need to die! Kill them all!!!"
Firstly, it would be completely impossible to contact every poster that was put into that book, due to sheer numbers and AC's. Secondly, Slashdot, while the comments are owned by the poster, is a public forum. If you're not familiar with the concept of a public forum, it means that anybody can reproduce readers' comments from here if they so desire. In fact, you could even reproduce Katz's articles. And Katz isn't making a penny from it, so what's your problem?
Don't be dense. The comments are owned by the poster, meaning Slashdot has no control over what gets posted, and no responsibility. But this is also a public forum, available to anyone, so anyone can reproduce those comments. I don't get why so many people bitch about comments being reprinted without permission--there are too many people, and too many AC's to make that possible; and this is a public forum. It's not like you're publishing a book.
Not really, I think. The more powerful Microsoft becomes, the more control they'll have over everything. Not as much as a government, but plenty. And if nobody stands up to them when them want something on the net censored, they'll get real used to the idea. Roblimo's right, it would be a very dangerous precedent.
Be that as it may--how many people smart enough to run a shell script in UNIX do you think will run it without at least glancing at the source?
If you raised your hand to that question, I have a couple of things for you to do:
Write the letter "L" on your forehead in indullible ink, and
Switch to using something you can't fsck-up, like BeOS.
The guy's point was, you could conceivably do something like this, but it would require a lot more thought of the part of the unsuspecting user in order for the virus to replicate.
And if he had chosen to write this is ActiveX instead of VB, he could have conceivably had this thing replicate just by viewing the email. Now, that's just stupidity on Microsoft's part. No wonder so many people think of Outlook as "LookOut!":)
Junkbuster does cookies marvelously. Ads I'm not so sure--it does a fine job of blocking them out, but I have yet to figure out how to enable them for sites like Slashdot where I have actually clicked through a few. Anyway, if you're interested in such a thing, it's worth checking out.
yes, for one song. but multiply that by the number of songs on the disc, multiplied by how many discs you want to rip, and Napster becomes more desireable if you have a fast connection.
search for it on freshmeat. It runs on Windows and Linux, and filters out any banner ads and cookies you don't want. It is pretty damn cool. Just wish it would work with Mozilla...
I honestly don't understand what's so cool about Word 2000. I recently tried to format my resume with it, and ended up spending more time cussing at it and fighting with it than actually typing. I tried to indent one line, and it indents the entire paragraph. I try to indent a line one more field, and it goes back to the beginning of the line. Honestly! Just do what I fscking tell you to. Not to mention installing the damn thing is like reinstalling the OS, and I'm not even going to bring up Clippy.
This is a very good attitude to have. Open source does not automatically make a program good, and if there's a binary-only version that works better, then you'd be better off using it most times. Not always, but most times. I go with open source when i can, and if there's a choice between two nearly identical applications, one open one not, I'll choose the open source one. But, for some things OSS simply isn't there yet, and there's nothing wrong with using a closed source app in that situation.
No, the previous poster is right. Even if Windows was completely Open Sourced, it could not be fixed. It's a bad design from the ground up, and not worth our time. The only benefit from opening the source would be the opportunity to glean every last proprietary protocol and API from the source for use in Linux or any other OSS operating system.
It's not a case of pure and simple theft. It is by it's very definition not theft at all, simply copyright infringement. Get it straight, because they are completely different things. It isn't even really possible to steal something online. It's still wrong, but hey, we don't go around mistaking misdemeanors for felonies, do we?
And secondly, I don't feal a bit sorry for the Recording Companies, not because they're rich and I think they can afford it, but because they brought it on themselves. Their first response to any new technology is not to take advantage of the oportunity, but to destroy it. They would be much happier to just stick with their CD cartel if we, their customers, didn't demand more. They will have to be forced into digital media kicking and screaming, and only after they have exhausted themselves trying to get rid of it through pointless court battles that don't really do anything. That's why I support Napster and mp3, and why everyone should. Do you really think they'll give a flip otherwise?
"The news of Mozilla's death have been greatly exaggerated." Seriously, where does everyone get off calling Mozilla a failure? It's certainly a bit late, but it's still a bit off from being a failure. Personally, I think Mozilla's great, even now. It's certainly one of the better open source browsers available for Linux, even if it is a bit sluggish. And ever since M15, it hasn't ever really crashed on me yet, and I've been using it for most of my normal browsing.
I think a lot of people, yourself included, are missing the point of why Napster is so important. Without Napster, do you honestly think the RIAA would even consider for a minute the idea of online distribution? Napster has forced them to take a long, hard look. I believe Napster has partly came into being because there is such an overwhelming desire for an easy, fast way of getting music online. I would love to be able to buy my favorite songs, one by one, online without paying an extremly inflated price for an entire cd, most of which I may not even want.
The music industry is ignoring this potentially lucrative market for one reason: they have no control over the Internet. And that's what they want, complete and total control of Orwellian proportions over us. If Napster is taken down, it will be replaced very quickly. But not because we all want to be pirates (I believe most people would actually prefer to pay for the songs they listen to) but because the current structure of the music industry is simply too oppressive to bear.
The key is not to attack piracy, becuase piracy will always exist. Music piracy online has existed long before Napster, and will continue to exist afterward. What the music industry needs to do is make buying music easy and fair enough to make piracy not worth the trouble. And I think they will have to give up their position as a cartel in order to acheive this, which is why they probably won't even consider it, sadly.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
If they make it real similar you complain it's not different enough.
As long as you get the job done with a minimum of swearing, it has fulfilled its purpose. The real difference is in the backend, which, ironically, was not coded by monkeys. You will not have to worry about having your critical system files overwritten by viewing an attachment, or even viewing an email. You will not have to worry about the safety of your personal stored information, and, most importantly, you will not have to worry about Evolution being forced unwillingly on a whole userbase of people.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
If you raised your hand to that question, I have a couple of things for you to do:
The guy's point was, you could conceivably do something like this, but it would require a lot more thought of the part of the unsuspecting user in order for the virus to replicate.
And if he had chosen to write this is ActiveX instead of VB, he could have conceivably had this thing replicate just by viewing the email. Now, that's just stupidity on Microsoft's part. No wonder so many people think of Outlook as "LookOut!" :)
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
search for it on freshmeat. It runs on Windows and Linux, and filters out any banner ads and cookies you don't want. It is pretty damn cool. Just wish it would work with Mozilla...
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
And secondly, I don't feal a bit sorry for the Recording Companies, not because they're rich and I think they can afford it, but because they brought it on themselves. Their first response to any new technology is not to take advantage of the oportunity, but to destroy it. They would be much happier to just stick with their CD cartel if we, their customers, didn't demand more. They will have to be forced into digital media kicking and screaming, and only after they have exhausted themselves trying to get rid of it through pointless court battles that don't really do anything. That's why I support Napster and mp3, and why everyone should. Do you really think they'll give a flip otherwise?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
The music industry is ignoring this potentially lucrative market for one reason: they have no control over the Internet. And that's what they want, complete and total control of Orwellian proportions over us. If Napster is taken down, it will be replaced very quickly. But not because we all want to be pirates (I believe most people would actually prefer to pay for the songs they listen to) but because the current structure of the music industry is simply too oppressive to bear.
The key is not to attack piracy, becuase piracy will always exist. Music piracy online has existed long before Napster, and will continue to exist afterward. What the music industry needs to do is make buying music easy and fair enough to make piracy not worth the trouble. And I think they will have to give up their position as a cartel in order to acheive this, which is why they probably won't even consider it, sadly.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?