... 300 Math (grade twelve) was REQUIRED for University entrance. And based on the CURRENT entrance requirements of my alma mater, this is still the case. So, as far as I know, Canada is still good.
The GPL cannot keep the original author from changing the license and closing the source nor can it prevent the protocol from being closed either.
The only thing it can do is keep that source (the version that was under the GPL) available to the open-source community. Which, btw, can be accomplished by any other open-source license. Btw, they have already done this.
Basically, we're in the exact same situation now that we would have been if it was GPL'd.
Regarding loss of info with increased data: Please look up data-mining.
Regarding impracticability of indefinite storage: You're making assumptions that you can't make.
Regarding they'd have to be looking for you: Not so. AI and data-mining can (and has) produced false positives. What makes you think that it won't happen here?
Regarding simpler ways to mess with someone: You're assuming that someone will be deliberately targeted using this info. Bad assumption which isn't related to this topic. See previous.
""" they can now track you LIVE with lot more efficiency and accuracy. """
Though this is true, and dangerous, I always find it amazing that people are so arrogant to assume that there valid point is the ONLY valid point. Just because you are right in this point, doesn't mean that I was wrong or had less of a point. Get over yourself.
It's called passive tracking. If this would be combined with CCTV footage with competent tracking, then exactly zero other tech is needed to track people. The system you're proposing could be side-stepped by simply taking the bus (or walking) without your cell-phone and simply not updating contact information with the gov.
And btw, this isn't about one tues. afternoon. If this is mandated, then the data collected will increase and over time a pattern will develop. Combine that with data-mining techniques (which are getting really really advanced) and a whole lot of privacy problems come up.
In all honesty, I gotta tell you that by focusing on the whole "once" thing, you're missing the point to the point where you embarrassing yourself.
1) Civilized societies don't have a need for revolutions. That is unless an uncivilized society (tries to) subjugate them.
2) The Berlin wall thing was non-violent.
3) If you'd take a look at the (3rd) world, you'd see TONNES of revolutions regularly. You don't hear about them because they are poorly reported on and even then only briefly (flavour of the week syndrome).
4) You don't need revolutions for progress.
5) Progress IS happening at a startling rate, if you care to open your eyes.
Your mom ignoring potential legal consequences by not having a lawyer, etc. and (probably) submitting incorrect (b/c your tax system is FAR more complex than the Canadian one) tax forms, etc but not getting caught, doesn't mean that it is easier to run a charity in the US. It just means that doing things in certain ways PROPERLY is complicated and costly in Canada and getting away with things in the US is easier.
You've also completely missed the point. That being that having a registered charity "would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software." So, get your head out of your ass. They ARE doing this to maximize the money going to OSS.
All nuzak has done is note an exceptional case (i.e. companies willing to keep a project alive). This doesn't disprove what I said given that societal concerns are not mathematics. It always amazes me just how many people will engage in this type of fallacy.
Am I the only one that thinks that a man in the middle attack could be successful here? I mean sure, assuming this is truly random, does it really matter if the protocol used to get the number is susceptible to a man in the middle attack. After all, something is only as secure as it's weakest link.
""" The direction of computing is clear and key developers are moving into newer virtualization approaches and other projects. """
Translation: The developers have found new shiny objects to play with and are going to drop this to play with something new.
Remember that OSS is mostly about developers scratching an itch. Once that itch is scratched, if a new shiny object is put in-front of a developer, chances are they'll drop what they're doing to pursue the new thing. As seems to be the case here.
i.e. New is fun, maintenance is boring, boring sucks, do something new.
As soon as you go a fair bit beyond the trivial, code is just a mess. There really isn't a way around it. The only reason why people might think that this isn't the case is/because they are used to it/. And there is a significant difference between used to it, and clean.
Committing a crime against a US company/gov that is illegal in the country of origin as well, is radically different than performing legal actions in another country that is/not/ directed against the US when it is illegal in the US.
You're example fails to prove your point as 1 IS considered prime by some.
But, even using your example, your example fails. If you knew anything about number theory you'd realize that 1 HAS to be treated as a special case in... many proofs.
I still don't understand why Pluto couldn't be 'grandfathered in' as a planet and still have the new definition. It's a way that everyone could have there way. This new guy would be a 'dwarf planet' (or whatever these politicians want to call it this week) and we'd still have Pluto if only for historical reasons.
Then again, there are those of us that have just ignored this ruling all together and still consider Pluto a planet.
Quite frankly, I'm really getting sick of the jackasses sitting around drinking whisky coming up with new names for things from time to time in an attempt to justify there existence. I really don't think that this one is going to be dropped for some time to come.
Why can't you admit that he only gave a pathetic attempt at making MacPorts work?
He concludes that "11 functionality is poor and the learning curve is very steep." which is rather a joke. If he would have expended time enough for just a couple emails to MacPorts mailing list (this IS an OSS project after all), then his experience would have been a hell of a lot better.
I mean seriously, he's on IRC checking things out, but can't send an email to MacPorts?!?! He's able to tell "it looked like the problem was with user permissions" but apparently can't figure out when he does a "port search all" he should add in a "|more"?!?!
Quite frankly, reading what he did and didn't do at various points in his experience, IMO his "experience" was more about self-sabotage than giving things an honest try.
""" The government of Canada claims ownership over airwaves (through licensing etc) in the geographic area of Canada (to put it simply), and so the Indians appear to be making the same claim (in this case in Manitoba). """
No they don't. But, they do/regulate/ who gets what and for what purposes. If this weren't the case, then radio/cell phone/etc would be utter chaos.
Btw, this is just another attempt at a cash grab by the FN of Canada. Something which they do with great regularity. The problem is, no matter how nonsensical there claims are, the Canadian gov gives in (at least to a degree). Which rather encourages them to continue these tactics.
And the air is/not/ a resource. If it was, they'd have to pay tax on every bit of it that entered there land and vis. versa. Seems to me that everything would even out in the end. (There's another post on this topic that has gone over that this sort of thing has failed at every level. I believe with links as well.)
Now if there was an actual transmitter, etc on there land. Now that would be a different story...
Slashdot Mirror
... 300 Math (grade twelve) was REQUIRED for University entrance. And based on the CURRENT entrance requirements of my alma mater, this is still the case. So, as far as I know, Canada is still good.
The GPL cannot keep the original author from changing the license and closing the source nor can it prevent the protocol from being closed either.
The only thing it can do is keep that source (the version that was under the GPL) available to the open-source community. Which, btw, can be accomplished by any other open-source license. Btw, they have already done this.
Basically, we're in the exact same situation now that we would have been if it was GPL'd.
Regarding loss of info with increased data: Please look up data-mining.
Regarding impracticability of indefinite storage: You're making assumptions that you can't make.
Regarding they'd have to be looking for you: Not so. AI and data-mining can (and has) produced false positives. What makes you think that it won't happen here?
Regarding simpler ways to mess with someone: You're assuming that someone will be deliberately targeted using this info. Bad assumption which isn't related to this topic. See previous.
"""
they can now track you LIVE with lot more efficiency and accuracy.
"""
Though this is true, and dangerous, I always find it amazing that people are so arrogant to assume that there valid point is the ONLY valid point. Just because you are right in this point, doesn't mean that I was wrong or had less of a point. Get over yourself.
It's called passive tracking. If this would be combined with CCTV footage with competent tracking, then exactly zero other tech is needed to track people. The system you're proposing could be side-stepped by simply taking the bus (or walking) without your cell-phone and simply not updating contact information with the gov.
And btw, this isn't about one tues. afternoon. If this is mandated, then the data collected will increase and over time a pattern will develop. Combine that with data-mining techniques (which are getting really really advanced) and a whole lot of privacy problems come up.
In all honesty, I gotta tell you that by focusing on the whole "once" thing, you're missing the point to the point where you embarrassing yourself.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/priv acy_and_the.html
Let me see, tracking and (indefinitely) storing the travel patterns of EVERYONE. No that's not objectionable. Not at all...
I think you meant the actual summary.
1) Civilized societies don't have a need for revolutions. That is unless an uncivilized society (tries to) subjugate them.
2) The Berlin wall thing was non-violent.
3) If you'd take a look at the (3rd) world, you'd see TONNES of revolutions regularly. You don't hear about them because they are poorly reported on and even then only briefly (flavour of the week syndrome).
4) You don't need revolutions for progress.
5) Progress IS happening at a startling rate, if you care to open your eyes.
Your mom ignoring potential legal consequences by not having a lawyer, etc. and (probably) submitting incorrect (b/c your tax system is FAR more complex than the Canadian one) tax forms, etc but not getting caught, doesn't mean that it is easier to run a charity in the US. It just means that doing things in certain ways PROPERLY is complicated and costly in Canada and getting away with things in the US is easier.
You've also completely missed the point. That being that having a registered charity "would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software." So, get your head out of your ass. They ARE doing this to maximize the money going to OSS.
Think you can manage to grasp that?
Exactly!
All nuzak has done is note an exceptional case (i.e. companies willing to keep a project alive). This doesn't disprove what I said given that societal concerns are not mathematics. It always amazes me just how many people will engage in this type of fallacy.
Am I the only one that thinks that a man in the middle attack could be successful here? I mean sure, assuming this is truly random, does it really matter if the protocol used to get the number is susceptible to a man in the middle attack. After all, something is only as secure as it's weakest link.
"""
The direction of computing is clear and key developers are moving into newer virtualization approaches and other projects.
"""
Translation: The developers have found new shiny objects to play with and are going to drop this to play with something new.
Remember that OSS is mostly about developers scratching an itch. Once that itch is scratched, if a new shiny object is put in-front of a developer, chances are they'll drop what they're doing to pursue the new thing. As seems to be the case here.
i.e. New is fun, maintenance is boring, boring sucks, do something new.
As soon as you go a fair bit beyond the trivial, code is just a mess. There really isn't a way around it. The only reason why people might think that this isn't the case is /because they are used to it/. And there is a significant difference between used to it, and clean.
... Wholly big brother Batman!
"""
and how the marketplace will ensure the flaws aren't found through illegal methods.
"""
In which country?
Committing a crime against a US company/gov that is illegal in the country of origin as well, is radically different than performing legal actions in another country that is /not/ directed against the US when it is illegal in the US.
Thanks for the sophistry though.
Why can't these companies move somewhere outside the US? It's not like US law is applicable elsewhere in the world.
Just wrote my MP here. We'll see if I get a response. If not, then I think I'll take your advise and go on down.
u se/mpscur.asp?Language=E
The list of MP's:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
You're example fails to prove your point as 1 IS considered prime by some.
But, even using your example, your example fails. If you knew anything about number theory you'd realize that 1 HAS to be treated as a special case in... many proofs.
I still don't understand why Pluto couldn't be 'grandfathered in' as a planet and still have the new definition. It's a way that everyone could have there way. This new guy would be a 'dwarf planet' (or whatever these politicians want to call it this week) and we'd still have Pluto if only for historical reasons.
Then again, there are those of us that have just ignored this ruling all together and still consider Pluto a planet.
Quite frankly, I'm really getting sick of the jackasses sitting around drinking whisky coming up with new names for things from time to time in an attempt to justify there existence. I really don't think that this one is going to be dropped for some time to come.
This is pretty much what I was thinking. If the iPhone uses everything that OSX uses, then an SDK specific to the iPhone wouldn't be necessary.
In all honesty, I'd like to know by what logic one jumps between Apple saying:
"""
no software developer kit is required for the iPhone
"""
To them assuming that it's necessary and we're not getting one.
Why can't you admit that he only gave a pathetic attempt at making MacPorts work?
He concludes that "11 functionality is poor and the learning curve is very steep." which is rather a joke. If he would have expended time enough for just a couple emails to MacPorts mailing list (this IS an OSS project after all), then his experience would have been a hell of a lot better.
I mean seriously, he's on IRC checking things out, but can't send an email to MacPorts?!?! He's able to tell "it looked like the problem was with user permissions" but apparently can't figure out when he does a "port search all" he should add in a "|more"?!?!
Quite frankly, reading what he did and didn't do at various points in his experience, IMO his "experience" was more about self-sabotage than giving things an honest try.
By using your logic, *BSD doesn't have any quality freeware, nor does Linux, nor does...
/mentioned/ does NOT mean that it was given a chance, nor was it properly researched, nor...
Also, just b/c something is
Tell me, how sound is this?
Not sure he's heard of MacPorts:
http://macports.org/
nor Fink:
http://finkproject.org/
nor version tracker:
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/
"""
/regulate/ who gets what and for what purposes. If this weren't the case, then radio/cell phone/etc would be utter chaos.
/not/ a resource. If it was, they'd have to pay tax on every bit of it that entered there land and vis. versa. Seems to me that everything would even out in the end. (There's another post on this topic that has gone over that this sort of thing has failed at every level. I believe with links as well.)
The government of Canada claims ownership over airwaves (through licensing etc) in the geographic area of Canada (to put it simply), and so the Indians appear to be making the same claim (in this case in Manitoba).
"""
No they don't. But, they do
Btw, this is just another attempt at a cash grab by the FN of Canada. Something which they do with great regularity. The problem is, no matter how nonsensical there claims are, the Canadian gov gives in (at least to a degree). Which rather encourages them to continue these tactics.
And the air is
Now if there was an actual transmitter, etc on there land. Now that would be a different story...