Amen, brother. I will be purchasing that phone as soon as the consumer version is available. Openness is worth much more than discounted down payments.
Nah, it'll all be network based. The plus side is you'll have the mobility to play your collection away from home. The downside is they may charge you, monitor you, etc.
It's also particularly sad that we now think of it in terms of a right to play the audio file. Copyright is (should be) about commercial distribution rights, not use rights.
So what should flash memory be costing these days anyway, for the end user? I've been going by the rule $10 a gigabyte. If they're price fixing to avoid passing on savings to customers, about how much of a difference would that be?
> "Debate the topic? Do you realize Evolution vs Creationism is undebatable, since Creationists have no evidence??"
Bzzt, wrong. It's undebatable because the axioms are different. Creationists have their evidence, namely, the bible. Evolutionists obviously don't admit that as evidence.
> "Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"?"
Uh, fuck yeah he was. I think a Creationist should be qualified to speak about the opinion of a Creationist.
> "Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum."
Heaven forbid he should think to mix with our pure kind!
> "It's a Fact vs Belief debate, where the people on the Belief side won't accept fact."
You sound about as fanatically evangelical as most of the pushy religious-types that I've heard.
> "You sure you're not just trolling?"
Says the man attacking an entire class of people with single-minded stereotypes... I *really* shouldn't be responding to this.
> "You can't have an argument without facts and evidence to compare."
I recommend you participate in some more metaphysical debates. If we're talking about being logical/rational, evidence isn't necessary for this kind of debate depending on the starting axioms. Or rather, the definition of evidence varies greatly depending on them.
Neither. The licensee of the software (you didn't think you BUY software, did you?) normally has no right to transfer the license to a third party. There is no right of first sale for something you didn't buy.
Is it really though? That's not rhetorical. Without RTFAing, I want the slashdot opinion - is this or is this not the proof that ATI is the solution for linux graphics? I was almost certain that my next card would be an nvidia, but this may change that.
> "Why? Do you expect that the v3 is the end of time for the GPL?"
No, but I'd like to give it many more months before I start worrying about another couple years of slashdot articles on the subject of its progress. I don't think I can argue with your other points.
I always admire the correct use of the word "exponentially". I took the article summary literally and wondered what sort of insane connections these phones were using.
Or if they were actually intelligent and relevant, a lot of people wouldn't bitch even if it did track their internet experience. But I forgot, ads by definition seem to have to assume that their viewers are idiots, because that's the largest demographic.
> "So where does it stop? Your refrigerator will be turned off because you use a brand of orange juice that RMS is against?"
No, you simply will be prohibited from redistributing Free refrigerators under additional conditions that impair the recipients' freedom to choose what orange juice brand they drink.
> "However, if the FSF is serious about "anti-TiVoization" the GPLv4 is going to be a radical change and have to be an intrusive, use-affecting license contract,"
First of all, I'm a little disturbed to see the name "GPLv4" spelled out in writing without any form of sarcasm attached. Next, making the GPL use-affecting like a EULA (essentially a contract) is absurd, as that infringes on Freedom number zero, the right to use software as one wishes.
> "its possible to build a TiVo-like locked-down product that uses GPL software without ever becoming bound by the GPL: you just enter into an exclusive contract with the actual provider of the GPL-covered software"
When we speak of using GPL software, we assume that the user or company is receiving the software under the terms of the GPL and not another license or contract. It is not a flaw in the GPL that it can be bypassed by the copyright holder's permission.
I think what you meant though was a situation where locking down the software and distributing it is disjoint from copying it, and I'm not sure what the proper GPL rebuttal for that is.
> "Anyone above the age of 10 should know that downloading music that you don't have permission to is wrong."
What the hell kind of teenagers have you been talking to?
> "Using the "I didn't know sneaking around on a P2P program and downloading copyrighted material from random people all over the world was wrong" defense is just lame."
Agreed. Also lame: the current music/movie/etc business model, the effect that business model has on artificial intellectual property monopoly laws, and the detriment said laws have on free and artistic expression in our culture.
I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with multithreaded programs that take advantage of multicore CPUs. I'm interested in it simply so I can multitask better between discrete (probably single-threaded) applications. But I run Gentoo, so I guess I need all the extra simultaneous horsepower I can get.
The reason it's on Slashdot is that when I looked at the headline I said out loud, "Oh damn", because I actually heard of the bird (admittedly from a previous Slashdot posting, but one of unquestionable interest) and was moved by its death. It's about as relevant as a space probe dying, if not more.
I researched that when a Verizon salesman came to our house. Note in particular that you may not use the service for - Anything deemed objectionable by Verizon - Anything that defames Verizon - Using hyperlinks that contain the verizon name - To make off-topic posts to newsgroups - Excessive traffic as determined by Verizon - And the required gem that's in all TOS/AUPs: "3.7.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server whether personal or commercial in nature." - The last time I searched for this document, it actually enumerated a number of protocols that you may not serve from your connection, including (but of course not limited to) http, ftp, and bittorrent. This version seems to not have that clause. I believe there was also something in there last time about not pointing a domain name to a dynamic IP address (i.e., you can't use a DynDNS service)
Hell of a lot of good all that bandwidth would do me if all I'm allowed to do with it is surf the freaking web.
> "I've read that IPv6, because it includes the MAC, could theoretically help this. But is that true? Could the MAC be spoofed? Or, could an ISP include coupling hardware that validates the MAC and the packet sent are the same? Theoretically, you could require that in network hardware manufacturing, so that a NIC Card would not be allowed to transmit a packet with an address that wasn't from it. But would that be enough?"
I only have a cursory knowledge of IPv6 but I don't believe there's anything in there about the last 64 bits containing 48 MAC bits being *mandatory*, just one possible default scheme for selecting IPs. There's no reason why network administrators shouldn't be able to employ static configurations of their choosing, NAT, etc. Requiring hardware manufacturers to validate IP headers would be obscenely invasive, add to the cost of production (since nothing about IP is handled in the firmware of normal NICs as far as I know), and most certainly not work as the few people where it really matters would be able to get around it anyway. In short, doing that sort of thing is like making nmap illegal just because it can be used for evil.
> "Even if you weren't ideologically predisposed to sending in the SEALs to whack people for sending out spyware,"
I don't think anyone here is opposed to that.
> "I can't stand the world where we can't send EXE's as attachments and even images are suspect because I remember how cool the internet was when you could."
It would be nice indeed if all the software that we ran were mathematically proven correct and secure. It'll get there, it'll just take a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, brother. I will be purchasing that phone as soon as the consumer version is available. Openness is worth much more than discounted down payments.
Except one particular reading of the original post would give the impression that the clerk gave the student back $400 at the end.
Nah, it'll all be network based. The plus side is you'll have the mobility to play your collection away from home. The downside is they may charge you, monitor you, etc.
It's also particularly sad that we now think of it in terms of a right to play the audio file. Copyright is (should be) about commercial distribution rights, not use rights.
So what should flash memory be costing these days anyway, for the end user? I've been going by the rule $10 a gigabyte. If they're price fixing to avoid passing on savings to customers, about how much of a difference would that be?
> "Debate the topic? Do you realize Evolution vs Creationism is undebatable, since Creationists have no evidence??"
Bzzt, wrong. It's undebatable because the axioms are different. Creationists have their evidence, namely, the bible. Evolutionists obviously don't admit that as evidence.
> "Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"?"
Uh, fuck yeah he was. I think a Creationist should be qualified to speak about the opinion of a Creationist.
> "Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum."
Heaven forbid he should think to mix with our pure kind!
> "It's a Fact vs Belief debate, where the people on the Belief side won't accept fact."
You sound about as fanatically evangelical as most of the pushy religious-types that I've heard.
> "You sure you're not just trolling?"
Says the man attacking an entire class of people with single-minded stereotypes... I *really* shouldn't be responding to this.
> "You can't have an argument without facts and evidence to compare."
I recommend you participate in some more metaphysical debates. If we're talking about being logical/rational, evidence isn't necessary for this kind of debate depending on the starting axioms. Or rather, the definition of evidence varies greatly depending on them.
Dude, I'm running gentoo on a 1.2 GHz K7, and I don't know what you're talking about. Compiling qt isn't like compiling gcc. Install it and forget it.
Frequent use of the word "teh", especially in the presence of the word "Lunix", is strongly indicative of sarcasm, however lame that sarcasm may be.
Neither. The licensee of the software (you didn't think you BUY software, did you?) normally has no right to transfer the license to a third party. There is no right of first sale for something you didn't buy.
Even if that's true, it seems it might still be prudent to buy from the company that made the choice to support linux first.
On the one hand, it sounds like you've never touched hardware with a 10 foot poll.
On the other hand, you have a 5 digit UID.
Is it really though? That's not rhetorical. Without RTFAing, I want the slashdot opinion - is this or is this not the proof that ATI is the solution for linux graphics? I was almost certain that my next card would be an nvidia, but this may change that.
> "Why? Do you expect that the v3 is the end of time for the GPL?"
No, but I'd like to give it many more months before I start worrying about another couple years of slashdot articles on the subject of its progress. I don't think I can argue with your other points.
I always admire the correct use of the word "exponentially". I took the article summary literally and wondered what sort of insane connections these phones were using.
Or if they were actually intelligent and relevant, a lot of people wouldn't bitch even if it did track their internet experience. But I forgot, ads by definition seem to have to assume that their viewers are idiots, because that's the largest demographic.
> "So where does it stop? Your refrigerator will be turned off because you use a brand of orange juice that RMS is against?"
No, you simply will be prohibited from redistributing Free refrigerators under additional conditions that impair the recipients' freedom to choose what orange juice brand they drink.
> "However, if the FSF is serious about "anti-TiVoization" the GPLv4 is going to be a radical change and have to be an intrusive, use-affecting license contract,"
First of all, I'm a little disturbed to see the name "GPLv4" spelled out in writing without any form of sarcasm attached. Next, making the GPL use-affecting like a EULA (essentially a contract) is absurd, as that infringes on Freedom number zero, the right to use software as one wishes.
> "its possible to build a TiVo-like locked-down product that uses GPL software without ever becoming bound by the GPL: you just enter into an exclusive contract with the actual provider of the GPL-covered software"
When we speak of using GPL software, we assume that the user or company is receiving the software under the terms of the GPL and not another license or contract. It is not a flaw in the GPL that it can be bypassed by the copyright holder's permission.
I think what you meant though was a situation where locking down the software and distributing it is disjoint from copying it, and I'm not sure what the proper GPL rebuttal for that is.
> "Anyone above the age of 10 should know that downloading music that you don't have permission to is wrong."
What the hell kind of teenagers have you been talking to?
> "Using the "I didn't know sneaking around on a P2P program and downloading copyrighted material from random people all over the world was wrong" defense is just lame."
Agreed. Also lame: the current music/movie/etc business model, the effect that business model has on artificial intellectual property monopoly laws, and the detriment said laws have on free and artistic expression in our culture.
You, sir, have made my day.
I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with multithreaded programs that take advantage of multicore CPUs. I'm interested in it simply so I can multitask better between discrete (probably single-threaded) applications. But I run Gentoo, so I guess I need all the extra simultaneous horsepower I can get.
The reason it's on Slashdot is that when I looked at the headline I said out loud, "Oh damn", because I actually heard of the bird (admittedly from a previous Slashdot posting, but one of unquestionable interest) and was moved by its death. It's about as relevant as a space probe dying, if not more.
Could you elaborate on that? Why is 30 Mbps considered high throughput for a 100 Mbps router?
Oh, and Verizon's better in that regard? I have news for you: all consumer ISPs suck.
s p
Verizon's Terms of Service and Acceptible Use Policy (scroll down to the AUP, it's more interesting):
http://www.verizon.net/policies/vzcom/tos_popup.a
I researched that when a Verizon salesman came to our house. Note in particular that you may not use the service for
- Anything deemed objectionable by Verizon
- Anything that defames Verizon
- Using hyperlinks that contain the verizon name
- To make off-topic posts to newsgroups
- Excessive traffic as determined by Verizon
- And the required gem that's in all TOS/AUPs: "3.7.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server whether personal or commercial in nature."
- The last time I searched for this document, it actually enumerated a number of protocols that you may not serve from your connection, including (but of course not limited to) http, ftp, and bittorrent. This version seems to not have that clause. I believe there was also something in there last time about not pointing a domain name to a dynamic IP address (i.e., you can't use a DynDNS service)
Hell of a lot of good all that bandwidth would do me if all I'm allowed to do with it is surf the freaking web.
> "I've read that IPv6, because it includes the MAC, could theoretically help this. But is that true? Could the MAC be spoofed? Or, could an ISP include coupling hardware that validates the MAC and the packet sent are the same? Theoretically, you could require that in network hardware manufacturing, so that a NIC Card would not be allowed to transmit a packet with an address that wasn't from it. But would that be enough?"
I only have a cursory knowledge of IPv6 but I don't believe there's anything in there about the last 64 bits containing 48 MAC bits being *mandatory*, just one possible default scheme for selecting IPs. There's no reason why network administrators shouldn't be able to employ static configurations of their choosing, NAT, etc. Requiring hardware manufacturers to validate IP headers would be obscenely invasive, add to the cost of production (since nothing about IP is handled in the firmware of normal NICs as far as I know), and most certainly not work as the few people where it really matters would be able to get around it anyway. In short, doing that sort of thing is like making nmap illegal just because it can be used for evil.
> "Even if you weren't ideologically predisposed to sending in the SEALs to whack people for sending out spyware,"
I don't think anyone here is opposed to that.
> "I can't stand the world where we can't send EXE's as attachments and even images are suspect because I remember how cool the internet was when you could."
It would be nice indeed if all the software that we ran were mathematically proven correct and secure. It'll get there, it'll just take a while.