Not to be a dick, but did you miss that part in life that went something like this: you were right, boss was wrong, shit hit the fan, you got blamed? That is standard operating procedure, and if you don't look out for it, you're going to be the one in trouble.
I highly recommend examining the ConTeXt macro package for TeX. It is perhaps more difficult to use than LaTeX, but it is much easier to get it to look like what you want. Also, it is very much pdfTeX aware, and part of the purpose seems to be the creating of screen documents, hyperlinked pdfs, etc. Take a look here
While you seem mostly correct here you're a little bit misleading. From the GPL FAQ:
"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for "downloading the program from my site?
"Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for "distributing a copy of the program. If you "distribute binaries by download, you must "provide "equivalent access" to download the "source--therefore, the fee to download source "may not be greater than the fee to download the "binary.
Not "at no more than their cost to do so". Also, while you're probably correct that the combination of the GPL and contact information is probably legally an "offer" to send the source, doing so seems to me that you are intenationally trying to hide the fact that somebody could get the source.
Re:sale of property an "accident"?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Wow, you just turned one out-of-context quotation into eight paragraphs of bullshit. Perhaps you a student, of, oh, say, rhetoric?
What Raymond has said here has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Nothing at all. Go read the article before you post again.
(In case you don't want to read the article: he is discussing the difference between ownership of the UNIX trademark & ownership of Bell Labs code base. Now, I don't think this was the best quotation possible from the article, but still.)
555-xxxx is reserved for phone company use, not film use. It is the moral equivalent of 10.x.x.x. Sheesh. The film companies don't yet have everybody in their pockets.
That's 2m in MANTLE length, the mantle being, apparently, the muscle that surrounds the squid's body. That is, I believe, not including the length of the tentacles which is what they are discussing, and which are apparently 6m long in this specimen.
You ought to try thinking about what he has said rather than just keep replying. "yahoo.com" is a static link to dynamic content. The content changes, the link stays the same. He's not saying that it existed before, he's saying it logically HAD to exist before. Of course, a lawyer could think of why logic doesn't apply in this particular case, but the original poster had a very good point.
But if the company does not use java, then you are sending the PGP passphrase to them to use each time you read your encrypted mail. So there is the possibility of it being compromised. I know it is somewhat paranoid, & if you trust the company, fine. But if you don't, or if you fear they may be compromised, it's not very helful.
Yes, I'm serious. Have a java applet which does enccryption on the client computer. This is what hushmail does.
If you read my post, you'd realize that I suggested that a person could write down their key. I myself don't consider this much of a problem if you keep it secure on your person. Or if the key one writes down is encrypted with a passphrase which could be memorized.
You're correct, but I don't think that it necessarily has to be that much of a problem, if it is made clear that the passphrase for your key is far more important than most others. You would have to ask people to remember a long, randomly choosen passphrase. Do not give them a choice. If you get 128 bits of random data, turn it into radix 64, thats a 22 letter passphrase (upper & lowercase, plus 2 other characters). Now, perhaps not everybody could memorize that, but even if it were written down & kept secure, it would keep most people's key reasonably secure.
Another solution could be to have 128 bit (22 character) key that is again encrypted by a memorized passpharse. The user could write down the key, but even if this were compromised, it would still be at least secure for long enough to generate anohter key (not public/private key) & passphrase.
Copyright, therefore, has another purpose besides encouraging people to create great ideas, right?
I'm not saying that you have to agree with me; I merely posit the idea: perhaps copyright is just another way for the ruling class to create the idea that they `own' the things that we produce. Things like: cars, tvs, and ideas. They steal away from us the things we create; & then sell them back to us. Thanks.
Actually, it is you who need to do some clear thinking.
The system that we have has not worked for the past 200 years. It has not worked for the last 200 years. It has been created in the last 200 years. It has been a gradual process by which the rich have stolen away our ideas & our work from us. It is much like the way in which peasants lands were inclosed in the 1500s & 1600s (or so) in England to create a capitalist system. Up until 200 years ago, people basically copied whatever they liked, copyrights did not exist. Great works were then created.
Just last year, or so, Disney expanded the length of copyright. The process of turning ideas into property is still continuing, & it will continue, unless we reverse it. & we can.
Oh *really*?
The scrutiny that you apply is, without a doubt, some of the most careful I have ever seen.
Why is this absurd on the face of it? Is this really scrutiny? It is absurd precisely because it does not fit into your world view.
Face the facts: the 1st world STEALS from the 3rd world. Products, life, & ideas. The 1st world IS, & there is NO doubt of this, trying to steal the strains of plants which have been bred through thousands of years by the people of third world countries, throw a patent on them, & call them their own. Then they will use the police & other state apparatus to ENFORCE their so-called ownership, their so-called rights, to these plants which they have STOLEN. It is pure theft, & the intention is as it has always been: another way to re-direct wealth from the 3rd world to the 1st.
Actually, this sort of thing is precisely the problem with intellectual property. The arguments/against/ intellectual property are usually the
sort like: authors need it for protection, etc.
But the fact is that authors rarely hold copyright; it is *publishers* & their ilk who hold it.
Intellectual property is *theft*. Ideas are *stolen* from people who *created* them & who *use* them & they are then forced to license these ideas that are theirs to begin with.
This is absolute, and utter shit. I can't tell you
how angry & upset I get every time that I hear this sort of disgusting rot coming from the mouths
of the leaders of our institutions of (so-called)
higher learning. Why is this? Allow me to give the
reasons:
(1) this is simply yet another way of blocking off
access to the university for poor students. Since
the founding of public universities, it seems,
it has been a gradual closing off of all the avenues by which people without money might attend.
(2) this is obviously a corrupt and criminal
agreement between computer manufacturers and
a public school system in order to increase sales
of overpriced laptops.
(3) this sort of plan helps to reinforce a
uniformity of computing software which is
unnecessary and hurtful. I doubt that my
486 laptop, which runs Linux, would qualify
under their plan.
(4) what the fuck is the point, anyhow, of forcing
people to use computers? There are simply many,
many tasks where not using a computer is better
than using one.
Okay, I'm running our of steam, but I can't tell
you how horrible I think these plans are. They disgust me, & they make me ever more upset with
the computer industry than I usually am.
Erik
Most of the people here see the relationship between free software and business as a good thing, & I am inclined to agree, but I was wondering what your feelings are in regards to the possibilities of a more democratic way of structuring the creation & support of free software; that is, worker (esp. programmer) control of the companies that create & support software. I see a great potential for this possibility; but I was wondering what your feelings are on this under-reported subject.
What is the point of this argument? Perhaps they are also protesting plice killing & public transportation & such. These people are not luddites, they are web "programmers" just like you. Just because we have some new fucking technology doesn't mean its going to help "the people". & these people are quite clearly NOT against the technology, they are upset with the CRAP that you see living in the Bay Area. I understand it isn't is bad in the rest of the country; or at least in mid. America. Out here, in the Bay Area, the web site billboards/tv ads etc are DISGUSTING. The CRAP that is being done just because its related to the web is OBSCENE. They are wasting good money. Anyway, I am all for this. There has been a culture of resistance to advertising building for a while, and its about fucking time somebody did something to fuck up those web companies.
This is patently false. Why does it matter if it is the government or a corporation trying to silence you? As far as the censored is concerned, the effect is the same. If one forces you to use one medium rather than another, isn't that a form of censorship? What if you were forced to only broadcast your views by telegraph? Wouldn't that be a form of censorship? If your ISP drops you because you have offensive material, is that censorship? Just because the government happens to be the most powerful coercive organization around doesn't mean that it's the only one.
A recent issue of The Nation addressed a related issue: the fact that the market actually doesn't create a very good market for the development of pharmaceuticals. MUCH more money is spent on drugs for cosmetic drugs (for things like toe fungus), and other "trivial" needs, than on drugs for diseases that kill many in the Third World. So not only do people in the third world not get the drugs they need because they can't pay, but the First World drug companies simply do not develop the drugs they need. Charities are wonderful and all, but they simply aren't as large as the market and the governments. By all means donate to charity, but don't fool yourself into thinking this will solve all problems. A government-controlled drug development group might not be able to create the drugs the world needs, but the market seems to be failing pretty badly here, so perhaps it's time to try to look for another solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be a dick, but did you miss that part in life that went something like this: you were right, boss was wrong, shit hit the fan, you got blamed? That is standard operating procedure, and if you don't look out for it, you're going to be the one in trouble.
I highly recommend examining the ConTeXt macro package for TeX. It is perhaps more difficult to use than LaTeX, but it is much easier to get it to look like what you want. Also, it is very much pdfTeX aware, and part of the purpose seems to be the creating of screen documents, hyperlinked pdfs, etc. Take a look here
While you seem mostly correct here you're a little bit misleading. From the GPL FAQ:
"Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for
"downloading the program from my site?
"Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for
"distributing a copy of the program. If you
"distribute binaries by download, you must
"provide "equivalent access" to download the
"source--therefore, the fee to download source
"may not be greater than the fee to download the
"binary.
Not "at no more than their cost to do so". Also, while you're probably correct that the combination of the GPL and contact information is probably legally an "offer" to send the source, doing so seems to me that you are intenationally trying to hide the fact that somebody could get the source.
Wow, you just turned one out-of-context quotation into eight paragraphs of bullshit. Perhaps you a student, of, oh, say, rhetoric?
What Raymond has said here has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Nothing at all. Go read the article before you post again.
(In case you don't want to read the article: he is discussing the difference between ownership of the UNIX trademark & ownership of Bell Labs code base. Now, I don't think this was the best quotation possible from the article, but still.)
555-xxxx is reserved for phone company use, not film use. It is the moral equivalent of 10.x.x.x. Sheesh. The film companies don't yet have everybody in their pockets.
That's 2m in MANTLE length, the mantle being, apparently, the muscle that surrounds the squid's body. That is, I believe, not including the length of the tentacles which is what they are discussing, and which are apparently 6m long in this specimen.
You ought to try thinking about what he has said rather than just keep replying. "yahoo.com" is a static link to dynamic content. The content changes, the link stays the same. He's not saying that it existed before, he's saying it logically HAD to exist before. Of course, a lawyer could think of why logic doesn't apply in this particular case, but the original poster had a very good point.
But if the company does not use java, then you are sending the PGP passphrase to them to use each time you read your encrypted mail. So there is the possibility of it being compromised. I know it is somewhat paranoid, & if you trust the company, fine. But if you don't, or if you fear they may be compromised, it's not very helful.
Yes, I'm serious. Have a java applet which does enccryption on the client computer. This is what hushmail does.
If you read my post, you'd realize that I suggested that a person could write down their key. I myself don't consider this much of a problem if you keep it secure on your person. Or if the key one writes down is encrypted with a passphrase which could be memorized.
You're correct, but I don't think that it necessarily has to be that much of a problem, if it is made clear that the passphrase for your key is far more important than most others. You would have to ask people to remember a long, randomly choosen passphrase. Do not give them a choice. If you get 128 bits of random data, turn it into radix 64, thats a 22 letter passphrase (upper & lowercase, plus 2 other characters). Now, perhaps not everybody could memorize that, but even if it were written down & kept secure, it would keep most people's key reasonably secure.
Another solution could be to have 128 bit (22 character) key that is again encrypted by a memorized passpharse. The user could write down the key, but even if this were compromised, it would still be at least secure for long enough to generate anohter key (not public/private key) & passphrase.
That's a good point.
Copyright, therefore, has another purpose besides encouraging people to create great ideas, right?
I'm not saying that you have to agree with me; I merely posit the idea: perhaps copyright is just another way for the ruling class to create the idea that they `own' the things that we produce. Things like: cars, tvs, and ideas. They steal away from us the things we create; & then sell them back to us. Thanks.
Actually, it is you who need to do some clear thinking.
The system that we have has not worked for the past 200 years. It has not worked for the last 200 years. It has been created in the last 200 years. It has been a gradual process by which the rich have stolen away our ideas & our work from us. It is much like the way in which peasants lands were inclosed in the 1500s & 1600s (or so) in England to create a capitalist system. Up until 200 years ago, people basically copied whatever they liked, copyrights did not exist. Great works were then created.
Just last year, or so, Disney expanded the length of copyright. The process of turning ideas into property is still continuing, & it will continue, unless we reverse it. & we can.
Oh *really*? The scrutiny that you apply is, without a doubt, some of the most careful I have ever seen. Why is this absurd on the face of it? Is this really scrutiny? It is absurd precisely because it does not fit into your world view. Face the facts: the 1st world STEALS from the 3rd world. Products, life, & ideas. The 1st world IS, & there is NO doubt of this, trying to steal the strains of plants which have been bred through thousands of years by the people of third world countries, throw a patent on them, & call them their own. Then they will use the police & other state apparatus to ENFORCE their so-called ownership, their so-called rights, to these plants which they have STOLEN. It is pure theft, & the intention is as it has always been: another way to re-direct wealth from the 3rd world to the 1st.
Actually, this sort of thing is precisely the problem with intellectual property. The arguments /against/ intellectual property are usually the
sort like: authors need it for protection, etc.
But the fact is that authors rarely hold copyright; it is *publishers* & their ilk who hold it.
Intellectual property is *theft*. Ideas are *stolen* from people who *created* them & who *use* them & they are then forced to license these ideas that are theirs to begin with.
This is absolute, and utter shit. I can't tell you how angry & upset I get every time that I hear this sort of disgusting rot coming from the mouths of the leaders of our institutions of (so-called) higher learning. Why is this? Allow me to give the reasons: (1) this is simply yet another way of blocking off access to the university for poor students. Since the founding of public universities, it seems, it has been a gradual closing off of all the avenues by which people without money might attend. (2) this is obviously a corrupt and criminal agreement between computer manufacturers and a public school system in order to increase sales of overpriced laptops. (3) this sort of plan helps to reinforce a uniformity of computing software which is unnecessary and hurtful. I doubt that my 486 laptop, which runs Linux, would qualify under their plan. (4) what the fuck is the point, anyhow, of forcing people to use computers? There are simply many, many tasks where not using a computer is better than using one. Okay, I'm running our of steam, but I can't tell you how horrible I think these plans are. They disgust me, & they make me ever more upset with the computer industry than I usually am. Erik
Most of the people here see the relationship between free software and business as a good thing, & I am inclined to agree, but I was wondering what your feelings are in regards to the possibilities of a more democratic way of structuring the creation & support of free software; that is, worker (esp. programmer) control of the companies that create & support software. I see a great potential for this possibility; but I was wondering what your feelings are on this under-reported subject.
What is the point of this argument? Perhaps they are also protesting plice killing & public transportation & such. These people are not luddites, they are web "programmers" just like you. Just because we have some new fucking technology doesn't mean its going to help "the people". & these people are quite clearly NOT against the technology, they are upset with the CRAP that you see living in the Bay Area. I understand it isn't is bad in the rest of the country; or at least in mid. America. Out here, in the Bay Area, the web site billboards/tv ads etc are DISGUSTING. The CRAP that is being done just because its related to the web is OBSCENE. They are wasting good money. Anyway, I am all for this. There has been a culture of resistance to advertising building for a while, and its about fucking time somebody did something to fuck up those web companies.
This is patently false. Why does it matter if it is the government or a corporation trying to silence you? As far as the censored is concerned, the effect is the same. If one forces you to use one medium rather than another, isn't that a form of censorship? What if you were forced to only broadcast your views by telegraph? Wouldn't that be a form of censorship? If your ISP drops you because you have offensive material, is that censorship? Just because the government happens to be the most powerful coercive organization around doesn't mean that it's the only one.
A recent issue of The Nation addressed a related issue: the fact that the market actually doesn't create a very good market for the development of pharmaceuticals. MUCH more money is spent on drugs for cosmetic drugs (for things like toe fungus), and other "trivial" needs, than on drugs for diseases that kill many in the Third World. So not only do people in the third world not get the drugs they need because they can't pay, but the First World drug companies simply do not develop the drugs they need. Charities are wonderful and all, but they simply aren't as large as the market and the governments. By all means donate to charity, but don't fool yourself into thinking this will solve all problems. A government-controlled drug development group might not be able to create the drugs the world needs, but the market seems to be failing pretty badly here, so perhaps it's time to try to look for another solution.