Although I'm not too sure on the history of the spreadsheet, I do believe that both Napster and Instant Messaging came about based on the true innovative works done before. Instant Messaging isn't that far off the scale from IRC, which has been around since 1988. Napster, as a 'peer to peer' client isn't original, in that at least since the early 90's (maybe earlier), DCC (Direct Client to Client) was instituted in, again, IRC clients. Napster put 2 and 2 together, and managed to pool all the end clients. This had been done on a much smaller scale on IRC warez and porn channels much earlier, probably before Shawn Fanning was old enough to drive a car. I'm sure IRC owes to many previous chat/email systems for it's development, but it seems me that this is where the innovation was.
Of course, you failed to mention that the radio station was actively looking for a commercial partner after being moved to a new department at the University. It wasn't some big offer from Paul Allen or Vulcan Ventures to an organization that was happy where it sat. Vulcan Ventures also owns a couple stations in Portland. I doubt Vulcan Ventures or Paul Allen are going to kill a radio station as popular as KCMU (er.. KEXP) is. It's a business venture. Alienating the community which makes your business prosper isn't normally a good business move. It could possibly be a Bad Thing in the end, but this radio station now has a brand new, rent-free studio to operate in, and all new, digital equipment.
What if you are telling other kids about the website AT school? If I'm sitting in teh computer lab and tell a bunch f kids the url and they go to it, isn't that distributing the website at school?
Well, yes, it would be. But he wasn't suspended for going around shouting a URL. He was suspended for having the website at all. It's been said in other posts, and I'll rehash it here: The principle should have done either a) Taken this as a personal assault, and go at this situatuon as a libel suit outside of the school. Or possibly b) gathered statements from teachers or students saying that yes, this kid was in fact passing out the URL in class and on school grounds, and then procede to suspend the student.
I'm sure the kid probably went around spouting off the URL in school, and my first post didn't convey that. But this situation wasn't based on the student passing out a URL.
I think that you ARE missing a point. The website is not being distributed AT the school. It would be akin to you passing out a pamphlet somewhere off school grounds, in your own time, and one of these pamphlets landing in the hands of someone at school. The fact that it's accessible at school means NOTHING. It was not created or distributed at school, during school hours by the student.
As far as standing just outside school grounds and shouting? Sure, as long as it isn't against the law (is this person truant? blocking traffic?) why not? People are allowed to protest. The principle could call the police I suppose, but to suspend the student for voicing an opinion outside of school? The PARENTS should punish the student if they have done something wrong. The job of the principle is not to monitor what students actions are outside of school activities.
Right, SpeedChoice did offer two-way wave microwave service in Phoenix, but only if you had Line Of Site to their tower in the foothills. I hadn't heard of uplink problems with the 2 way service though... I moved away right as they were deploying this in my area, becoming the only broadband service available to my apartment complex. Of course, I moved to Seattle, and still have no broadband access. >:/
They offered something on the order of 6mbps links too, pretty fast stuff. Maybe now that Sprint bought them, they'll deploy this in other large metro areas?
The problem here is not the distribution of the kit itself, but rather that the kit includes two example binaries of work by Donald Becker - without the source code. This is where the "loophole" in the might exist. Read the article carefully, and try again.
Maybe I read the article incorrectly, but I think the issue here is not what end-users may do with the kit Sun provides, but what Sun has done. From what I read, it sounds like Sun has provided some "example" drivers (Beckers work), and not provided the source, or gotten Beckers permission to distribute them as such. Then again, maybe I read the article wrong.
doesn't Linux really depend on Windows? I mean, if there had already been a powerful, stable, open, commonly-used Unix-like system, I don't think that Linus would have had much impetus to do what he's done (not to mention the countless others).
Notice the word open. While the incentive to create something like Linux might have been there for Linus, would people around the world have caught on to Linux, or would they have already been wrapped up in the "other" open UNIX-like system? I do agree that it has nothing specifically to do with Windows itself, but rather the fact that open systems weren't prevalent at that time.
Starting at a base price of $61,000, you can order one of the Mach 5's from here. Of course, you have to put down a $35,000 deposit, and you aren't guaranteed a Mach 5. On a side note, they're going to build a Racer X car too.
EasyHosting sells (rents?:D) domains for $15CA per year. They use the OpenSRS system. Updates to the OpenSRS database are immediate, and as far as I can tell, fairly quick to NetSols main WHOIS database. userfriendly.com has a nice, simple OpenSRS login page to edit all aspects of your domain records as well.
If it wasn't such a hassle, I'd transfer my two NetSol-registered domains over, but I'll just wait and re-register with a OpenSRS reseller.
While I think Metallica is legally correct in claiming copyright infringement, I think that the possibility of alienating potentially millions of fans would outweigh the cost of ignoring the MP3 trading done through Napster and it's relatives. Those fans, in the end, will be the ones who buy concert tickets, new albums, band merchandise etc., and I'd think that most likely in the long run you'd lose more money by losing those fans. There are obviously artists who think MP3 trading is fine, and those who don't.. Anyhow, my question is this: Why did you choose to take on Napster and it's users, instead of going the route of artists like Chuck D and, to an extent, Limp Bizkit and Cypress Hill?
Slashdot Mirror
Although I'm not too sure on the history of the spreadsheet, I do believe that both Napster and Instant Messaging came about based on the true innovative works done before. Instant Messaging isn't that far off the scale from IRC, which has been around since 1988. Napster, as a 'peer to peer' client isn't original, in that at least since the early 90's (maybe earlier), DCC (Direct Client to Client) was instituted in, again, IRC clients. Napster put 2 and 2 together, and managed to pool all the end clients. This had been done on a much smaller scale on IRC warez and porn channels much earlier, probably before Shawn Fanning was old enough to drive a car. I'm sure IRC owes to many previous chat/email systems for it's development, but it seems me that this is where the innovation was.
Of course, you failed to mention that the radio station was actively looking for a commercial partner after being moved to a new department at the University. It wasn't some big offer from Paul Allen or Vulcan Ventures to an organization that was happy where it sat. Vulcan Ventures also owns a couple stations in Portland. I doubt Vulcan Ventures or Paul Allen are going to kill a radio station as popular as KCMU (er.. KEXP) is. It's a business venture. Alienating the community which makes your business prosper isn't normally a good business move. It could possibly be a Bad Thing in the end, but this radio station now has a brand new, rent-free studio to operate in, and all new, digital equipment.
What if you are telling other kids about the website AT school? If I'm sitting in teh computer lab and tell a bunch f kids the url and they go to it, isn't that distributing the website at school? Well, yes, it would be. But he wasn't suspended for going around shouting a URL. He was suspended for having the website at all. It's been said in other posts, and I'll rehash it here: The principle should have done either a) Taken this as a personal assault, and go at this situatuon as a libel suit outside of the school. Or possibly b) gathered statements from teachers or students saying that yes, this kid was in fact passing out the URL in class and on school grounds, and then procede to suspend the student. I'm sure the kid probably went around spouting off the URL in school, and my first post didn't convey that. But this situation wasn't based on the student passing out a URL.
I think that you ARE missing a point. The website is not being distributed AT the school. It would be akin to you passing out a pamphlet somewhere off school grounds, in your own time, and one of these pamphlets landing in the hands of someone at school. The fact that it's accessible at school means NOTHING. It was not created or distributed at school, during school hours by the student. As far as standing just outside school grounds and shouting? Sure, as long as it isn't against the law (is this person truant? blocking traffic?) why not? People are allowed to protest. The principle could call the police I suppose, but to suspend the student for voicing an opinion outside of school? The PARENTS should punish the student if they have done something wrong. The job of the principle is not to monitor what students actions are outside of school activities.
Right, SpeedChoice did offer two-way wave microwave service in Phoenix, but only if you had Line Of Site to their tower in the foothills. I hadn't heard of uplink problems with the 2 way service though... I moved away right as they were deploying this in my area, becoming the only broadband service available to my apartment complex. Of course, I moved to Seattle, and still have no broadband access. >:/
They offered something on the order of 6mbps links too, pretty fast stuff. Maybe now that Sprint bought them, they'll deploy this in other large metro areas?
The problem here is not the distribution of the kit itself, but rather that the kit includes two example binaries of work by Donald Becker - without the source code. This is where the "loophole" in the might exist. Read the article carefully, and try again.
Maybe I read the article incorrectly, but I think the issue here is not what end-users may do with the kit Sun provides, but what Sun has done. From what I read, it sounds like Sun has provided some "example" drivers (Beckers work), and not provided the source, or gotten Beckers permission to distribute them as such. Then again, maybe I read the article wrong.
doesn't Linux really depend on Windows? I mean, if there had already been a powerful, stable, open, commonly-used Unix-like system, I don't think that Linus would have had much impetus to do what he's done (not to mention the countless others).
Notice the word open. While the incentive to create something like Linux might have been there for Linus, would people around the world have caught on to Linux, or would they have already been wrapped up in the "other" open UNIX-like system? I do agree that it has nothing specifically to do with Windows itself, but rather the fact that open systems weren't prevalent at that time.
Starting at a base price of $61,000, you can order one of the Mach 5's from here. Of course, you have to put down a $35,000 deposit, and you aren't guaranteed a Mach 5. On a side note, they're going to build a Racer X car too.
EasyHosting sells (rents? :D) domains for $15CA per year. They use the OpenSRS system. Updates to the OpenSRS database are immediate, and as far as I can tell, fairly quick to NetSols main WHOIS database. userfriendly.com has a nice, simple OpenSRS login page to edit all aspects of your domain records as well.
If it wasn't such a hassle, I'd transfer my two NetSol-registered domains over, but I'll just wait and re-register with a OpenSRS reseller.
While I think Metallica is legally correct in claiming copyright infringement, I think that the possibility of alienating potentially millions of fans would outweigh the cost of ignoring the MP3 trading done through Napster and it's relatives. Those fans, in the end, will be the ones who buy concert tickets, new albums, band merchandise etc., and I'd think that most likely in the long run you'd lose more money by losing those fans. There are obviously artists who think MP3 trading is fine, and those who don't.. Anyhow, my question is this: Why did you choose to take on Napster and it's users, instead of going the route of artists like Chuck D and, to an extent, Limp Bizkit and Cypress Hill?