Microsoft invents Microsoft Excel. Microsoft invents Microsoft Access. Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
And exactly what is the difference between inventing Excel, or C / C++, Java, Perl, and have people loading software patents based on that technology?
None. This just shows why software patents is bad. It's all mathematics, and they're trying to sell what we already own, to us..
Microsoft deserves this, because they're in the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world. Not because of revenge, but they have to live with the consequences of their ignorant decisions - Karma pure and simple.
It does, but only superficially. What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros? They may have been complex and they may have been non-obvious and they may even have been ingenious. But unless he hand-hacked the bits of the 'sheet, it seems to me he just used existing features built into the software. Even as software patents go, this is sick. He should never have been granted a patent for this.
So what is the difference if he had used C / C++ or Java? He would still be using programs to innovate his clever and fabulous "innovations".
This has nothing to do with wether he should or should not get a patent. This just shows YET another time how absurd software patents REALLY are.
So why is Microsoft pushing for software patents in Europe and USA?
They deserve no sympathy, and besides, adding value to existing implementations is all the patent system is about. You cannot invent something in vacuum, it HAS to be built on top of existing technology.
As long as Microsoft is on the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world, don't expect any sympathy.
It's got nothing to do with revenge, at least for me it ain't. It's got to do with taking responsibility for your actions and living with the consequences.
You know, when you buy bad laws, you have to live with them..
Yes, the legal system is bad and messed up, but they're making it worse, creating more jobs for lawyers. They're betting they can afford it, and the others not. I can't understand such an egoistic attitude at all, and such unwise/ignorant decisions is always the downfall of the large ones.
You just have to laugh when big companies shoot themselves in the foot like that. Yeah, it's sad too, but why cry over a mega-corporation?
What you should be asking yourself is why do you want "manufactured" entertainment at all. There can be much more fun in doing things in groups, singing, music, dancing, to LIVE and REAL music with SOUL.
Music and "entertainment" was originally from the heart. Let's go down to the heart again, because that's what makes us REALLY happy!
Why follow a soulless culture? Just because you've been brought up with it, doesn't mean you have to stay with it.
Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it:)
Nobody could stand the Pentium III ID-chip, yet it was shipped and nobody cried because of assurance it was DISABLED by default.
They never told anyone that it could be activated and deactivated in software only. It can, any malware can read your CPU ID without your consent and knowledge under a Windows OS. It doesn't matter that you have set it to disabled in BIOS, any software can enable it. I think Linux prevents this because of security, while Windows allows it. However, the crime and lies are with Intel, which shipped a feature nobody allowed.
What we need is to educate ignorant users into responsible and knowledgeable users. Don't treat them like idiots, explain every detail to them, or refuse to fix their problems.
So if one idea has been patented by 2 different corporations in 2 different countries. Each one slightly different worded, but covering the same idea. You can that get screwed like 2 times, in the manufacturing country you have to pay license fee for manufacturing, and in another country you have to pay the license fee for distributing/selling the product.
Not to mention a product can be covered by lots of different patents. And any of those patent-holders has the right to DENY you anything if they chose (ie. your money is not important to them).
So you can get screwed over royally, if you're unlucky.
PS. I'm using the word idea deliberately, because that is what software patents are really covering. Copyrights cover the code.
IMHO Its a slow realization for MS that the OS bloat is self defeating and that the platform tie in has as many cons as pros.
My personal experience predicates this to be the typical position before a company hits the critical tipping point where they can continue to leverage their market value beyond shareholders expectations, or just become an irrelevant platform. Yes, BSD is dying.
I recommended Firefox to a friend of mine. He's not terribly technical, but is better than me with creating Flash and HTML-pages. (I don't own Flash, I don't use it.)
However, he installed it twice, and both times had to do a reinstall of XP to fix startup hangups. I tried to tell him it couldn't be Firefox' fault, but in some way I can't be 100% sure myself..
So, sometimes the "don't fix it" mentality just saves people from headaches, while people like us continue to bang our heads on the wall.. Just to make a perfect system;-)
But it's fun to cross barriers too: Making Office 2000 and FileMaker 6.0 work under wine and integrate it with KDE. Running a full Linux image under qemu in XP for testing new upgrades. My current head-banging in progress, 10GB to an external USB harddrive is not fun on USB1... Checking.. Yup, still copying since last night.;)
So there are legitimate reasons people do this, and sometimes they save themselves from trouble by doing it.
The question isn't wether Firefox has vulnerabilities, but how easy it is to make a permanent fix to the general problem. Think in lines of "Stack protection" and similar, not fixing a single strcpy-line.
The quality of the code matters too. Just watch how Microsoft fixes holes by making the security-layer in the wrong place, in the GUI, rendering the vulnerability still open on the commandline. It wasn't long time ago a root-exploit were fixed this way.
I like to think this could never happen in FOSS. At least in a major project. Not because people there don't make the same design mistakes, but the code will reveal it to everybody else.
With Free Software / Open Source, everybody can contribute to a solution, and the code in successful software should be pretty maintainable and therefore more easy to fix.
So, even though Firefox becomes the major browser, I think they will handle the situation far better than Microsoft (which hasn't updated IE in how many years now?).
The whole patent system is "unfair" and "unethical":
The patent holder is granted an artificial monopoly by the government. This is further enforced by social restrictions by the courts, economic sanctions and violence by the police and prison system.
The patent holder decides the price, who gets to be licensed and can even deny licenses by lawful discrimination.
This has NOTHING to do with "market" or free enterprise, since it is an artificial and outdated system, currently being taken over by large conglomerations of corporations able to absorb anything like a black hole. There is no "market value" here, just monopoly pricing.
The trick to maximize profits with a monopoly is to create an artificial scarcity, which turns into a REAL scarcity. Then people will be forced to pay more than they really can afford, and you become a more important bussiness in their lives. It's all about maximization of money and power.
Even with general worse health for the population as a result of the medication-industry's policies. This is a bonus, because then people will DESPERATELY need more medication.
In short, the whole medication industry is siphoning on bad health and is NOT the cure for anything!
Good health has as always been, eat good fresh food, physical activation (not running on a treadmill) and enjoying simple and joyful activities.
The book is extremely ambiguous, not very helpful, and basically words things most people already know in ways that make it seem like it's new and insightful. That's pretty sad. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who are completely absorbed by this and will say that it "changed their life", or some such rubbish.
I haven't read the book, but my experience of deeper truths is that they are ambigous. It is also inexpressible, meaning you can only point in the direction, not really express it in its fullness or the experience of it.
I think people should just take the book for what it is, not for any theoretic or practical value. Relax, not everything has to give deeper insights, and sometimes it takes some time before it really sinks in as a practical experience.
Who here can honestly say they feel deeply connected to the universe around them, so much that they always follow their intuition and do what is best for themselves and everybody?
We shouldn't be so quick to judge, because that's our logical thinking re-acting, not the intuition..
I haven't read the book though, but my intuition tells me that the author probably had some inspiration to write it, and that can easily be lost if you're looking for "getting something out of it" or finding somebody to worship (then getting angry and disappointed), rather than just relax and enjoy it.
Now, we should double our efforts to inform everybody Why software patents are a bad idea, and Who is really backing the proposals for it. Particularly, EU should be wary of software patents. With the minefield of US software patents, EU should really rethink being a follower anymore.
Put yourself in a kids shoes. Just because you are an adult NOW, it's easy to say they should be monitored constantly 24 hours a day.
What do you teach children when you have to tag them and constantly monitor all their activities?
That you don't trust them. They never learn to be trusted, thus either will rebell even more than the kids of today or become complacent slaves to society (neither is healthy for anybody).
When many of these kids grow up, they'll be so used to being monitored and bitched around, when society requires this for adults too, they will not have a concept of freedom that we do. It's the American way of life to be monitored and put under constant surveillance then. Corporations monitoring for maximizing profits will seem natural, because that will make more money, and you don't really have any other options. The concept has been eradicated.
Kids become adults you know. And they become what we teach = our own example mixed with our treatment of them.
Perhaps you should contemplate the difference between the GPL and the BSD license. And note that while both are popular, the GPL is more popular.
Not everybody might agree with me, but I see the GPL as a political tool. It is a license that shows the hybris behind the idea that you can own information and knowledge. It is really copyright turned back on itself, therefore humourously called copyleft.
GPL do what public domain and BSD cannot, namely form a competition against proprietary and closed source software. This is the design principle behind the GPL, and the other two "licenses" (why do we need a license anyways?), cannot do this.
I like to think the GPL is popular because most of these people who are knowledgeable about computers, feel deep down inside themselves that copyright and restrictions do not serve the higher goal of developing better programs. There is already competition between open- and free software, while standards and source helps bring interoperability on levels that closed source cannot easily match. These people do not want to support a world with strict IP-laws and companies selling snake oil to its customers, holding them ransom and hostage over time.
I suspect you disagree with me, because you brought up the BSD-license. That's okay: You want to share it all with everybody, which is a perfectly laudable goal. While I prefer the GPL because I want to contribute to an alternative to proprietary software, without accidentally supporting it.
You might also call the GPL a platform for forced-sharing, but I see it mostly as a political weapon against corporate appropriation of our culture and science.
Now you might mistake me for a leftist, but I also think proprietary software should exist as long as it can support itself. Obviously, numerous advancements have been made from that avenue that would otherwise be lost. But to protect its monopoly through stricter laws and draconian enforcements, I do not support.
For a lot of open source project's and P2P networks it's not the case that developers and users are really sharing fairly.
Most open source projects revolve around a core of developers with the odd donation of time and code from users who extend the code to suit their needs. Ditto with most P2P networks, most casual users are happy to leach whilst most of the bandwidth is provided by hardcore users. Perhaps the exception to this is Bittorrent where users are more inclinded to share fairly.
It's not greed, since it's about sharing.
I don't know what to call it, fear of leeching or something?
To sum it up: When you share, if you constantly think about if everybody else is sharing as much as you, you'll end up not sharing.
Period.
When you share, you share.
If people leech, don't bother.
If they spam or hog resources, limit the resources with technical solutions, but you still don't bother.
This is the truth of sharing. The more you give, the more you get. Karma is absolute truth, but you don't give a damn about it. If you do, you get in trouble. If you analyse it all, you will stop the process itself.
So what if you share more than the next guy for some times? If you think about it, worrying about who is on top is really capitalism.
Strange thought, huh?
If you happen to have more / willing to share more, for some time, then just think what an opportunity!
Please reread my post. To share information and knowledge is not utopia, but the reality we live in.
What is utopia is the card-house that there exist something called "IP-rights", and that we need more and more draconian laws to protect information from escaping out clutched hands.
Umm, let me rephrase that: Not utopia, but living nightmare. Who needs bands whose only desire is to become rich and famous? It certainly doesn't add any artistic flavour to the sound.
Reality is that advances in technology will slowly make more and more people unemployed. Either that, or we will have to go back to biodynamic and organic farming (which would be a good thing for the quality of food).
It is not a question of utopia, but what we do ABOUT the changing reality we live in. If machines do more of the work, we should get more free time, right?
To accept even more work is insanity! We accept insane solutions in this world on a daily basis. If you open your eyes, you can see that.
Why? Because of fear: What if we don't? We'll be insecure.. Fear is running amok in this world, and most of how people live their lives and make decisions in based on it. Even indifference, because that is fear of participation and standing up for something important.
To answer your question in specific: This is not a revolution, so whoever lives there and owns it, continues to do so. This is about a shift, a change in consciousness, which will change both people's attitudes and the mechanics of society over time.
To properly understand people, it's crucial to see where they're coming from, not brand them as crazy, that's just an easy way to opt out of understanding. I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL.
RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete againstcopyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.
When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings, who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in some respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.
RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:
1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.
A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.
Back to point #2:
2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.
The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.
Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society - our spirit crushed or perverted into material goal-chasing.
I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?
Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution,
I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL:
RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete againstcopyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.
When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings, who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in many respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.
RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:
1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.
A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.
Back to point #2:
2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.
The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.
Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society.
I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?
Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution, a happy and abundant society, or a draconian fear-induced, lack-ridden society. What society is able to cope with reality , make rational decisions and make crime unattractive?
Both will eventually perish in time, but I want to go down with a calm smile, than a paranoid and greedy grin.
Patents, already covered. Sun may at ANY time, due to loopholes in the license, close down everybody else distributing and working on "OpenSolaris". Besides, THEY own all YOUR changes (slave-license). In GPL ONLY YOU OWN YOUR OWN CHANGES (unless you donate it to the FSF).
OpenSolaris has a license incompatible with the FSF (Free Software License). While TONS of other licenses are indeed compatible with FSF and the GPL: Check it out..
Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.
I think most companies just have to take their chances, settling this in court just becomes a necessary risk. Thus making giving large companies yet another advantage over smaller companies.
To see possibilities, we need to let go of all the assumptions we have about how things "work". The current situation with huge companies is ingrained in the present system, thus any big changes will naturally have a huge impact on the entities depending on the system.
Let's take an example of cooperation and open disemination: Like open source, scientists can (and still do) cooperate to research on things. Actually, the truly novel ideas comes from research in universities, while corporations tend to focus on how to bring a specific product based on such research. The rest becomes trade secrets..
Instead of having the focus to find ways to make the most money, such researchers will research all avenues, also just for curiosity, fun and fame.
But heavier research needs funding. You can have a mechanism to distribute this fairly based on performance and usefullness, either through a expert-group, democratic process or both. The focus will be on what is useful to society, not what appears to be good on the surface and sells to the ignorant masses. Companies may even contract researchers in order to research their issues.
More money and a good system, can distribute this wealth to the right people, not to corporations who enrich the top men and have shady agendas. In the future, going back to more academic research will seem more and more like a good idea, as companies erode the academic arena for good scientists and morale.
Actually, the current system is really siphoning on the academic fields, without giving much back to anybody.
Killing patents may work, and is not the end of the world anyways. Companies will find ways to survive, they're never guaranteed ROI or any profit, neither should they. Research will be shared by everybody.
What we don't need is a patent monopoly which hinders progress in many areas. Only the biggest players can afford this game, and often they just buy smaller companies in order to get new fresh ideas. Something is very wrong, and continuing on this road is gradually destroying our culture.
I don't claim I know this will work and obviously smarter people than I can come up with better systems. However, it did work before and we can develop it further. Of course, our current system is also a reflection of the human psyche. The greed, fear, feel of lack, hankering for more, etc, all limits us. This has increased with time, thus the current system and "culture" (dare I call it that) reflects that. This is spoon-fed back to the population through the media.
Another solution is to have different rules for patents in different arenas. E.g. software patents could be limited to 3-5 years, like Stallman has suggested. Or you could abolish software patents, since there's really no need for it.
But how can law-makers make rational decisions when we let big money rule our lives?
It's a matter of what kind of society we want to create, not just what is most efficient and mechanic. Rational choices and taking responsibility for the land we live on.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft invents Microsoft Excel.
Microsoft invents Microsoft Access.
Guatamalan inventor patents method of transferring data between the two programs.
And exactly what is the difference between inventing Excel, or C / C++, Java, Perl, and have people loading software patents based on that technology?
None. This just shows why software patents is bad. It's all mathematics, and they're trying to sell what we already own, to us..
Microsoft deserves this, because they're in the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world. Not because of revenge, but they have to live with the consequences of their ignorant decisions - Karma pure and simple.
It does, but only superficially. What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros? They may have been complex and they may have been non-obvious and they may even have been ingenious. But unless he hand-hacked the bits of the 'sheet, it seems to me he just used existing features built into the software. Even as software patents go, this is sick. He should never have been granted a patent for this.
So what is the difference if he had used C / C++ or Java? He would still be using programs to innovate his clever and fabulous "innovations".
This has nothing to do with wether he should or should not get a patent. This just shows YET another time how absurd software patents REALLY are.
So why is Microsoft pushing for software patents in Europe and USA?
They deserve no sympathy, and besides, adding value to existing implementations is all the patent system is about. You cannot invent something in vacuum, it HAS to be built on top of existing technology.
Hmm, they sure seem to want to make it a crime: Thought Thieves
As long as Microsoft is on the forefront of software patents in USA, Europe and the rest of the world, don't expect any sympathy.
It's got nothing to do with revenge, at least for me it ain't. It's got to do with taking responsibility for your actions and living with the consequences.
You know, when you buy bad laws, you have to live with them..
Yes, the legal system is bad and messed up, but they're making it worse, creating more jobs for lawyers. They're betting they can afford it, and the others not. I can't understand such an egoistic attitude at all, and such unwise/ignorant decisions is always the downfall of the large ones.
You just have to laugh when big companies shoot themselves in the foot like that. Yeah, it's sad too, but why cry over a mega-corporation?
Ok, if you enjoy it, enjoy.
:-)
Nice point..
What you should be asking yourself is why do you want "manufactured" entertainment at all. There can be much more fun in doing things in groups, singing, music, dancing, to LIVE and REAL music with SOUL.
Music and "entertainment" was originally from the heart. Let's go down to the heart again, because that's what makes us REALLY happy!
Why follow a soulless culture? Just because you've been brought up with it, doesn't mean you have to stay with it.
Thats the scariest thing Ive ever heard. Lucikly nobody will stand for it :)
Nobody could stand the Pentium III ID-chip, yet it was shipped and nobody cried because of assurance it was DISABLED by default.
They never told anyone that it could be activated and deactivated in software only. It can, any malware can read your CPU ID without your consent and knowledge under a Windows OS. It doesn't matter that you have set it to disabled in BIOS, any software can enable it. I think Linux prevents this because of security, while Windows allows it. However, the crime and lies are with Intel, which shipped a feature nobody allowed.
What we need is to educate ignorant users into responsible and knowledgeable users. Don't treat them like idiots, explain every detail to them, or refuse to fix their problems.
So if one idea has been patented by 2 different corporations in 2 different countries. Each one slightly different worded, but covering the same idea. You can that get screwed like 2 times, in the manufacturing country you have to pay license fee for manufacturing, and in another country you have to pay the license fee for distributing/selling the product.
Not to mention a product can be covered by lots of different patents. And any of those patent-holders has the right to DENY you anything if they chose (ie. your money is not important to them).
So you can get screwed over royally, if you're unlucky.
PS. I'm using the word idea deliberately, because that is what software patents are really covering. Copyrights cover the code.
IMHO Its a slow realization for MS that the OS bloat is self defeating and that the platform tie in has as many cons as pros.
My personal experience predicates this to be the typical position before a company hits the critical tipping point where they can continue to leverage their market value beyond shareholders expectations, or just become an irrelevant platform. Yes, BSD is dying.
Knock on wood!
;-)
;)
I recommended Firefox to a friend of mine. He's not terribly technical, but is better than me with creating Flash and HTML-pages. (I don't own Flash, I don't use it.)
However, he installed it twice, and both times had to do a reinstall of XP to fix startup hangups. I tried to tell him it couldn't be Firefox' fault, but in some way I can't be 100% sure myself..
So, sometimes the "don't fix it" mentality just saves people from headaches, while people like us continue to bang our heads on the wall.. Just to make a perfect system
But it's fun to cross barriers too: Making Office 2000 and FileMaker 6.0 work under wine and integrate it with KDE. Running a full Linux image under qemu in XP for testing new upgrades. My current head-banging in progress, 10GB to an external USB harddrive is not fun on USB1... Checking.. Yup, still copying since last night.
So there are legitimate reasons people do this, and sometimes they save themselves from trouble by doing it.
The question isn't wether Firefox has vulnerabilities, but how easy it is to make a permanent fix to the general problem. Think in lines of "Stack protection" and similar, not fixing a single strcpy-line.
The quality of the code matters too. Just watch how Microsoft fixes holes by making the security-layer in the wrong place, in the GUI, rendering the vulnerability still open on the commandline. It wasn't long time ago a root-exploit were fixed this way.
I like to think this could never happen in FOSS. At least in a major project. Not because people there don't make the same design mistakes, but the code will reveal it to everybody else.
With Free Software / Open Source, everybody can contribute to a solution, and the code in successful software should be pretty maintainable and therefore more easy to fix.
So, even though Firefox becomes the major browser, I think they will handle the situation far better than Microsoft (which hasn't updated IE in how many years now?).
The whole patent system is "unfair" and "unethical":
The patent holder is granted an artificial monopoly by the government. This is further enforced by social restrictions by the courts, economic sanctions and violence by the police and prison system.
The patent holder decides the price, who gets to be licensed and can even deny licenses by lawful discrimination.
This has NOTHING to do with "market" or free enterprise, since it is an artificial and outdated system, currently being taken over by large conglomerations of corporations able to absorb anything like a black hole. There is no "market value" here, just monopoly pricing.
The trick to maximize profits with a monopoly is to create an artificial scarcity, which turns into a REAL scarcity. Then people will be forced to pay more than they really can afford, and you become a more important bussiness in their lives. It's all about maximization of money and power.
Even with general worse health for the population as a result of the medication-industry's policies. This is a bonus, because then people will DESPERATELY need more medication.
In short, the whole medication industry is siphoning on bad health and is NOT the cure for anything!
Good health has as always been, eat good fresh food, physical activation (not running on a treadmill) and enjoying simple and joyful activities.
The book is extremely ambiguous, not very helpful, and basically words things most people already know in ways that make it seem like it's new and insightful. That's pretty sad. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who are completely absorbed by this and will say that it "changed their life", or some such rubbish.
I haven't read the book, but my experience of deeper truths is that they are ambigous. It is also inexpressible, meaning you can only point in the direction, not really express it in its fullness or the experience of it.
I think people should just take the book for what it is, not for any theoretic or practical value. Relax, not everything has to give deeper insights, and sometimes it takes some time before it really sinks in as a practical experience.
Who here can honestly say they feel deeply connected to the universe around them, so much that they always follow their intuition and do what is best for themselves and everybody?
We shouldn't be so quick to judge, because that's our logical thinking re-acting, not the intuition..
I haven't read the book though, but my intuition tells me that the author probably had some inspiration to write it, and that can easily be lost if you're looking for "getting something out of it" or finding somebody to worship (then getting angry and disappointed), rather than just relax and enjoy it.
Faith in human kind is restored.
Now, we should double our efforts to inform everybody Why software patents are a bad idea, and Who is really backing the proposals for it. Particularly, EU should be wary of software patents. With the minefield of US software patents, EU should really rethink being a follower anymore.
Put yourself in a kids shoes. Just because you are an adult NOW, it's easy to say they should be monitored constantly 24 hours a day.
What do you teach children when you have to tag them and constantly monitor all their activities?
That you don't trust them. They never learn to be trusted, thus either will rebell even more than the kids of today or become complacent slaves to society (neither is healthy for anybody).
When many of these kids grow up, they'll be so used to being monitored and bitched around, when society requires this for adults too, they will not have a concept of freedom that we do. It's the American way of life to be monitored and put under constant surveillance then. Corporations monitoring for maximizing profits will seem natural, because that will make more money, and you don't really have any other options. The concept has been eradicated.
Kids become adults you know. And they become what we teach = our own example mixed with our treatment of them.
Perhaps you should contemplate the difference between the GPL and the BSD license. And note that while both are popular, the GPL is more popular.
Not everybody might agree with me, but I see the GPL as a political tool. It is a license that shows the hybris behind the idea that you can own information and knowledge. It is really copyright turned back on itself, therefore humourously called copyleft.
GPL do what public domain and BSD cannot, namely form a competition against proprietary and closed source software. This is the design principle behind the GPL, and the other two "licenses" (why do we need a license anyways?), cannot do this.
I like to think the GPL is popular because most of these people who are knowledgeable about computers, feel deep down inside themselves that copyright and restrictions do not serve the higher goal of developing better programs. There is already competition between open- and free software, while standards and source helps bring interoperability on levels that closed source cannot easily match. These people do not want to support a world with strict IP-laws and companies selling snake oil to its customers, holding them ransom and hostage over time.
I suspect you disagree with me, because you brought up the BSD-license. That's okay: You want to share it all with everybody, which is a perfectly laudable goal. While I prefer the GPL because I want to contribute to an alternative to proprietary software, without accidentally supporting it.
You might also call the GPL a platform for forced-sharing, but I see it mostly as a political weapon against corporate appropriation of our culture and science.
Now you might mistake me for a leftist, but I also think proprietary software should exist as long as it can support itself. Obviously, numerous advancements have been made from that avenue that would otherwise be lost. But to protect its monopoly through stricter laws and draconian enforcements, I do not support.
For a lot of open source project's and P2P networks it's not the case that developers and users are really sharing fairly.
Most open source projects revolve around a core of developers with the odd donation of time and code from users who extend the code to suit their needs. Ditto with most P2P networks, most casual users are happy to leach whilst most of the bandwidth is provided by hardcore users. Perhaps the exception to this is Bittorrent where users are more inclinded to share fairly.
It's not greed, since it's about sharing.
I don't know what to call it, fear of leeching or something?
To sum it up: When you share, if you constantly think about if everybody else is sharing as much as you, you'll end up not sharing.
Period.
When you share, you share.
If people leech, don't bother.
If they spam or hog resources, limit the resources with technical solutions, but you still don't bother.
This is the truth of sharing. The more you give, the more you get. Karma is absolute truth, but you don't give a damn about it. If you do, you get in trouble. If you analyse it all, you will stop the process itself.
So what if you share more than the next guy for some times? If you think about it, worrying about who is on top is really capitalism.
Strange thought, huh?
If you happen to have more / willing to share more, for some time, then just think what an opportunity!
Please reread my post. To share information and knowledge is not utopia, but the reality we live in.
What is utopia is the card-house that there exist something called "IP-rights", and that we need more and more draconian laws to protect information from escaping out clutched hands.
Umm, let me rephrase that: Not utopia, but living nightmare. Who needs bands whose only desire is to become rich and famous? It certainly doesn't add any artistic flavour to the sound.
Reality is that advances in technology will slowly make more and more people unemployed. Either that, or we will have to go back to biodynamic and organic farming (which would be a good thing for the quality of food).
It is not a question of utopia, but what we do ABOUT the changing reality we live in. If machines do more of the work, we should get more free time, right?
To accept even more work is insanity! We accept insane solutions in this world on a daily basis. If you open your eyes, you can see that.
Why? Because of fear: What if we don't? We'll be insecure.. Fear is running amok in this world, and most of how people live their lives and make decisions in based on it. Even indifference, because that is fear of participation and standing up for something important.
To answer your question in specific: This is not a revolution, so whoever lives there and owns it, continues to do so. This is about a shift, a change in consciousness, which will change both people's attitudes and the mechanics of society over time.
For individuals, it may shift over night.
To properly understand people, it's crucial to see where they're coming from, not brand them as crazy, that's just an easy way to opt out of understanding. I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL.
RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete against copyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.
When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings , who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in some respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.
RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:
1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.
A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.
Back to point #2:
2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.
The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.
Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society - our spirit crushed or perverted into material goal-chasing.
I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?
Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution,
I think people misunderstand RMS' goals with the GPL:
RMS wants to do away with copyright and all "Intellectual Property-rights" entirely. He does not want to force everyone to use the GPL, but he created the GPL, "copyleft" as an answer to copyright: Since Free Software cannot legally obtain source or dumps from proprietary software, there was a need for a license that allowed everything to be shared. Except to proprietary software, since they're restricting sharing unnaturally. How else would Free Software be able to compete against copyright? It's an ironical stab at copyright.
When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time. Leaders of corporations thought that making something like a UNIX OS would be impossible for others to achieve, but forgot it's us, human beings , who really created the software in the first place. Now, we're seeing Free Software is ahead in many respects, and is slowly overtaking proprietary solutions and making them uncomfortable.
RMS doesn't live in his own world, he sees the illusion our society is building its card-house on. He sees "IP-rights" as unnatural: It is natural to share information. With the advent of free cost copying and distribution of information (The Internet), we as a society now have roughly two choices:
1) Implement more and more draconian laws to conserve our social structure as it is now. Only the elite will be able to produce and invent, while the poor becomes poorer both in monetary riches and knowledge - one of the ways to oppress people. There's no way to prevent the freedom of information, except to create higher and higher barriers between every entity in this world: nations, cities, communities, institutions, neighbours, family, your own brain. Yes, it becomes ludicrous at a point, but at that point, who can stop it? When you've already lost touch with your community, nobody is on your side anymore.
A way to do this, is to create an artificial war against an abstract enemy, thus making people think they need these laws for protection. Even though more people die in car-accidents each year, than to this fictious enemy.
Back to point #2:
2) Another approach is to create a natural abundant society where people collaborate and contribute to the whole. Free Software is only the beginning, and has already proven its more efficient, flexible and reusable than proprietary solutions. Technology will slowly eliminate limitations and create abundance. In such a society, work will be more like play than the hour-wrecking, time-stretching, guilt-ridden, manipulative, forced labour we have today. Why are we waiting for the clock to turn 4-5 if there's not more work to be done that day? In fact, most of the population will not be required to "work" at all, and what work exist can be done taking turns on it. It requires a mature society that will take care of all its inhabitants. Like it or not: socialism, though just like in Europe not everybody need be treated equally.
The GPL is not forcing anybody to do anything. Copyright and so called "Intellectual Property-rights" are forcing people, and is the enemy to a natural progression towards an abundant society.
Abundance or not, is really a state of mind. Some people want to create a future of everlasting feeling of lack. You need more, and more, and in order to get it you have to do what they tell you to do. No matter how advanced technologically we get, we will never be happy, we will be slaves to emotions being manipulated by a paranoid society.
I want to live in a mature, natural and abundant society, don't you?
Ask yourself, who is working against the natural progression of evolution, a happy and abundant society, or a draconian fear-induced, lack-ridden society. What society is able to cope with reality , make rational decisions and make crime unattractive?
Both will eventually perish in time, but I want to go down with a calm smile, than a paranoid and greedy grin.
Sums it up Beautiful, sharp and down-to-earth.
Well done! You've just let in some light in this world. Thank you for making my heart realize there are other people who sees it.
May I have the permission to qoute you in the future, if I am to setup a webpage with collections of good arguments or something like that?
Patents, already covered. Sun may at ANY time, due to loopholes in the license, close down everybody else distributing and working on "OpenSolaris". Besides, THEY own all YOUR changes (slave-license). In GPL ONLY YOU OWN YOUR OWN CHANGES (unless you donate it to the FSF).
OpenSolaris has a license incompatible with the FSF (Free Software License). While TONS of other licenses are indeed compatible with FSF and the GPL: Check it out..
Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.
So what do you do if Intel refuses to fix it?
I think most companies just have to take their chances, settling this in court just becomes a necessary risk. Thus making giving large companies yet another advantage over smaller companies.
To see possibilities, we need to let go of all the assumptions we have about how things "work". The current situation with huge companies is ingrained in the present system, thus any big changes will naturally have a huge impact on the entities depending on the system.
Let's take an example of cooperation and open disemination:
Like open source, scientists can (and still do) cooperate to research on things. Actually, the truly novel ideas comes from research in universities, while corporations tend to focus on how to bring a specific product based on such research. The rest becomes trade secrets..
Instead of having the focus to find ways to make the most money, such researchers will research all avenues, also just for curiosity, fun and fame.
But heavier research needs funding. You can have a mechanism to distribute this fairly based on performance and usefullness, either through a expert-group, democratic process or both. The focus will be on what is useful to society, not what appears to be good on the surface and sells to the ignorant masses. Companies may even contract researchers in order to research their issues.
More money and a good system, can distribute this wealth to the right people, not to corporations who enrich the top men and have shady agendas. In the future, going back to more academic research will seem more and more like a good idea, as companies erode the academic arena for good scientists and morale.
Actually, the current system is really siphoning on the academic fields, without giving much back to anybody.
Killing patents may work, and is not the end of the world anyways. Companies will find ways to survive, they're never guaranteed ROI or any profit, neither should they. Research will be shared by everybody.
What we don't need is a patent monopoly which hinders progress in many areas. Only the biggest players can afford this game, and often they just buy smaller companies in order to get new fresh ideas. Something is very wrong, and continuing on this road is gradually destroying our culture.
I don't claim I know this will work and obviously smarter people than I can come up with better systems. However, it did work before and we can develop it further. Of course, our current system is also a reflection of the human psyche. The greed, fear, feel of lack, hankering for more, etc, all limits us. This has increased with time, thus the current system and "culture" (dare I call it that) reflects that. This is spoon-fed back to the population through the media.
Another solution is to have different rules for patents in different arenas. E.g. software patents could be limited to 3-5 years, like Stallman has suggested. Or you could abolish software patents, since there's really no need for it.
But how can law-makers make rational decisions when we let big money rule our lives?
It's a matter of what kind of society we want to create, not just what is most efficient and mechanic. Rational choices and taking responsibility for the land we live on.