The big content producers mostly want you to be able to do this as well. The big problem is that they want to be paid for it.
The formula is simple: if some action has value (like format shifting), they want to be paid.
This is why I think "DRM done right" is not possible. DRM *is* rights management. It's all about stopping you from freely using the content in arbitrary ways.
So the debate about DRM is a modern re-enactment of the legal evolution of property rights. Rather then defining how one party can or can't control another party based on physical boundaries (on my land, a product in my possession, etc...) it's defining how control will work in the digital age.
Yeah, but if you want to run anything on it, you have to get approved by the Free Store. The draconian linux overlords will reject anything that isn't 100% free, open, copyleft, and blindingly geeky.
"RTFM" is all the rejection letters say. Not even any guidance about what to change!
The reaction is because of the Code of silence. Lying for your fellow officer is a lot more dangerous when there might be video showing that you're all lying.
I think it's ideal for an ISP provided Netbook (OS + connection + hardware + service) and mass-deployments in a corporate environment like a call center or shop floor. I haven't seen *any* partners announced which seems really strange.
So don't settle -- their model depends on collecting smaller amounts from lot's of victims, so they'll ignore you for not paying up, or they'll loose money in an individual lawsuit. Bonus: if enough people stick together and refuse to settle their "business model" won't work at all.
What Microsoft must do to save their mobile buisiness: Simple, in Microsoft Fasion, Download the Android ASOP Standard Source. Recomplie with every reference to Android replaced by Windows 8 Mobile. When anyone complains just wait until they sue. The judgement will be much less than the profit. rinse, Repeat. Ohh wait that was Win 3.x err Win95.. err Sorry Win2k ohh wait no Excel, oh nm must have been defrag.. oh dang I must have meant Internet Explorer... well, you get the idea...
Nobody needs to purchase Novell to get the free software, they want buy Novell for everything else: existing customers and install base, development team, support and sales teams, IP, etc... Sure, they could do it all themselves, or they could buy a quick start.
CISCO. Give the software away and sell (crazy) expensive support plans. Sell the same Wireless/Phone/Networking management systems, but now they work seamlessly with the Desktop/LDAP/Email/etc... Free Software (as in beer) is the ideal opening for CISCO to broaden it's base into the small business.
When only patent trolls use patents, the patent law will be changed.
Only if the Trolls don't become big business themselves. Witness the RIAA creating no product themselves, yet the US pushing ACTA in their defense.
The problem now is that the big corporations are lobbing for the insane patent system because they think it is a net benefit to them. If this new license pool can make it not in their interest to do so, we all win.
I think you're right that software patents will go when big corporations want them to, and the issue is changing their attitude. But this isn't the way to do that: you don't play their game to win it, you subvert and break the game. Copyleft may depend on copyright but it's not playing the same game.
The way forward is to fight everywhere, and get lots of valuable software into the mainstream use of big business, and have that software threatened by patents. If the JVM was the target of several trolls we would see this issue go away. (Maybe OpenJDK will bring them out.) Now we just need more software that's open as a foundational piece of big corporations. Attacks on Linux Netbooks and GoogleOS will help get popular understanding, but it's getting corporations hooked on open source that'll really cause the politicians to move.
You think the school is going to negotiate with every student on campus? They haven't the manpower or the resources or the time.
There will be a set contact, and you can either take it or leave it, I imagine. And since we don't know the details of that arrangement, I'd err on the side of caution.
We need a GPL/Copyleft for DNA. Something like: You have no right to store, analyze, aggregate or otherwise use my DNA, except for the rights provided in this license... the problem, ironically, is that there is no well established legal framework of privacy which can be subverted like there is for Copyright.
I'm not sure why this keeps coming up... You have the option to disable Flash on your Android phone right now, and it's FUD to keep suggesting that you won't be able to disable it again in the future.
Maybe people keep saying because they want to disable Flash, and they are fearful, uncertain or doubtful that they'll be able to. What does that say about Google and Android? This is exactly the sort of thing that "Don't be Evil" was meant to be guidance for: a technical issue where the end-user gets put behind industry partners. Guess Google has some work to do to convince developers that they really mean "don't be evil."
What applications can you run on {insert OS here}? Linux, Window, OSX, OS2, DOS, Mainframe systems, etc... all run whatever you have; whatever the technology can do. The question doesn't even get asked for anything except the iPhone/iPad.
Apple is trying to fundamentally change the deal: they want to control the use of a product they sell. This doesn't fly for any other industry, although it's often tried. I'm sure BMW could make a better driving experience if they could mandate and control "their" cars use.
I give it two weeks before we start seeing junk all over the net, possibly even here, along the lines of "ACTA not as bad as previously thought" or "why ACTA could actually save OSS" or other completely ripe horseshit like that.
I'll give it 2 months before all the US politicians start abandoning it. They've collected their back-room bribes for supporting what industry wanted, but now they have an election to face. Let the online media make some scare stories, then the politicians will tell industry that "the timing's wrong" just now.
Hopefully everyone is smart enough to realize that's just the shills outing themselves, but they won't be. Hate this fuckin' planet so hard. Let me off.
It's all bout control money and lock in. It's good business but it's anti competitive, predatory, and anti consumer.
Agreed. This is DRM by other means. If GM said their new cars only ran on GM brand gas so they could "control the user experience" nobody would be fooled. The reasoning seems to be something like: Apple makes great quality stuff, so if they say this is about having great quality... well they know what they're talking about!
To willfully put on blinders and pretend it has anything to do with app quality or user experience is idiotic. If flash/flex apps sucked on iPhone or iPad then it would not be a problem for Apple because no one would bother to use them.
Idiotic for developers to say so; we know layers of abstraction in a computer are like water to fish, and it doesn't matter much if you call it a library or platform or preprocessor.
Interesting how uniform, vocal and negative the developer reaction was to Apples change in Flash-to-iPhone tech., while the media strives to be balanced by presenting Apples reasons without analysis.
S2 Games made "Savage" years ago and it has team play style FPS combined with RTS. It runs on Linux and you can download it here:
http://www.newerth.com/ There are a lot of comments about Heros being unfriendly to new players, but that's not a problem with Savage. You'll just suck.:)
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).
uh.. tell the telecom's to block the IP traffic on the backbones, remove the DNS, then go find the ISP host? They NSA will just put some gear in a back closet at the phone companies, and the companies will work hard to integrate it with their network.
What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I don't think this'll matter much if all the backbone connections are blocking the traffic. Remember that the big connections are owned by multinationals who aren't going to fight a lawful order, no matter how morally repugnant. Google recently offered big bandwidth to ISP's, but they'll comply with the law like all other companies: Google won't be pulling out of the US.
They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise. The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries. They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL. The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed. The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.
They're not side-stepping the GPL because the GPL is not viral. The idea that Oracle is doing something wrong really only makes sense if you think of the GPL as viral. (flame on!)
As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further. It seems like a
good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across
a network?
Why limit it to sharing files, rather than sharing information? Sending my MAC address to a server shouldn't be hidden.
Also, why limit it to "peers" rather than another computer? If software phones home why shouldn't we know what's being sent?
Slashdot Mirror
The big content producers mostly want you to be able to do this as well. The big problem is that they want to be paid for it.
The formula is simple: if some action has value (like format shifting), they want to be paid.
This is why I think "DRM done right" is not possible. DRM *is* rights management. It's all about stopping you from freely using the content in arbitrary ways.
So the debate about DRM is a modern re-enactment of the legal evolution of property rights. Rather then defining how one party can or can't control another party based on physical boundaries (on my land, a product in my possession, etc...) it's defining how control will work in the digital age.
Yeah, but if you want to run anything on it, you have to get approved by the Free Store. The draconian linux overlords will reject anything that isn't 100% free, open, copyleft, and blindingly geeky.
"RTFM" is all the rejection letters say. Not even any guidance about what to change!
The reaction is because of the Code of silence. Lying for your fellow officer is a lot more dangerous when there might be video showing that you're all lying.
Pardon the self-reply, but I found some Hardware partners. No ISP's or service providers though:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/08/chrome-partners-acer-adobe-asus-freescale-hewlett-packard-lenovo-qualcomm-texas-instruments/
I think it's ideal for an ISP provided Netbook (OS + connection + hardware + service) and mass-deployments in a corporate environment like a call center or shop floor. I haven't seen *any* partners announced which seems really strange.
So don't settle -- their model depends on collecting smaller amounts from lot's of victims, so they'll ignore you for not paying up, or they'll loose money in an individual lawsuit. Bonus: if enough people stick together and refuse to settle their "business model" won't work at all.
What Microsoft must do to save their mobile buisiness: Simple, in Microsoft Fasion, Download the Android ASOP Standard Source. Recomplie with every reference to Android replaced by Windows 8 Mobile. When anyone complains just wait until they sue. The judgement will be much less than the profit. rinse, Repeat. Ohh wait that was Win 3.x err Win95.. err Sorry Win2k ohh wait no Excel, oh nm must have been defrag.. oh dang I must have meant Internet Explorer... well, you get the idea...
The new .NET mobile "Mavlik" VM is the answer.
They don't need to purchase Novell to do that.
Nobody needs to purchase Novell to get the free software, they want buy Novell for everything else: existing customers and install base, development team, support and sales teams, IP, etc... Sure, they could do it all themselves, or they could buy a quick start.
CISCO. Give the software away and sell (crazy) expensive support plans. Sell the same Wireless/Phone/Networking management systems, but now they work seamlessly with the Desktop/LDAP/Email/etc... Free Software (as in beer) is the ideal opening for CISCO to broaden it's base into the small business.
When only patent trolls use patents, the patent law will be changed.
Only if the Trolls don't become big business themselves. Witness the RIAA creating no product themselves, yet the US pushing ACTA in their defense.
The problem now is that the big corporations are lobbing for the insane patent system because they think it is a net benefit to them. If this new license pool can make it not in their interest to do so, we all win.
I think you're right that software patents will go when big corporations want them to, and the issue is changing their attitude. But this isn't the way to do that: you don't play their game to win it, you subvert and break the game. Copyleft may depend on copyright but it's not playing the same game.
The way forward is to fight everywhere, and get lots of valuable software into the mainstream use of big business, and have that software threatened by patents. If the JVM was the target of several trolls we would see this issue go away. (Maybe OpenJDK will bring them out.) Now we just need more software that's open as a foundational piece of big corporations. Attacks on Linux Netbooks and GoogleOS will help get popular understanding, but it's getting corporations hooked on open source that'll really cause the politicians to move.
You think the school is going to negotiate with every student on campus? They haven't the manpower or the resources or the time.
There will be a set contact, and you can either take it or leave it, I imagine. And since we don't know the details of that arrangement, I'd err on the side of caution.
We need a GPL/Copyleft for DNA. Something like: You have no right to store, analyze, aggregate or otherwise use my DNA, except for the rights provided in this license... the problem, ironically, is that there is no well established legal framework of privacy which can be subverted like there is for Copyright.
Dude, you're using GOTOs?
It's pattern matching and guards.
Will we see Chrome Frame for Safari?
> If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.
They can and they have - at least the technical constraints.
Legal constraints are the issue - Apple have banned any other programming languages like flash from the platform. ...
The iPhone isn't done until Flash won't run.
I'm not sure why this keeps coming up... You have the option to disable Flash on your Android phone right now, and it's FUD to keep suggesting that you won't be able to disable it again in the future.
Maybe people keep saying because they want to disable Flash, and they are fearful, uncertain or doubtful that they'll be able to. What does that say about Google and Android? This is exactly the sort of thing that "Don't be Evil" was meant to be guidance for: a technical issue where the end-user gets put behind industry partners. Guess Google has some work to do to convince developers that they really mean "don't be evil."
What applications can you run on {insert OS here}? Linux, Window, OSX, OS2, DOS, Mainframe systems, etc... all run whatever you have; whatever the technology can do. The question doesn't even get asked for anything except the iPhone/iPad.
Apple is trying to fundamentally change the deal: they want to control the use of a product they sell. This doesn't fly for any other industry, although it's often tried. I'm sure BMW could make a better driving experience if they could mandate and control "their" cars use.
He missed the message. The internet is full of haters and he isn't providing a dislike button.
I think you missed the point: Corporations want to know what you like, they don't care about what you dislike.
I give it two weeks before we start seeing junk all over the net, possibly even here, along the lines of "ACTA not as bad as previously thought" or "why ACTA could actually save OSS" or other completely ripe horseshit like that.
I'll give it 2 months before all the US politicians start abandoning it. They've collected their back-room bribes for supporting what industry wanted, but now they have an election to face. Let the online media make some scare stories, then the politicians will tell industry that "the timing's wrong" just now.
Hopefully everyone is smart enough to realize that's just the shills outing themselves, but they won't be. Hate this fuckin' planet so hard. Let me off.
Hate the game not the player.
It's all bout control money and lock in. It's good business but it's anti competitive, predatory, and anti consumer.
Agreed. This is DRM by other means. If GM said their new cars only ran on GM brand gas so they could "control the user experience" nobody would be fooled. The reasoning seems to be something like: Apple makes great quality stuff, so if they say this is about having great quality... well they know what they're talking about!
To willfully put on blinders and pretend it has anything to do with app quality or user experience is idiotic. If flash/flex apps sucked on iPhone or iPad then it would not be a problem for Apple because no one would bother to use them.
Idiotic for developers to say so; we know layers of abstraction in a computer are like water to fish, and it doesn't matter much if you call it a library or platform or preprocessor.
Interesting how uniform, vocal and negative the developer reaction was to Apples change in Flash-to-iPhone tech., while the media strives to be balanced by presenting Apples reasons without analysis.
I'll bet IBM will apologize for accidentally listing the 2 patents that it swore it would not.
This will leave the creator with 171 patent infringements and nothing to complain about to slashdot.
This will leave something Slashdot cares about: IBM is using patents to attack open source.
Smaller sizes on the X-Y plane make for less heat, so you get higher density on the Z plane also.
S2 Games made "Savage" years ago and it has team play style FPS combined with RTS. It runs on Linux and you can download it here: http://www.newerth.com/ There are a lot of comments about Heros being unfriendly to new players, but that's not a problem with Savage. You'll just suck. :)
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).
uh.. tell the telecom's to block the IP traffic on the backbones, remove the DNS, then go find the ISP host? They NSA will just put some gear in a back closet at the phone companies, and the companies will work hard to integrate it with their network.
What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I don't think this'll matter much if all the backbone connections are blocking the traffic. Remember that the big connections are owned by multinationals who aren't going to fight a lawful order, no matter how morally repugnant. Google recently offered big bandwidth to ISP's, but they'll comply with the law like all other companies: Google won't be pulling out of the US.
They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise. The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries. They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL. The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed. The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.
They're not side-stepping the GPL because the GPL is not viral. The idea that Oracle is doing something wrong really only makes sense if you think of the GPL as viral. (flame on!)
As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further. It seems like a good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across a network?
Why limit it to sharing files, rather than sharing information? Sending my MAC address to a server shouldn't be hidden.
Also, why limit it to "peers" rather than another computer? If software phones home why shouldn't we know what's being sent?