That's what the "unstable" distribution is for, which in my opinion, is not really unstable. At least not any more than other "bleeding edge" distributions.
COPPA basically says personal information can not be stored for children of 13 and under, right? So why couldn't ICQ write a program that scans through their database, and erases the personal information (name, address, etc.) of children of 13 or under? Doesn't seem too difficult to me.
> Phone phreaking equipment is illegal (except to the phone company, natch) because, ostensibly, its only possible use is illegal.
On the other hand, what's to motivate the phone companies to fix their problems if only the l33t h4xx0rz have access to these tools, and not the general public? Should the demonstration of security holes in a product or service be illegal? How is this any different from owning software that exploits security holes in other software?
Perhaps that's the way the law is. But it shouldn't be.
People would not be willing to contribute to the development unless it were under a public license such as the GPL, though. If they opened up the source but still charged for licenses of it, why should people write software for them for the sole purpose of them making money?
Well, from my experience giving technical support to stupid computer users over the phone, it's very difficult to say each and every single character very slowly so the user can type it in. But maybe that's just me.
Although it can also be very difficult to try to tell someone to do something like "Right click with your mouse on the icon" when they have no idea what an icon, right click, or a mouse is.
I'd still have to say it's a lot easier than having them type in long command lines and having them read me the output.
It's easier for the tech support people to tell a user to double click on the little picture that looks like a computer and called "My Computer" and then click on the round circle called "D:", than to explain to them how to access a shell, su to root, and type `mount/dev/hdc/cdrom`... etc...:-)
So basically what you're saying is that a society that doesn't recognize copyrights is evil (or "immoral" as you put it). I disagree.
Copyrights take away an individuals freedom to use information that has been publicly released. The only good reason why I think copyright laws exist (which to some extent deny a person's freedom), is to provide motivation for people to innovate.
I personally believe that copyright laws should exist, but for a shorter time period, such as 10-30 years rather than 95+. I don't think people or companies will be that *much* more motivated to innovate when they can get 10-30 years profit rather than 95+ years, for it to be worth it to deny people the right to benefit off of that public information during that extra period of time.
So while I don't necessarily agree with the Free Software Foundation idea that any price tags on commercial software shouldn't be recognized, I don't think it's theft or immoral, but rather just exercising a right that has been taken away from us for a presumably good reason.
> Think of how many children and adolescents were turned into zombies by those old games. I know people that, even though > they haven't touched a NES in years, can still remember where all the secrets in a particular game were. If that isn't > brainwashing, then I don't know what is.
Umm, that's not brainwashing. Brainwashing is what your parents, teachers, and society in general tries to do to you when you're a kid. It's not remembering secrets in excellent video games.
Your logic is flawed though. You have the right to say I can't use your idea/product/information/what ever, but who says I have to listen to you?
Now I agree copyrights should be legal for the purpose of motivating people to innovate. I think 10 years of profit is enough to motivate people to innovate.
Look at it this way, suppose the person who invented the wheel started a company called The Wheel, Inc., put a permanent copyright on his invention. We would never be able to use any wheel implemented in any product, to this day, that wasn't purchased from The Wheel, Inc.
But that's *okay* I suppose, because The Wheel, Inc. owns the invention of the wheel.
The problem I have with it is that it's enabled by default. I think they should have filtering disabled by default and give the user the option to enable it.
I agree with you, but I don't see how this relates to this thread.
I'm not saying that no software should be free, and all software should be commercial. I'm simply saying that not all software needs to be free... because if it did, then most of the software available would not be in existance.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what the "unstable" distribution is for, which in my opinion, is not really unstable. At least not any more than other "bleeding edge" distributions.
Are all the unnecessary services disabled on the Linux box? If not, there's your problem.
Here's an easier way. Just add the following to /etc/hosts (Linux or a variant) or c:\windows\hosts (Windows).
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 www.doubleclick.net
COPPA basically says personal information can not be stored for children of 13 and under, right? So why couldn't ICQ write a program that scans through their database, and erases the personal information (name, address, etc.) of children of 13 or under? Doesn't seem too difficult to me.
... Microsoft & Intel - God
:-)
> Phone phreaking equipment is illegal (except to the phone company, natch) because, ostensibly, its only possible use is illegal.
On the other hand, what's to motivate the phone companies to fix their problems if only the l33t h4xx0rz have access to these tools, and not the general public? Should the demonstration of security holes in a product or service be illegal? How is this any different from owning software that exploits security holes in other software?
Perhaps that's the way the law is. But it shouldn't be.
> Now students could not chat (ate to much bandwith)
Chat uses too much bandwidth? People have been chatting before 300b/s modems, haven't they?
a sound card. Anyone want to write drivers?
People would not be willing to contribute to the development unless it were under a public license such as the GPL, though. If they opened up the source but still charged for licenses of it, why should people write software for them for the sole purpose of them making money?
On the other hand, GPL promotes development while BSD doesn't (as much).
Does anyone here know if there are any mirrors of the kid's site?
.god is not a real TLD. It'll work only with an extremely small fraction of the internet population, as far as I know.
Well, from my experience giving technical support to stupid computer users over the phone, it's very difficult to say each and every single character very slowly so the user can type it in. But maybe that's just me.
Although it can also be very difficult to try to tell someone to do something like "Right click with your mouse on the icon" when they have no idea what an icon, right click, or a mouse is.
I'd still have to say it's a lot easier than having them type in long command lines and having them read me the output.
It's easier for the tech support people to tell a user to double click on the little picture that looks like a computer and called "My Computer" and then click on the round circle called "D:", than to explain to them how to access a shell, su to root, and type `mount /dev/hdc /cdrom` ... etc ... :-)
Actually most DOS users didn't even know how to use DOS. I know I didn't ... but then again, I was only about 8 years old. :-)
They just knew you could follow the directions for your program and do something like:
cd\blah
blah
This isn't the real Bruce Perens. Notice how it's "Bruce Perens." and not "Bruce Perens" (the period).
A.D. 2000: First discovery of the potato plant by Temple ov thee Lemur (totl.net), which they use to power a 386 web server.
So basically what you're saying is that a society that doesn't recognize copyrights is evil (or "immoral" as you put it). I disagree.
Copyrights take away an individuals freedom to use information that has been publicly released. The only good reason why I think copyright laws exist (which to some extent deny a person's freedom), is to provide motivation for people to innovate.
I personally believe that copyright laws should exist, but for a shorter time period, such as 10-30 years rather than 95+. I don't think people or companies will be that *much* more motivated to innovate when they can get 10-30 years profit rather than 95+ years, for it to be worth it to deny people the right to benefit off of that public information during that extra period of time.
So while I don't necessarily agree with the Free Software Foundation idea that any price tags on commercial software shouldn't be recognized, I don't think it's theft or immoral, but rather just exercising a right that has been taken away from us for a presumably good reason.
Oops, I did not see the second part of your comment (about brainwashing kids) before I posted mine. My intention was not to copy you. Sorry.
> Think of how many children and adolescents were turned into zombies by those old games. I know people that, even though
> they haven't touched a NES in years, can still remember where all the secrets in a particular game were. If that isn't
> brainwashing, then I don't know what is.
Umm, that's not brainwashing. Brainwashing is what your parents, teachers, and society in general tries to do to you when you're a kid. It's not remembering secrets in excellent video games.
Your logic is flawed though. You have the right to say I can't use your idea/product/information/what ever, but who says I have to listen to you?
Now I agree copyrights should be legal for the purpose of motivating people to innovate. I think 10 years of profit is enough to motivate people to innovate.
Look at it this way, suppose the person who invented the wheel started a company called The Wheel, Inc., put a permanent copyright on his invention. We would never be able to use any wheel implemented in any product, to this day, that wasn't purchased from The Wheel, Inc.
But that's *okay* I suppose, because The Wheel, Inc. owns the invention of the wheel.
But then it wouldn't be fully potato powered. Besides, 2MB is plenty considering it's not being used for anything useful anyways.
Perhaps Google should censor the word "windows" because I don't like Microsoft.
The problem I have with it is that it's enabled by default. I think they should have filtering disabled by default and give the user the option to enable it.
I agree with you, but I don't see how this relates to this thread.
... because if it did, then most of the software available would not be in existance.
I'm not saying that no software should be free, and all software should be commercial. I'm simply saying that not all software needs to be free