Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:$230 (Score 1) 454

by FireFury03 (#47721747) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Its not the big bad ISPs who generally do the ads (though they do sometimes participate on the side with DNS shenanigans). Its the people making the content you like.

Got a youtube channel you like with annoying ads? Dont blame the nasty corporations, blame the channel operator who chose what types of ads you received.

From what I can tell, youtube doesn't seem to do non-annoying ads, so the channels have to choose between "annoying" and "none".

TBH I find the youtube ads so intrusive that I do block them. I don't feel particularly bad about this because I figure that if the channels are particularly hurting from the blockers they can go shift their channel to another website that has more sensible advertising policies.

(Really - I wouldn't mind seeing the youtube preroll ads if I was watching an hour video, but when I'm watching 20 separate 3 minute videos, seeing *the same* 30 second preroll ad every 3 minutes starts to grate a bit)

Comment: Re:$230 (Score 1) 454

by FireFury03 (#47721703) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

...OK...where do I sign up?

Well yes, I'd probably sign up too. However, I imagine this would work more like cable/satellite:

1. Look at all this great stuff you can get *with no ads*! All you have to do is pay a subscription fee!
2. I've got a great idea! We could make stacks of money if we put advertising on the subscription channels as well as charging a subscription fee!

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 113

by FireFury03 (#47718695) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

The part that none of you are getting is that said manufacturers have no exclusive rights over what they put out. So anybody could just as easily take that and incorporate it into whatever they are making. The problem is solved.

No, the problem is certainly not solved - whilst the manufacturers have no exclusive rights over what they release, the point is that they aren't going to be releasing the source code. So sure, you can rip off the binary firmware from one device and put it on another(*), but if you want to modify the code you're going to be SOL unless you feel like hacking on raw binary blobs for the rest of your life. The point of GPL is that it gives the end users the right to use the things that they own in the way they see fit - it allows you to make some modifications to the firmware on your phone, recompile it and install your modified firmware, for example. Without copyright law it would be extremely hard to do this since you would have no access to the source code - although you would be able to "do what you like" with the binaries, it would be exactly that - an opaque binary blob that for practical purposes you can't really do much with at all.

(*) In reality, without any kind of copyright legislation, you would probably see encrypted firmwares - whilst legally you would be able to copy them, the copy wouldn't do you any good because you wouldn't be able to decrypt it.

Really, abolishing copyright would make things a lot worse for the Open Source scene...

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 113

by FireFury03 (#47718683) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

There are sometimes legal requirements to keep the end product unmodified by the end user. Ie, most medical devices in the US must be vetted by the FDA and once released are not allowed to be modified at will by the doctors who buy them, except for customization of course. Similarly some devices that operate under FCC rules may be required to prevent invalid configurations. There are markets where security is an extremely high priority for the customers and signing the software with secured certificates is necessary to even be in the market.

Sure, but these cases are the exception rather than the norm.

And of course there are all the commercial embedded developers in the middle. They want to use open source but also can not just release their entire source code to the world or allow modifications, because their legal department says no, the executives say no, the board says no, and there are a lot of competitors just waiting to pounce. BSD license is great there because BSD license wants software to be shared, whereas GPL often treats those devs as misguided.

As a software developer myself, I release code under the GPL because I am of the opinion that if someone wants to make use of my code at no cost, then they should contribute their improvements back to the project. Now I know that, strictly speaking, the GPL doesn't require them to make code available to the project, only to their customers; but in practice people don't tend to restrict the source to only their customers so the effect is the same.

I don't consider developers to be misguided if they want to prevent their competetors seeing the code, but in that case I'm not willing to give them a "freebee" - they are welcome to develop the whole thing themselves instead of using my code, or in some cases they are welcome to pay me, but I don't see why they should build a business upon my work at no cost to themselves without giving anything back.

I am, however, of the opinion that (except where the law demands unmodifyable code), end-users should be allowed to use their own devices how they see fit, so keeping code closed simply to stop the end-users doing this does indeed seem pretty misguided to me.

(For the record, my business uses Free software (some third party, some developed in-house) whilst also keeping some in-house code proprietary to prevent competetors from ripping it off. However, modifications we make to Free components are made available to the world, and usually explicitly committed back to the upstream project. And we do spend a considerable amount of our development resources enhancing/bugfixing the many third party Free components that we make use of, so I certainly don't see us as freeloading.)

Comment: Re:What about OSS license that respects other righ (Score 1) 113

by FireFury03 (#47713465) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 4, Interesting) 113

by FireFury03 (#47713431) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

Copyleft is just a hack to route around copyright damage. Absent governments enforcing it, we'd all just either release code or not release code and the licensing friction would all go away.

GPL does far more than "route around copyright damage" - its aims are to give the _end user_ freedom, freedom which often wouldn't exist even without copyright.

Lets look at how things work with GPL'd code:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it under the GPL.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B gives C the source, since the GPL says they have to
5. C is happy since he can now modify the code.

(Ok, so it isn't alays plain sailing - B often has to be threatened before they will comply with the GPL; in the case of GPLv2 code, B's product may be Tivoised; frequently devices have a mix of GPL/proprietary code and its extremely difficult to integrate modifications into a device with only the GPL code, etc. but in theory at least this is how it should work).

Ok, so lets look at how this would work if there was no copyright law:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B tells C to piss off because the source is a trade secret and B is under no obligation to release it.
5. C cries.

The GPL relies on copyright law to reach its goals of giving the end users the freedom to do as they wish with their own devices. Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

Comment: Re:Good for music, movies and ebooks (Score 1) 82

I like the convenience of ebooks as I don't have to worry about carrying around a dead-tree book and can instead just use my phone (or kindle etc) which is generally lighter. I recommend using Calibre to transfer e-books around if you don't mind breaking the Ts&Cs.

I'm aware that the DRM can be trivially removed, but if I'm going to have to break copyright law in order to actually use what I've purchased, I'm left wondering why I wouldn't just break copyright law *instead* of purchasing it in the first place?

Comment: Re:Good for music, movies and ebooks (Score 1) 82

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Bruce Willis raised a fuss a while ago about not being able to leave his iTunes music collection to his children. The Ts and Cs state that the license to listen to the music is strictly non-transferrable. (He should have just "pirated" it instead).

This is basically the reason I don't use ebooks - with a paper book, I can buy it and read it, then my wife can read it, I can lend it to friends/family, it can sit on book shelves for years and then my kids can read it, their kids can read it decades later, or I can sell it, etc. All this stuff is considered the "normal" way to use a book. Compare to an ebook: I buy it. Then my wife has to buy it(*). Them my friends/family have to buy it. Then my kids have to buy it. Their kids have to buy it. See the problem?

(*) The T&Cs of Google Play, at least, say that not only aren't you able to transfer your purchases to another Play account, but you're not even allowed to lend your tablet to a family member for them to read stuff you purchased.

So until the publishers see sense, I'll continue to read paper books.

Comment: Re:Oh good lord. (Score 4, Insightful) 224

by FireFury03 (#47641367) Attached to: Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Cast Doubt On the Big Bang?

Dark matter is probably just civilizations that have built (advanced forms of) Dyson spheres around their stars.
This also explains the Fermi paradox.

Dyson spheres would glow in the infrared and therefore be pretty obvious. This is because they still have to radiate the heat produced by the star they enclose - otherwise their internal temperature would perpetually increase.

Comment: Re:High speed car chase on "Cops" (Score 1) 140

by FireFury03 (#47606215) Attached to: Least Secure Cars Revealed At Black Hat

Well, better off until you realise how much its costing you to toss them in the clink, of course...

Then just shoot them. I'll be glad to pay for the cost of the bullet. It's a win-win for everyone. Another criminal off the street and the taxpayer doesn't have to pay to coddle them by keeping them in jail.

Yeah, removing due process could never result in abuses or miscarriages of justice so it's a pretty good idea.

Comment: Re:How much cheaper would a a puerto rico launch b (Score 2) 113

by FireFury03 (#47605997) Attached to: SpaceX Chooses Texas Site For Private Spaceport

The big deal isn't the amount of extra orbital velocity you get from the equator, it's the inclination of the resultant orbit - inclination changes *really* cut into your delta-V budget, so if you're launching into an uninclined orbit you really want to be doing it from the equator coz otherwise you have to expend a lot of fuel correcting your inclination.

Comment: Re:This is how we learn (Score 4, Funny) 150

by FireFury03 (#47605769) Attached to: Synolocker 0-Day Ransomware Puts NAS Files At Risk

Well, by the original usage, a server full of drives would not be "cloud storage"

I want to dispute this - I had a server full of drives that I bought to be my "cloud storage". But when I tried to store my cloud in it, it started to leak out of the server. I ended up with a messy pool of water on the floor and a ruined server!

Comment: Re:Read the source code (Score 1) 430

Error messages, too, have disappeared

Wow, I totally agree with you, on that. For example, one reason I've always preferred Firefox over IE is that, when it couldn't get connected to a website, it would basically just say "I can't get connected to that site". My first question was always, "well why can't you get connected?". Were you able to find look up the name? Did you get a network error, like "connection refused" or "network unreachable?" Now, Firefox is doing the same thing. Holy crap, is that irritating.

I'm finding that on tablets, things frequently simply don't work - no errors or anything. The iCloud stuff, for example - if it can't connect through to the internet (because it isn't playing nice with a proxy server, for example) then it simply doesn't synchronise; no indication why it isn't working, or that there is anything wrong other than the fact that you notice it isn't synchronising. And yes I know there is an event log hidden away that has debugging info in it, but asking a customer to find that and read out relevant detail is a lot harder than an on-screen error message.

Comment: Re:Read the source code (Score 1) 430

But that's just nostalgia, digital documentation is much more efficient and effective. You can quickly search the entire contents, it isn't wasteful, it doesn't take up heaps of space and you can take it with you wherever you go easily.

Nothing wrong with digital documentation. My complaint is frequently *no* documentation.

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.

Working...