It's one of those semantic trick airlines use, one George Carlin missed. If the airplace landed on water, you could indeed use your seat cushions to float.
But before you get on the plane, look at it. Does it have pontoons, or wheels? Why, it has wheels.
So it can't fucking land on the water!
It can crash into the water, but, in that case, you will be unable to use your seat cushion for anything, as you will probably be dead.
There's only an issue with entering controlled airspace when you're flying. There's no law against building something in 'controlled airspace', there's no law against building whatever the hell you want on your own land as long as you stay within code.
Which is why airports usually lease or purchase airpsace over private individuals.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying almost the same thing, and they're right, but absolutely no one is saying it correctly.
You own a slice extending from the center of the earth to the farthest reaches of the universe.
Yes, in some places mineral rights traditionally are seperate form land ownership, but that's not any sort of legal principle, it's just how they sell the land, and because if they didn't, you could stick an oil well straight down and suck oil out of your land, and then it would pull more oil out of their property, which is technically illegal but completely impossible to prove.
Outside of special land ownership deals, which not only include mineral rights, but condos and whatnot, you legally completely own an infinitely large fraction of the universe, although, as your 'ownership boundary' is spinning through almost all of space at speeds much larger than the speed of light, it's hard to imagine how you'd use it.
What you can't do with this property that you own is ban people from flying or orbiting or whatever through it past a certain height. It's basically a restriction of trespassing law. You own the airspace, but you can't stop moving objects from going through it. It's like an easement.
What you can do, however, is stick up a big-ass tower to stop airplanes, and as long as you follow building codes, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Which is why airports purchase or lease airspace on their approach and departure paths.
All public domain works are usabled with GPL works, or any copyright materials at all...that's the point of the public domain. There's no license on the planet that would, or even could, allow you to add material to a work, as long as it was not public domain, that makes no sense at all.
And you can always put a copyright work in the public domain if you have the copyright on it. It doesn't matter if you combine it with GPL stuff.
Fair use isn't a four prong test, it's a two prong test with a three prong test as one of the prongs, if that makes sense. The law, as written, implies they are equal, the law, as interpeted by the courts, does not. (Which makes sense because Fair Use was orginally a common law principle well before it was an actual law.) It checks if (A+B+C) is over a certain point, or if D is over a certain point.
Personally copying creative stuff onto another devince, for your own use to view easier is probably not fair use from the main three prongs. It passes the first prong with flying colors, it's non-commerical transformation, but it gets hurt at the 'factual' hurdle and destroyed completely at the 'small part of the work' prong. You want a screen shot of Luke Skywalker as your background, maybe, but nothing more.
But that's completely irrelevant. There's a fourth prong, but it can override the entire thing.
The fourth prong allows copies if you aren't hurting the copyright holder. Which you're not by ripping CDs or DVDs. Ripping them does not remove sales from the original, unless you're ripping rentals or borrow items.
In sort, you can basically get away with making any copies you want of something as long as those copies in no way cut into (even completely hypothetical) sales.
(Of course, there's the interesting question, now that music companies are selling electronic copies of music, if ripping MP3s cuts into that market. But this discussion is really about DVDs.)
Even if it does work over a real network, there's no promise that doesn't use a dedicated protocol or something that would preclude it from being transmitted over the Internet. It's rather silly for it to use the same network as computers, but, OTOH, the people who this is being sold these are people who have their whole house wired with CAT-5.
As for async playing...that's one of those things that's assumed illegal, but there's really no reason to think that would be so under copyright law, as long as any copies you make are needed to play it. Is it illegal for two people to read two different pages of a book at once? Nope.
What you can't do is make copies, but if playing it in two locations is making two copies of it, than playing it in one location is making one copy of it. Which it is, but making transitory copy is legal if they're solely to display it, and, thus, logically, it's legal to make two transitory copies of it.
That said, this a) isn't actually a real concern, as there's no way someone would run out and buy another copy because the first was present at their location but in use and they wanted to watch a different point in the movie, so there's really no possible way to argue any lost sales, and b) I suspect the device delibrately won't do that anyway.
Okay, first of all, zonealarm will not 'immediately delete' anything, it doesn't even have the ability to delete stuff. Hell, last I checked, it didn't have the ability to stop software, all it ever does it block internet access.
Second, reporting back isn't the only issue with spyware. There's also pop-up ads, which just calls IE with a URL, and redirecting internet pages, as a proxy. A hell of a lot of report back software installs as part of IE, and thus if your firewall will let IE, it will let the spyware out.
I'll admit all those are less likely under Firefox use, but nothing stops spyware from firing up a hidden IE instance to report back while you happily use Firefox.
Do I call accept-and-bounce wrong? YOU BET I DO. That's been rude behavior for years, and at this point it's unacceptable unless you have a really good reason, and it's completely unacceptable for simple things like users not existing. (As opposed to, say, quota running out, which is hard to check before accepting the mail.)
See, this is what I mean about C/R advocates not knowing anything about email? Bounces have been causing huge problems for years, and it finally got to the point people either get them under control or the mail system would collapse. Something had to be done.
AND IT WAS. Software that couldn't reject invalid usernames in real time was dropped. Stupid mail configurations that had relay MXs that didn't know what user existed were changed, both by removing them, or running software that could either keep a list up to sync, or by the simple process of connecting immediately to the primary MX and checking.
They're basically under control. All the big boys stopped. All the major software changed. We keep have stupid anti-virus scanners that keep popping up, but at least MTAs aren't doing it anymore, and we *THWAP* anti-virus venders that sell software the bounce viruses.
It took us TEN YEARS to convince people that bouncing on invalid users would not be tolerated, we don't care if their crusty old MTA couldn't be fixed. Running a MTA that normally bounces mail to invalid users is as acceptable as walking a bookstore covered in mud. It happens, and if you do it, it's a good way to end up on your own intranet if a spammer hits your boxes, unable to reach anyone for a while.
And now here come some morons with a system that has misdirected 'bounces' as a fucking feature. It's not a feature. It's a problem of the mail system!
The only people I mark as foes are those who spam or troll, so if you're trying to get some sort of 'we agree to disagree and ignore each other', oh well. It doesn't work that way, this isn't a difference of opinion or a debate, I'm just a person insulting you for being an amoral bastard.
And I can't really be civil to spammers at all. Fighting spam is part of my day job, and morons like you have made the problem worse because you have no idea what you're doing. You don't understand how the mail system works.
And, in my book, to disparage a person, you have to say something false about them.
You think that it's okay to hurt other people as long as it benefits you. Ergo, you are a fucker, or, as they are commonly called, an asshole. I don't really care if you object to that, because of the aforementioned fuckitude of you. I apologize to any others whom I may have upset, however, and suggest they get back to reading the scroll on the TV Guide channel, as nothing offensive will ever appear there.
And I'm not here to 'represent' anyone or convince you of anything. People come on and say they hurt other people, I call them names.
And I'm not some sort of religious leader who's here to convince you to repent. You can do whatever you want, one extra person spamming is pretty damn irrelevant. If you send spam our way, you'll be blocked. No big. I could be petty and either ask, or try to figure your domain out, and block you in advance, but frankly I have better uses of my time.
The important thing is that others see how harmful your behavior is, so they will not do that. Remember, folks, 25 spam sent out per legit message received. (And once spammers realize that people like me are checking the MAIL FROM to make sure it's real, this number will go up.)
I don't really think I need justification beyond that.
Yeah, that's a perfect example. When the hell did wrestling become a family show? I know almost nothing about wrestling, but I do know it's, um, violent, with other adult themes showing up the various 'plots'.
The PTC pulled the same crap with Buffy, which has never been a show for children. They were equally upset at the lesbians in bed together and the evil preacher. And, you know, I've always considered that to show a real failure of a grasp of irony. The show introduces a character who uses an incredibly twisted version of a religion to justify doing whatever he wants, and they...well, you can do the math there.;)
PTC likes to claim they're against family shows that aren't really family shows, but they complain about shows that are not family shows in the first place.
They also have the fun trick of complaining about cable only stations, like MTV, saying they shouldn't come with basic cable. Which not only are outside the juridiction of the government for content regulation, but cable companies are required by law to block upon request. They're required to do it to whatever channel you want, for free. (And, now, of course, you can block channels at many TVs, too.)
But, see, telling people that wouldn't give the PTC any power. They couldn't stop other people from watching stuff, just their own members.
And CSI became family entertainment when? Or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which was the PTC's favorite target for years? Or Howard Stern...that became a family show when, exactly? Or Everwood, a show that's basically about sex?
In fact, I can't think of any show that have been billed as 'family entertainment' that would be offensive. Maybe Joan of Arcadia, but the PTC loves that show.
Perhaps you can name some of this hypothetical TV shows? And their ratings, and how they were incorrect?
The PTC likes to pretend adult themes are slipping into 'family shows', when, in reality, they complain about all shows. There are very few shows billed as family shows, and those shows are usually so.
And if you mention the Superborl, I will hit you. The Superbowl is a crazy anomoly, and they did get fined for that. No one has the slightest problem with that, we don't need the PTC there.
Heh. They still have Joan of Arcadia as the number 1 family show. That's great for last year, but I doubt they've been watching this year. It's gotten rather dark, and sex has entered picture repeatedly.
That said, it's a geat show. But I suspect it and 7th heaven are on there only because they're about God, not because they have a redeeming message or shy away from 'evil things', because they don't.
And what the hell are reality show doing on the list? Since when did those become television?
You missed the grandparent post. He C/R'd 4000 addresses, and 5% of those were valid, which is why where I got 200 from. Of the 200, 5% of those were legitmately confirmed, with an additional 1% either confirmed by the sending spammer, or, more likely, by people who understands that our friend is trying to offset spam on them, and decided to offset it back.
They were all valid address, the only question was, were they spam or not. And, hey, I'm not saying they're all spam. Some could have been legitimate messages sent to him that people never confirmed.
In which case, of course, his system is still broken, because he's missing a hell of a lot of legitimate messages. You know, I actually like that assumption rather more. Not only are C/R systems not generating spam, they're simply failing to work at all, because only 1 out of 25 people are following up with confirmation. So we can just scrap them all now. They have a false positive rate of 95%!
Or, like me, you could operate on the assumption that he didn't usually get 200 legit messages for whatever time period this is, and somehow failed to question why they had dropped off to 8. He may be a stupid selfish bastard, but he's probably not that clueless.
No, I'm pretty certain that, of the 190 messages that weren't responded to, a very large percentage of those were ignored because the receiptant say 'Who the hell is this person?' and deleted message. Hopefully, in the future, we'll get more people to confirm spam, so these fuckers will get their spam back.
No one cares if you remove invalid email address, I don't understand why you keep mentioning this as a bonus of your system. Invalid email addresses can't get mail. Remove then before trying, remove then after trying, no one cares. It's your outgoing mail queue. Connecting first to see if an address exists takes exactly as much work on the other end as connecting and trying to deliever mail.
And your analogy is idiotic. Things aren't randomly bouncing off you in uncontrollable ways, with you unable to stop them without getting hurt. No one would complain about that.
You, however, are catching the knife, and hurling it back. You could have dropped the knife, but you felt like hurling it back. (At this point, the analogy breaks down, because no one wants a knife hurled at them, but it's your stupid-ass analogy.)
However, there is a situtation much like this under actual law...booby traps. Just because someone might harm you doesn't give you the right to set up a system that can harm innocent bystanders. (In fact, you've managed to set up a system that will only harm innocent bystanders while protecting you, which is neat trick.)
And why the hell would I want to filter all legitimately marked up machine generated mail? I have no problem with machine generated mail. I get machine generated mail all the time.
I just have a problem with unsolicited machine generated mail.
However, I will take your offer of opting out, and carefully consider it before carefully spitting in your face.
Again, load balancing doesn't have anything to do with this. Load balancing outgoing mail doesn't work anything like that, all it does is provide, say, five mail servers in a round-robin fashion. There's no way a mail client could know what server it got, but it doesn't need to. Each server needs to know, however, and greet with that.
And mail servers don't magically need to know what name they're NAT'd as, because that doesn't change. So whoever sets up the mail server just needs to check. Duh. It's not quantum physics. If it's bidirectional NAT, you should have already assigned a domain name explicitly for the outward facing IP anyway.
All mail servers accept mail on port 25, and they absolutely positively cannot require authoritization on that port, because then no third-party could email anyone on that server! They can't magically know which computers on a third-party's network are their mail servers and which are malicious dial-up users sending spam.
The COIRRECT and OBVIOUS solution is for all ISPs to block port 25 for dynamic, and even most static until requested to unblock, and all mail servers to use port 587 for mail submission, which requires authentication. If your mail server does not support that, that is, in fact, your fucking problem, not mine.
You cannot under any circumstances require authentication on port 25, and to even suggest to so shows you have no clue what's going on. You can require authentication before relaying, but everyone already does that.
The only way to limit spamming to completely malicious networks (As opposed to zombie machines, where most spam is now.) is to restrict user connections to third-party servers in a way that mail servers are not restricted. Which will reduce spam...spammers will have to spam form their own networks instead of getting innocent bystanders to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
But before you get on the plane, look at it. Does it have pontoons, or wheels? Why, it has wheels.
So it can't fucking land on the water!
It can crash into the water, but, in that case, you will be unable to use your seat cushion for anything, as you will probably be dead.
What the heck is a ground space controller? A cop directing traffic?
There's only an issue with entering controlled airspace when you're flying. There's no law against building something in 'controlled airspace', there's no law against building whatever the hell you want on your own land as long as you stay within code.
Which is why airports usually lease or purchase airpsace over private individuals.
Yes, all well and good, but you don't go to prison for not understanding what an IRQ is.
You own a slice extending from the center of the earth to the farthest reaches of the universe.
Yes, in some places mineral rights traditionally are seperate form land ownership, but that's not any sort of legal principle, it's just how they sell the land, and because if they didn't, you could stick an oil well straight down and suck oil out of your land, and then it would pull more oil out of their property, which is technically illegal but completely impossible to prove.
Outside of special land ownership deals, which not only include mineral rights, but condos and whatnot, you legally completely own an infinitely large fraction of the universe, although, as your 'ownership boundary' is spinning through almost all of space at speeds much larger than the speed of light, it's hard to imagine how you'd use it.
What you can't do with this property that you own is ban people from flying or orbiting or whatever through it past a certain height. It's basically a restriction of trespassing law. You own the airspace, but you can't stop moving objects from going through it. It's like an easement.
What you can do, however, is stick up a big-ass tower to stop airplanes, and as long as you follow building codes, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Which is why airports purchase or lease airspace on their approach and departure paths.
All public domain works are usabled with GPL works, or any copyright materials at all...that's the point of the public domain. There's no license on the planet that would, or even could, allow you to add material to a work, as long as it was not public domain, that makes no sense at all.
And you can always put a copyright work in the public domain if you have the copyright on it. It doesn't matter if you combine it with GPL stuff.
Fair use isn't a four prong test, it's a two prong test with a three prong test as one of the prongs, if that makes sense. The law, as written, implies they are equal, the law, as interpeted by the courts, does not. (Which makes sense because Fair Use was orginally a common law principle well before it was an actual law.) It checks if (A+B+C) is over a certain point, or if D is over a certain point.
Personally copying creative stuff onto another devince, for your own use to view easier is probably not fair use from the main three prongs. It passes the first prong with flying colors, it's non-commerical transformation, but it gets hurt at the 'factual' hurdle and destroyed completely at the 'small part of the work' prong. You want a screen shot of Luke Skywalker as your background, maybe, but nothing more.
But that's completely irrelevant. There's a fourth prong, but it can override the entire thing.
The fourth prong allows copies if you aren't hurting the copyright holder. Which you're not by ripping CDs or DVDs. Ripping them does not remove sales from the original, unless you're ripping rentals or borrow items.
In sort, you can basically get away with making any copies you want of something as long as those copies in no way cut into (even completely hypothetical) sales.
(Of course, there's the interesting question, now that music companies are selling electronic copies of music, if ripping MP3s cuts into that market. But this discussion is really about DVDs.)
As for async playing...that's one of those things that's assumed illegal, but there's really no reason to think that would be so under copyright law, as long as any copies you make are needed to play it. Is it illegal for two people to read two different pages of a book at once? Nope.
What you can't do is make copies, but if playing it in two locations is making two copies of it, than playing it in one location is making one copy of it. Which it is, but making transitory copy is legal if they're solely to display it, and, thus, logically, it's legal to make two transitory copies of it.
That said, this a) isn't actually a real concern, as there's no way someone would run out and buy another copy because the first was present at their location but in use and they wanted to watch a different point in the movie, so there's really no possible way to argue any lost sales, and b) I suspect the device delibrately won't do that anyway.
Sure, they probably run hotter, but you could always underclock them.
I completely refuse to believe that MS's license terms ever restrict use of other programs. That would be an incredibly blatant antitrust violation.
Second, reporting back isn't the only issue with spyware. There's also pop-up ads, which just calls IE with a URL, and redirecting internet pages, as a proxy. A hell of a lot of report back software installs as part of IE, and thus if your firewall will let IE, it will let the spyware out.
I'll admit all those are less likely under Firefox use, but nothing stops spyware from firing up a hidden IE instance to report back while you happily use Firefox.
It's rather sad how many household computers get spyware because younguns can't get porn any other way.
See, this is what I mean about C/R advocates not knowing anything about email? Bounces have been causing huge problems for years, and it finally got to the point people either get them under control or the mail system would collapse. Something had to be done.
AND IT WAS. Software that couldn't reject invalid usernames in real time was dropped. Stupid mail configurations that had relay MXs that didn't know what user existed were changed, both by removing them, or running software that could either keep a list up to sync, or by the simple process of connecting immediately to the primary MX and checking.
They're basically under control. All the big boys stopped. All the major software changed. We keep have stupid anti-virus scanners that keep popping up, but at least MTAs aren't doing it anymore, and we *THWAP* anti-virus venders that sell software the bounce viruses.
It took us TEN YEARS to convince people that bouncing on invalid users would not be tolerated, we don't care if their crusty old MTA couldn't be fixed. Running a MTA that normally bounces mail to invalid users is as acceptable as walking a bookstore covered in mud. It happens, and if you do it, it's a good way to end up on your own intranet if a spammer hits your boxes, unable to reach anyone for a while.
And now here come some morons with a system that has misdirected 'bounces' as a fucking feature. It's not a feature. It's a problem of the mail system!
And I can't really be civil to spammers at all. Fighting spam is part of my day job, and morons like you have made the problem worse because you have no idea what you're doing. You don't understand how the mail system works.
And, in my book, to disparage a person, you have to say something false about them.
You think that it's okay to hurt other people as long as it benefits you. Ergo, you are a fucker, or, as they are commonly called, an asshole. I don't really care if you object to that, because of the aforementioned fuckitude of you. I apologize to any others whom I may have upset, however, and suggest they get back to reading the scroll on the TV Guide channel, as nothing offensive will ever appear there.
And I'm not here to 'represent' anyone or convince you of anything. People come on and say they hurt other people, I call them names.
And I'm not some sort of religious leader who's here to convince you to repent. You can do whatever you want, one extra person spamming is pretty damn irrelevant. If you send spam our way, you'll be blocked. No big. I could be petty and either ask, or try to figure your domain out, and block you in advance, but frankly I have better uses of my time.
The important thing is that others see how harmful your behavior is, so they will not do that. Remember, folks, 25 spam sent out per legit message received. (And once spammers realize that people like me are checking the MAIL FROM to make sure it's real, this number will go up.)
I don't really think I need justification beyond that.
The PTC pulled the same crap with Buffy, which has never been a show for children. They were equally upset at the lesbians in bed together and the evil preacher. And, you know, I've always considered that to show a real failure of a grasp of irony. The show introduces a character who uses an incredibly twisted version of a religion to justify doing whatever he wants, and they...well, you can do the math there. ;)
PTC likes to claim they're against family shows that aren't really family shows, but they complain about shows that are not family shows in the first place.
They also have the fun trick of complaining about cable only stations, like MTV, saying they shouldn't come with basic cable. Which not only are outside the juridiction of the government for content regulation, but cable companies are required by law to block upon request. They're required to do it to whatever channel you want, for free. (And, now, of course, you can block channels at many TVs, too.)
But, see, telling people that wouldn't give the PTC any power. They couldn't stop other people from watching stuff, just their own members.
In fact, I can't think of any show that have been billed as 'family entertainment' that would be offensive. Maybe Joan of Arcadia, but the PTC loves that show.
Perhaps you can name some of this hypothetical TV shows? And their ratings, and how they were incorrect?
The PTC likes to pretend adult themes are slipping into 'family shows', when, in reality, they complain about all shows. There are very few shows billed as family shows, and those shows are usually so.
And if you mention the Superborl, I will hit you. The Superbowl is a crazy anomoly, and they did get fined for that. No one has the slightest problem with that, we don't need the PTC there.
That said, it's a geat show. But I suspect it and 7th heaven are on there only because they're about God, not because they have a redeeming message or shy away from 'evil things', because they don't.
And what the hell are reality show doing on the list? Since when did those become television?
They were all valid address, the only question was, were they spam or not. And, hey, I'm not saying they're all spam. Some could have been legitimate messages sent to him that people never confirmed.
In which case, of course, his system is still broken, because he's missing a hell of a lot of legitimate messages. You know, I actually like that assumption rather more. Not only are C/R systems not generating spam, they're simply failing to work at all, because only 1 out of 25 people are following up with confirmation. So we can just scrap them all now. They have a false positive rate of 95%!
Or, like me, you could operate on the assumption that he didn't usually get 200 legit messages for whatever time period this is, and somehow failed to question why they had dropped off to 8. He may be a stupid selfish bastard, but he's probably not that clueless.
No, I'm pretty certain that, of the 190 messages that weren't responded to, a very large percentage of those were ignored because the receiptant say 'Who the hell is this person?' and deleted message. Hopefully, in the future, we'll get more people to confirm spam, so these fuckers will get their spam back.
Of course, instead of breaking in to take things, he was breaking in to leave flyers.
So a better analogy would be: You accepted the flyers, and then dumped them all over my fence after the dumper left.
And your analogy is idiotic. Things aren't randomly bouncing off you in uncontrollable ways, with you unable to stop them without getting hurt. No one would complain about that.
You, however, are catching the knife, and hurling it back. You could have dropped the knife, but you felt like hurling it back. (At this point, the analogy breaks down, because no one wants a knife hurled at them, but it's your stupid-ass analogy.)
However, there is a situtation much like this under actual law...booby traps. Just because someone might harm you doesn't give you the right to set up a system that can harm innocent bystanders. (In fact, you've managed to set up a system that will only harm innocent bystanders while protecting you, which is neat trick.)
Right? Do I have the spammer talk down yet?
I just have a problem with unsolicited machine generated mail.
However, I will take your offer of opting out, and carefully consider it before carefully spitting in your face.
And mail servers don't magically need to know what name they're NAT'd as, because that doesn't change. So whoever sets up the mail server just needs to check. Duh. It's not quantum physics. If it's bidirectional NAT, you should have already assigned a domain name explicitly for the outward facing IP anyway.
All mail servers accept mail on port 25, and they absolutely positively cannot require authoritization on that port, because then no third-party could email anyone on that server! They can't magically know which computers on a third-party's network are their mail servers and which are malicious dial-up users sending spam.
The COIRRECT and OBVIOUS solution is for all ISPs to block port 25 for dynamic, and even most static until requested to unblock, and all mail servers to use port 587 for mail submission, which requires authentication. If your mail server does not support that, that is, in fact, your fucking problem, not mine.
You cannot under any circumstances require authentication on port 25, and to even suggest to so shows you have no clue what's going on. You can require authentication before relaying, but everyone already does that.
The only way to limit spamming to completely malicious networks (As opposed to zombie machines, where most spam is now.) is to restrict user connections to third-party servers in a way that mail servers are not restricted. Which will reduce spam...spammers will have to spam form their own networks instead of getting innocent bystanders to do it.
However, like I said, that RFC is seriously outdated. It allows things that are not best practices.