Click, drag, release, Ctrl+C, click, Ctrl+V. Still six movements.
Were you trying to make a point, or just having fun?
Simple fact: Cut and paste under Windows requires mouse+keyboard, or mouse+menu (either right click or Edit). Cutting and pasting under X requires the mouse only, the exact same movements you'd have to do on Windows, selecting the text and clicking where you want it, minus the other things Windows makes you do.
And my point is, some of those, including the one that became a state, were aquired quasi-legally.;)
Of course, most of the mainland US we don't have 'clear' title to either, as quite a lot of it literally was stolen from natives. Not 'stolen' as in conquered, but stolen as we'd already set boundaries and then expanded into land we waid was theirs anyway. (Or the people we bought it from did the same.)
About the 'most legal' ownership of any land is Alaska. As far as I remember, it didn't have any inhabitiants (or, at least, almost didn't have any), and we bought ti fair and square from Russia. Maybe some of the very south of it had people, but the rest was completely uninhabited until Russia claimed it.
You know, if you want to make a point with American's treatment of islands, please look up the history of Hawaii before you do and note how a random American 'happened' to overthrow the legitimate queen and form a democracy, which immediately applied for admitance to the US. Obviously, really fishy.
Ironically enough, to get to Sealand, you have to go though waters that are claimed by the British government (and by Sealand, but as Sealand has no marine force, that's a bit moot.).
While Britian doesn't really like Sealand, they sure as heck aren't going to let the Chinese sail up that close to Britian just to take it out.
The reason it was so interesting was that they weren't charged with kidnapping by the British government, like you would normally be if you attempted to 'arrest' people, but the British government ignored them and the German government entered negotiations with them, without the British government in sight.
And the German government didn't get permission from the British government before doing this, either. Germany de facto recognized Sealand as a sovereign nation by its actions. Nations do not enter other nations and negotiation with kidnappers in said nations, they alert the police and work from there.
I don't know why it's at issue, anyway. Sealand has fired on British ships that strayed too close without permission, and they've gotten away with that, too, which pretty much trashes any concept they aren't a real nation. If they aren't a nation, they've done enough 'illegal' things to get arrested several times over. And, yes, the British government could take them down if they wanted, all they have are a few lousy anti-aircraft guns, personal arms, and a helicopter or two. The fact the British government 'lets' they stay there indication they know it would be a violation of international law for them to attack them, because they actually are a sovereign nation according to all internation rules.
The record companies exist because of laws. Laws saying people can't copy their stuff, laws saying they get percentages of all DAT and music CD-Rs, even, indirectly, laws saying that only certain companies can broadcast in a certain radio spectrum. (Yes, that's not technically the 'record' companies, but anyone who believes they aren't in bed together is crazy.)
If they don't want laws controlling them, fine. I don't want any laws controlling me, and I'll copy all their stuff, broadcast on my now legal 'pirate' radio station, etc.
They are a government created business, with a government created monopoly on their content. If they don't want to have government created 'ownership', then I will stop calling for them to be regulated. Otherwise, I will call for laws to protect my rights, just like they have laws to protect their business. The laws were created to 'balance' things so people would have an incentive to produce content, not to control every person or even to protect a business model.
You do realize it's a billion times more likely you're simply the victim of a dictionary attack, right? I get mail to david@domain.dom, and I'm certain that no one is handing out my domain as their email address. And running the mail server, I see tons of [first name]@domain.dom. Either my little domain is orders of magnitudes more popular than I think, or they're just finding *@domain.dom and dictionary attacking it.
Trying [firstnamee]@aol.com is a sure way to actually reach somebody.
To avoid any legal liability, simply create a program to re-write the audio in an MP3 to what you want.
Then set up a fast connection, download a file, re-write it, save it to disk, and repeat.
It's legally equiviliant to picking up free fliers in the grocery store, drawing on them, then selling them, aka, it's perfectly legal to obtain copyrighed things legally, edit it however you want, and sell that copy. All the law restricts you from is 'copying' their work, not getting a copy from them, modifying it, and then transfering that copy to someone else. As long as you + other people don't end up with more copies than what you've gotten legally, there is absolutely nothing even vaguely illegal about it.
Of course, like I said, once a company starts giving something away for free to everyone, it tend to lose much of its value in the eyes of the court. So even if you don't download a new copy each time, I fail to see what loses they could sue you for. After all, those people could just have downloaded it themselves, and run your program on it, or manually edited it, and they'd have the same result.
PS. Don't forget, once you download eight hundred copies of the newest looped track, to compress them together in one file. Talk about your compression ratios.;)
Actually, anything the RIAA is sharing either a) They have the right to give out, or b) They don't have the right to give out.
If a is true, in a sense, those looped tracks just became public property. Sure, you can't legally 'copy' them, but giving something out for free tends to seriously reduce it's value in court. And, of course, you could just download fifty copies or so and sell them. (Yes, sell them.)
If the RIAA starts putting real tracks on it's site, to get modded up, there's a fairly good legal argument you can make that that those tracks are not worth anything and thus you didn't cause any damage by copyright infringement. (That is, if you download other copies. Downloading their copies is always legal.) It's still 'illegal', but you aren't very liable for it. (And, like I said, you could always download the copies over and over again from them, and do anything you want (once) with each copy, including burning them on CD and selling them in stores.)
And if they don't own the rights to give the song out, well, they're screwed anyway.
No, actually, they can't change that, it's regulated by law. And in return they get something like 50% of all your long distance charges.
Which, as an aside, is why celluar long distance is dirt cheap, usually even free. Because they don't have to pay kickback to local companies, and, hell, they already own the network anyway, so they might as well let you use it. And the same thing with cell phone to cell phone calls, even 'long distance' ones. Even if the call is 'long distance' and between providers, it's entirely likely it never went 'local' and thus the local phone company doesn't get any money from it, so the cell phone company makes more money. If it touches down, even at the other end of the call, it's a 'long distance' call and your local phone company, for no apparent reason, can end up with with money from it. (While the far end local company never gets any money.)
There's all sorts of weird-ass rules in the phone laws that are becoming apparent with cell phones. The law is full of very odd hacks, quite a lot of the money you pay for one thing actually ends up in another companies' pockets, thus making some things 'free'. and something much more expensive than they should be.
Frankly, I say the government should own the towers and the wires, and what happens from there is up to you, because this whole thing is getting pretty silly.
I always thought people in that situation should do that for most calls, but if they got someone trying to use a credit card, they should stick an instant pizza in the oven, cook it, and deliever it, then bill them.
There might be some 'consumer is a complete idiot and orders pizza from the wrong place' protection law against this, but, in theory, I fail to see how they'd have any grounds to deny the charges. They ordered a pizza, you delievered one. It wasn't that good a pizza, it took an hour and a half, and it was twice as expensive as if they'd just bought it in the store, but, hey, it's their own loss.
Buffy and Angel have 'good' special effects, they just aren't subtle special effects. If they do a magic spell, you get flying twirly lights everywhere, etc. Heck, they've even had okay looking completely CGI animals, like the dragon in the season five finale, though that wasn't on screen long enough to really matter.
Now, the first season had some really bad looking special effects, but that was probably due to the fact the entire budget of the show was $4.23.
But the reason people take issue with the FX on Buffy is they're larger than life. When they create a magical rip between dimensions, it's a huge sparking thing in midair, not some wimpy little shimmer.
The problem is that software is a combination of trade secret and copyright, in a sense.
If the publisher of, say, a book, stops producing copies of that book, and doesn't renew it, it goes public domain. (And it's supposed to be about 20 years, not 75. Damned Mouse.) With a copy of the book, you can make more copies of the book, or modify it.
Software is unique because you don't get all of it. Sure, you don't get the script of a TV show when it falls into the public domain, but you can recreate the product by transcription. Anything besides software, you can take the 'tangible form' and recreate 'the source' from it, and build it again. (Note things have to be in a 'tangible form' to be copyrighted, you can't copyright, for example, a non-taped performance of a play, but that's okay because no one can copy one of those. You just copyright the script first.)
I think that software companies should have to submit all source to the copyright office for exactly this reason. The concept of things falling into the public domain includes them being in a useful state when they do, and software won't be.
I'm having trouble grasping the concept of 'legitimate looking spam', or, for that matter, 'non-bogus spam'.
I contend myself with bogus replies to spam when bored. I've wasted several hours of different spammers' time. Then, at the end, explain you were just leading them on because they spammed, and you will, in fact, continue to call them up occasionally, or have your friends do that, and express bogus interest in their products for the next several months.
Now, after you're told them that, hang up and never call again. Don't actually do that, it would legally be harrassment. (Though, of course, I've always wanted to harrass them, and, at the same time, 'unsubscribe' from their list, and if they claim I'm harrassing them, hey, they won't stop emailing me.)But you'll have them questioning every single call from then on, and possibly assuming some legit customers are doing the same thing. This plan works even better the more people who do it, too.
Don't give up if they don't have a toll-free number or a webform, either. Call up their toll business line collect and say just say your first name. Half the people will just accept the charges.
Re:When I first read the story title...
on
Mapping the Spam
·
· Score: 1
Note the difference between endorsing something and comdemning it, or even the difference between endorsing something and simply condoning it.;)
We will head out to beat them to death, knowing that we lack your seal of approval, but that you basically have no problems with it.;)
Public and private keys are mathmatically identical in regard to PKI encryption. You can encrypt something with either, and decrypt it with the other one, or sign something with one and verify it with the other.
And while you normally just 'sign' something with the public key, signing is actually just taking the checksum and encrypting it with your private key, and they decrypt it with your public key. It's possibly, instead, to 'sign' it by encrypting the entire message with your private key. People who don't have your public key will be unable to read it at all, but it's perfectly legal to do, and PGP actually lets you do this. I've actually seen people do this before, but mostly people who didn't want to talk with anyone who didn't have PGP.
(Likewise, it's possible to 'encrypt' your message by encrypting just the checksum with a public key, thus assuring anyone can read it but only one person can decrypt the checksum and make sure it hasn't been modified. Except, of course, anyone with that public key could just re-encode the checksum, so that would be spectacularly useless.)
More to the point, the definition of the public key is usually 'the one you give out', not what you do with it. I have to contend the key they gave out was, by definition, the public key, and the key they didn't was, by definition, the private key, and thus what they actually did was a strange way of crytpographically signing their movies.
Nonono, it's not 'Digital Rights' Management, it's Digital 'Rights Management'. In otherwords, it digitally manages your rights, controlling what you do or not have the right to do.
If you want to call it by two letters, it's 'RM', rights management.
Wouldn't just not telling them the root password and giving them sudo access to rpm work? Yes, that's insecure, as it's trivially easy to get an RPM that will give a normal user root if installed, but that's not the point. They couldn't accidently screw up their system, but could still 'install things'. Most file managers do have 'Install RPM' when you right-click on them, and they could have access to something like GnoRPM to uninstall things. (But, of course, warn them not to haphazardly uninstall things they didn't install. Most GUI RPM managers won't let them do stupid things, anyway.)
As for things that don't have RPMs (Or.deb, depending on how you go.), they can usually just untar it and run it from their user directory, can't they?
Slashdot Mirror
Were you trying to make a point, or just having fun?
Simple fact: Cut and paste under Windows requires mouse+keyboard, or mouse+menu (either right click or Edit). Cutting and pasting under X requires the mouse only, the exact same movements you'd have to do on Windows, selecting the text and clicking where you want it, minus the other things Windows makes you do.
Of course, most of the mainland US we don't have 'clear' title to either, as quite a lot of it literally was stolen from natives. Not 'stolen' as in conquered, but stolen as we'd already set boundaries and then expanded into land we waid was theirs anyway. (Or the people we bought it from did the same.)
About the 'most legal' ownership of any land is Alaska. As far as I remember, it didn't have any inhabitiants (or, at least, almost didn't have any), and we bought ti fair and square from Russia. Maybe some of the very south of it had people, but the rest was completely uninhabited until Russia claimed it.
You know, if you want to make a point with American's treatment of islands, please look up the history of Hawaii before you do and note how a random American 'happened' to overthrow the legitimate queen and form a democracy, which immediately applied for admitance to the US. Obviously, really fishy.
Or does that only count if you're not flying under a flag?
While Britian doesn't really like Sealand, they sure as heck aren't going to let the Chinese sail up that close to Britian just to take it out.
And the German government didn't get permission from the British government before doing this, either. Germany de facto recognized Sealand as a sovereign nation by its actions. Nations do not enter other nations and negotiation with kidnappers in said nations, they alert the police and work from there.
I don't know why it's at issue, anyway. Sealand has fired on British ships that strayed too close without permission, and they've gotten away with that, too, which pretty much trashes any concept they aren't a real nation. If they aren't a nation, they've done enough 'illegal' things to get arrested several times over. And, yes, the British government could take them down if they wanted, all they have are a few lousy anti-aircraft guns, personal arms, and a helicopter or two. The fact the British government 'lets' they stay there indication they know it would be a violation of international law for them to attack them, because they actually are a sovereign nation according to all internation rules.
Okay, now you're just abusing sarcasm.
The record companies exist because of laws. Laws saying people can't copy their stuff, laws saying they get percentages of all DAT and music CD-Rs, even, indirectly, laws saying that only certain companies can broadcast in a certain radio spectrum. (Yes, that's not technically the 'record' companies, but anyone who believes they aren't in bed together is crazy.)
If they don't want laws controlling them, fine. I don't want any laws controlling me, and I'll copy all their stuff, broadcast on my now legal 'pirate' radio station, etc.
They are a government created business, with a government created monopoly on their content. If they don't want to have government created 'ownership', then I will stop calling for them to be regulated. Otherwise, I will call for laws to protect my rights, just like they have laws to protect their business. The laws were created to 'balance' things so people would have an incentive to produce content, not to control every person or even to protect a business model.
However, it will 'effect a change in the music industry...'.
Trying [firstnamee]@aol.com is a sure way to actually reach somebody.
Then set up a fast connection, download a file, re-write it, save it to disk, and repeat.
It's legally equiviliant to picking up free fliers in the grocery store, drawing on them, then selling them, aka, it's perfectly legal to obtain copyrighed things legally, edit it however you want, and sell that copy. All the law restricts you from is 'copying' their work, not getting a copy from them, modifying it, and then transfering that copy to someone else. As long as you + other people don't end up with more copies than what you've gotten legally, there is absolutely nothing even vaguely illegal about it.
Of course, like I said, once a company starts giving something away for free to everyone, it tend to lose much of its value in the eyes of the court. So even if you don't download a new copy each time, I fail to see what loses they could sue you for. After all, those people could just have downloaded it themselves, and run your program on it, or manually edited it, and they'd have the same result.
PS. Don't forget, once you download eight hundred copies of the newest looped track, to compress them together in one file. Talk about your compression ratios. ;)
If a is true, in a sense, those looped tracks just became public property. Sure, you can't legally 'copy' them, but giving something out for free tends to seriously reduce it's value in court. And, of course, you could just download fifty copies or so and sell them. (Yes, sell them.)
If the RIAA starts putting real tracks on it's site, to get modded up, there's a fairly good legal argument you can make that that those tracks are not worth anything and thus you didn't cause any damage by copyright infringement. (That is, if you download other copies. Downloading their copies is always legal.) It's still 'illegal', but you aren't very liable for it. (And, like I said, you could always download the copies over and over again from them, and do anything you want (once) with each copy, including burning them on CD and selling them in stores.)
And if they don't own the rights to give the song out, well, they're screwed anyway.
I don't know where you went to school, but that's not a year. ;)
Calling someone a fool isn't slander, fool. ;)
Which, as an aside, is why celluar long distance is dirt cheap, usually even free. Because they don't have to pay kickback to local companies, and, hell, they already own the network anyway, so they might as well let you use it. And the same thing with cell phone to cell phone calls, even 'long distance' ones. Even if the call is 'long distance' and between providers, it's entirely likely it never went 'local' and thus the local phone company doesn't get any money from it, so the cell phone company makes more money. If it touches down, even at the other end of the call, it's a 'long distance' call and your local phone company, for no apparent reason, can end up with with money from it. (While the far end local company never gets any money.)
There's all sorts of weird-ass rules in the phone laws that are becoming apparent with cell phones. The law is full of very odd hacks, quite a lot of the money you pay for one thing actually ends up in another companies' pockets, thus making some things 'free'. and something much more expensive than they should be.
Frankly, I say the government should own the towers and the wires, and what happens from there is up to you, because this whole thing is getting pretty silly.
There might be some 'consumer is a complete idiot and orders pizza from the wrong place' protection law against this, but, in theory, I fail to see how they'd have any grounds to deny the charges. They ordered a pizza, you delievered one. It wasn't that good a pizza, it took an hour and a half, and it was twice as expensive as if they'd just bought it in the store, but, hey, it's their own loss.
Now, the first season had some really bad looking special effects, but that was probably due to the fact the entire budget of the show was $4.23.
But the reason people take issue with the FX on Buffy is they're larger than life. When they create a magical rip between dimensions, it's a huge sparking thing in midair, not some wimpy little shimmer.
The problem is that software is a combination of trade secret and copyright, in a sense.
If the publisher of, say, a book, stops producing copies of that book, and doesn't renew it, it goes public domain. (And it's supposed to be about 20 years, not 75. Damned Mouse.) With a copy of the book, you can make more copies of the book, or modify it.
Software is unique because you don't get all of it. Sure, you don't get the script of a TV show when it falls into the public domain, but you can recreate the product by transcription. Anything besides software, you can take the 'tangible form' and recreate 'the source' from it, and build it again. (Note things have to be in a 'tangible form' to be copyrighted, you can't copyright, for example, a non-taped performance of a play, but that's okay because no one can copy one of those. You just copyright the script first.)
I think that software companies should have to submit all source to the copyright office for exactly this reason. The concept of things falling into the public domain includes them being in a useful state when they do, and software won't be.
Un, I'm fairly certain this new track was generated by machine, and there is no sheet music what-so-ever.
You appear to have missed the fact that the nitpicking is a joke, also.
I contend myself with bogus replies to spam when bored. I've wasted several hours of different spammers' time. Then, at the end, explain you were just leading them on because they spammed, and you will, in fact, continue to call them up occasionally, or have your friends do that, and express bogus interest in their products for the next several months.
Now, after you're told them that, hang up and never call again. Don't actually do that, it would legally be harrassment. (Though, of course, I've always wanted to harrass them, and, at the same time, 'unsubscribe' from their list, and if they claim I'm harrassing them, hey, they won't stop emailing me.)But you'll have them questioning every single call from then on, and possibly assuming some legit customers are doing the same thing. This plan works even better the more people who do it, too.
Don't give up if they don't have a toll-free number or a webform, either. Call up their toll business line collect and say just say your first name. Half the people will just accept the charges.
We will head out to beat them to death, knowing that we lack your seal of approval, but that you basically have no problems with it. ;)
And while you normally just 'sign' something with the public key, signing is actually just taking the checksum and encrypting it with your private key, and they decrypt it with your public key. It's possibly, instead, to 'sign' it by encrypting the entire message with your private key. People who don't have your public key will be unable to read it at all, but it's perfectly legal to do, and PGP actually lets you do this. I've actually seen people do this before, but mostly people who didn't want to talk with anyone who didn't have PGP.
(Likewise, it's possible to 'encrypt' your message by encrypting just the checksum with a public key, thus assuring anyone can read it but only one person can decrypt the checksum and make sure it hasn't been modified. Except, of course, anyone with that public key could just re-encode the checksum, so that would be spectacularly useless.)
More to the point, the definition of the public key is usually 'the one you give out', not what you do with it. I have to contend the key they gave out was, by definition, the public key, and the key they didn't was, by definition, the private key, and thus what they actually did was a strange way of crytpographically signing their movies.
If you want to call it by two letters, it's 'RM', rights management.
As for things that don't have RPMs (Or .deb, depending on how you go.), they can usually just untar it and run it from their user directory, can't they?