OMFG. Yes, the assault weapons ban included a lot of guns for stupid reasons, but are you seriously going to deny that some guns, many in fact, are designed specifically to be effective for killing humans? Don't try to dodge the issue by bringing up crap like that. Some guns are designed to kill people because some people need to be killed and because on an individual basis, nothing is a better deterrent to actual violence. Otherwise we wouldn't even have an armed police force.
Who cares. There's a trillian and one things that might infringe on someone's IP, but until they prove it in court, it doesn't really matter. You're taking a very small risk in distributing such things occaisionally, and almost no risk if you're just downloading it. Downloading it isn't illegal. Uploading it to others (distributing) is, if it actually belongs to someone else.
It is exactly the same argument as "guns are not made for killing people" - and both arguments are correct.
Actually no. Guns are made for killing. Some are made for killing animals, and some are made for killing people. People, being somewhat more intelligent than most animals, on average, often require different tactics to kill, and therefore guns that are suitable for such tactics. People have a tendancy to take cover and sometimes even shoot back. Therefore, volume of fire becomes an issue. The more bullets you can spray at them, the better chance you have of hitting them. Concealability and ease of firing and reloading are also relevant issues.
See, the fact that guns are designed to kill people isn't a bad thing in itself. Some people need to be killed. Namely any bastard that is trying to kill you or anyone else that you'd rather not see dead. Once you attempt to kill or even severely injure someone else, you're taking your own life in your hands as well, as anyone else is justified in using deadly force to stop you. That's the way the world works. We can wish it wasn't so, but, to quote a movie I saw last night, "Try wishing in one hand and shitting in the other. See which one fills up faster."
Ugh. Even when I was part of a corp during the beta, it was just like 12 of us out there putting rocks into cans, and one guy in a freighter picking the stuff up occaisionally. Eventually we had to have people sit there in combat ships to guard us as well... talk about boring... EVE is a beautiful game to look at, and the economy is a pretty significant achievement as well. I really wanted to like the game. I was hoping that it would bring back the old TradeWars days. The problem is that it's just too damn realistic. Nobody actually wants a realistic economy. Realistic economies mean realistic jobs like mining and security guard. Those jobs are boring. They don't belong in a game that's supposed to be fun. That is the downfall of EVE.
Darl has taken trolldom to a higher level. Slashdot trolls can only stand agape and marvel at his trollish magnificence, hoping that one day they'll be 1/10th the troll he is.
You're right, and Best Buy is full of shit, but hey, they've got lots of lawyers and this gives them something to do. They'll prolly lose, but if they can make someone's life a bit more miserable by trying anyway, then it will have been worth it.
Great. I had already decided to blow off doing my homework and go out instead tonight, since I figured there was at least a decent chance that the world would be obliterated by an asteroid any day now anyway. There goes my plans for tonight...
World leaders would retreat to their shelters deep within the earth where they have been hoarding food, fuel, HDTVs, and Playboy Playmates. They'll start a new civilization consisting of moderately attractive people that don't know how to do anything except lie, cheat, steal, and make a fantastic raspberry smoothie.
The same is true of the software "warez" scene. People go to great lengths to build up huge collections of software. The funny thing is, they never even use over 90% of it. They just collect it and trade it. Like baseball cards or something. It's kind of strange, but they seem to enjoy it.
I've never had these problems with CDs or DVDs. The only CD player that has broken on me is the one in my truck, and that's because it was in an accident that almost totalled the truck. Have fun with your cassettes tho... *shudder*
So if Ritz goes any circumvents a technological measure to protect a copywrited work (their OWN technological measure, but a technological measure regardless), to download YOUR copywrited photos, can you sue them for DMCA violations?
Ritz doesn't have to circumvent it. They put it there and they have the keys.
The DMCA is vague on that point. It says that it is illegal to circumvent the technological measures used to protect a copyrighted work. It seems to be assumed that you do not own the copyright to the work in question, but this isn't explicitly stated from what I remember.
Probably due to the horrible nature of their software. The fact is that they focus more on ad placement than making the software work well. They should look at All-Seeing Eye if they want to see how a server browser should work.
First we have this remark from Mark Surfas at GameSpy in response to HunterWare's email:
Hi Hunter -
Unfortunately, he's not telling the truth. What is happening is simply attempted extortion. He didn't contact us, never has, and has been harassing us for over a year.
Mark
As if that didn't seem contradictory enough, we also have this from the GameSpy official response (also written by Mark):
What this person did was more than reverse engineer two of our products, RogerWilco and GameSpy3D -- he was describing our backend services and publishing CDkey generation information without letting us know. At first we welcomed his bug alerts. We responded to him immediately and thanked him for his bug research, as we do with everyone who contacts us with bug information. We even sent him a thank you letter, which we have on file.
Ok, so which is it? Did he contact you or not? Did he report these vulnerabilities or not? Did he only report some of them or all of them, and can you prove it? (Because if anything, we really have even less reason to take GameSpy's word for it than we do for Luigi). Next Mark tells us why GameSpy got pissed:
But then we found out he was also publishing how to brute force our RogerWilco CDkeys and had published hacks on other game CDkeys as well. He was doing more than reporting bugs; he was publishing game pirating techniques. He published how to attack our network. This is not the way ethical security researchers operate. It was at this point that we stopped our communication with him and asked him to remove the materials in question.
Sorry Mark, but if the way your system works allows it to be exploited, then it's broken. There's no other word for it. Whether he did it ethically or not remains to be seen as GameSpy hasn't offered any evidence to the contrary yet. Now we get to the heart of GameSpy's complaint here:
However, we won't pay "consulting fees" to people who create CDkey hacks of our proprietary software, then post the results if we don't pay them.
I'd like to see the evidence of this. If he said he'd found vulnerabilities in their code and refused to tell them what those vulnerabilities were and threatened to reveal them publicly unless they paid him, then yes, that sounds like extortion. If, however, he did tell them what the vulnerabilities were, and they didn't act immediately to fix them, then it's GameSpy's fault completely. I don't know which way it actually happened, and until I see more evidence, it's hard to say who's in the wrong. Oh yeah, and I just though this closing was humorous:)
Gamers trust us. We have to protect them from any and all attacks on our network that affect gamers.
Maybe, but in general, CEO's have invested a lot of time and money into their company, and taken a lot of risks to reap the rewards.
What risks!?! Even when their companies are tailspinning into the ground at 1000Mph, they usually make out like bandits. Only the little guys at the company really suffer. Hell, even if they never worked again, retiring at 45 on $10 million or more is a hell of a lot better than at least 95% of the world can hope for. Look at all the assholes that have been involved in the various cases of fraud over the last couple years. How many of them will ever see the inside of a prison cell? How many of them will end up broke? Think about it.
Ok, that link is better, but still only shows that the company can get funds to go through the patent process. It doesn't say anything about the kind of backing you'd need to defend those patents against a major player. $50K certainly won't cover that as well. As for the other one, while he made $1.5 million, after reading the whole thing, it seems to be a tale of how Scheiber got screwed over in the patent game, getting only what amounted to peanuts for his invention that changed the industry.
Did you even read those links? The first one is about Monsanto suing a small farmer, causing him to have to give up growing canola on his farm, as he's been doing for decades. The second one seems to support the original post, showing exactly how hard it can be for a small inventor to defend his claim. The guy has been broke for decades.
Basically you're right. A button simply initiates some action on the part of the system. It doesn't really matter what the action is, it can be any damn thing you please. Most sites used the "buy" button to add an item to your virtual cart. Amazon simply decided to add a couple more steps to the action and complete the purchase without further input. Some people might like a system like that, and others may not, but regardless, it's not really innovative. It's just the same technology and methods used in a slightly different way. Big fat hairy deal.
Yeah, but the funny thing is, everyone still refers to them by their old name anyway. When you read about Altria, they always say something like "formerly known as Phillip Morris" or something along those lines. So now we'll see "Claria, formerly known as Gator"...
Depends on the purpose of the demo. If it was to demonstrate that the machines work, then it was deceptive. If it was simply to explain how to use the machines or how an election would be set up, then it probably wasn't deceptive.
Slashdot Mirror
OMFG. Yes, the assault weapons ban included a lot of guns for stupid reasons, but are you seriously going to deny that some guns, many in fact, are designed specifically to be effective for killing humans? Don't try to dodge the issue by bringing up crap like that. Some guns are designed to kill people because some people need to be killed and because on an individual basis, nothing is a better deterrent to actual violence. Otherwise we wouldn't even have an armed police force.
Who cares. There's a trillian and one things that might infringe on someone's IP, but until they prove it in court, it doesn't really matter. You're taking a very small risk in distributing such things occaisionally, and almost no risk if you're just downloading it. Downloading it isn't illegal. Uploading it to others (distributing) is, if it actually belongs to someone else.
It is exactly the same argument as "guns are not made for killing people" - and both arguments are correct.
Actually no. Guns are made for killing. Some are made for killing animals, and some are made for killing people. People, being somewhat more intelligent than most animals, on average, often require different tactics to kill, and therefore guns that are suitable for such tactics. People have a tendancy to take cover and sometimes even shoot back. Therefore, volume of fire becomes an issue. The more bullets you can spray at them, the better chance you have of hitting them. Concealability and ease of firing and reloading are also relevant issues.
See, the fact that guns are designed to kill people isn't a bad thing in itself. Some people need to be killed. Namely any bastard that is trying to kill you or anyone else that you'd rather not see dead. Once you attempt to kill or even severely injure someone else, you're taking your own life in your hands as well, as anyone else is justified in using deadly force to stop you. That's the way the world works. We can wish it wasn't so, but, to quote a movie I saw last night, "Try wishing in one hand and shitting in the other. See which one fills up faster."
Ugh. Even when I was part of a corp during the beta, it was just like 12 of us out there putting rocks into cans, and one guy in a freighter picking the stuff up occaisionally. Eventually we had to have people sit there in combat ships to guard us as well... talk about boring... EVE is a beautiful game to look at, and the economy is a pretty significant achievement as well. I really wanted to like the game. I was hoping that it would bring back the old TradeWars days. The problem is that it's just too damn realistic. Nobody actually wants a realistic economy. Realistic economies mean realistic jobs like mining and security guard. Those jobs are boring. They don't belong in a game that's supposed to be fun. That is the downfall of EVE.
Darl has taken trolldom to a higher level. Slashdot trolls can only stand agape and marvel at his trollish magnificence, hoping that one day they'll be 1/10th the troll he is.
"Sorry Bob, but we're still a little too heavy for reentry. You're gonna have to get out and wait for the next shuttle...
Oh definitely not... first thing that popped into my mind was the Simpsons episode where Marge was painting Mr. Burns nude... :-/
heh... i wonder what it would be like to have that kind of money to spend on a desk...
Nifty... how much do they cost? Couldn't find actual prices on the site...
You're right, and Best Buy is full of shit, but hey, they've got lots of lawyers and this gives them something to do. They'll prolly lose, but if they can make someone's life a bit more miserable by trying anyway, then it will have been worth it.
Great. I had already decided to blow off doing my homework and go out instead tonight, since I figured there was at least a decent chance that the world would be obliterated by an asteroid any day now anyway. There goes my plans for tonight...
World leaders would retreat to their shelters deep within the earth where they have been hoarding food, fuel, HDTVs, and Playboy Playmates. They'll start a new civilization consisting of moderately attractive people that don't know how to do anything except lie, cheat, steal, and make a fantastic raspberry smoothie.
The same is true of the software "warez" scene. People go to great lengths to build up huge collections of software. The funny thing is, they never even use over 90% of it. They just collect it and trade it. Like baseball cards or something. It's kind of strange, but they seem to enjoy it.
I've never had these problems with CDs or DVDs. The only CD player that has broken on me is the one in my truck, and that's because it was in an accident that almost totalled the truck. Have fun with your cassettes tho... *shudder*
So if Ritz goes any circumvents a technological measure to protect a copywrited work (their OWN technological measure, but a technological measure regardless), to download YOUR copywrited photos, can you sue them for DMCA violations?
Ritz doesn't have to circumvent it. They put it there and they have the keys.
The DMCA is vague on that point. It says that it is illegal to circumvent the technological measures used to protect a copyrighted work. It seems to be assumed that you do not own the copyright to the work in question, but this isn't explicitly stated from what I remember.
Probably due to the horrible nature of their software. The fact is that they focus more on ad placement than making the software work well. They should look at All-Seeing Eye if they want to see how a server browser should work.
First we have this remark from Mark Surfas at GameSpy in response to HunterWare's email:
As if that didn't seem contradictory enough, we also have this from the GameSpy official response (also written by Mark):
Ok, so which is it? Did he contact you or not? Did he report these vulnerabilities or not? Did he only report some of them or all of them, and can you prove it? (Because if anything, we really have even less reason to take GameSpy's word for it than we do for Luigi). Next Mark tells us why GameSpy got pissed:
Sorry Mark, but if the way your system works allows it to be exploited, then it's broken. There's no other word for it. Whether he did it ethically or not remains to be seen as GameSpy hasn't offered any evidence to the contrary yet. Now we get to the heart of GameSpy's complaint here:
I'd like to see the evidence of this. If he said he'd found vulnerabilities in their code and refused to tell them what those vulnerabilities were and threatened to reveal them publicly unless they paid him, then yes, that sounds like extortion. If, however, he did tell them what the vulnerabilities were, and they didn't act immediately to fix them, then it's GameSpy's fault completely. I don't know which way it actually happened, and until I see more evidence, it's hard to say who's in the wrong. Oh yeah, and I just though this closing was humorous
Maybe, but in general, CEO's have invested a lot of time and money into their company, and taken a lot of risks to reap the rewards.
What risks!?! Even when their companies are tailspinning into the ground at 1000Mph, they usually make out like bandits. Only the little guys at the company really suffer. Hell, even if they never worked again, retiring at 45 on $10 million or more is a hell of a lot better than at least 95% of the world can hope for. Look at all the assholes that have been involved in the various cases of fraud over the last couple years. How many of them will ever see the inside of a prison cell? How many of them will end up broke? Think about it.
Ok, that link is better, but still only shows that the company can get funds to go through the patent process. It doesn't say anything about the kind of backing you'd need to defend those patents against a major player. $50K certainly won't cover that as well. As for the other one, while he made $1.5 million, after reading the whole thing, it seems to be a tale of how Scheiber got screwed over in the patent game, getting only what amounted to peanuts for his invention that changed the industry.
Did you even read those links? The first one is about Monsanto suing a small farmer, causing him to have to give up growing canola on his farm, as he's been doing for decades. The second one seems to support the original post, showing exactly how hard it can be for a small inventor to defend his claim. The guy has been broke for decades.
Basically you're right. A button simply initiates some action on the part of the system. It doesn't really matter what the action is, it can be any damn thing you please. Most sites used the "buy" button to add an item to your virtual cart. Amazon simply decided to add a couple more steps to the action and complete the purchase without further input. Some people might like a system like that, and others may not, but regardless, it's not really innovative. It's just the same technology and methods used in a slightly different way. Big fat hairy deal.
Is that what sparked the Indiana Jones ep of South Park? Never heard that ET was edited that way.
Yep.
Yeah, but the funny thing is, everyone still refers to them by their old name anyway. When you read about Altria, they always say something like "formerly known as Phillip Morris" or something along those lines. So now we'll see "Claria, formerly known as Gator"...
Depends on the purpose of the demo. If it was to demonstrate that the machines work, then it was deceptive. If it was simply to explain how to use the machines or how an election would be set up, then it probably wasn't deceptive.