Napster itself is not illegal. It offers a service for sharing files. Sharing files wo the permission of the author (or copyright holder) is illegal.
Napster is a platform. So is Linux. You can pirate DVDs using Linux. So if Napster is required to ban copyrighted material, can Linux be required to make copying DVDs impossible?
I think books about the near future are bound to be ignored after a few years.
Have a look at William Gibson: His predictions about corporatism and a worldwide network became mostly true. I you give one of his books to a youngster, he will ignore those bits as self evident and only see what hasn't become reality (AI).
Neal Stephenson is a younger writer. He's great. But his books are likely to suffer the same fate.
<quote>
Aha! It seems that this is not quite correct for some jurisdictions. They could be liable per the EULA, last line of implied warranty section:
"SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. "
</quote>
(BTW: You definitely got the uppercase right. Obviously it is used to make the EULAs even more unreadable.)
As I read it, it's vice versa. Names with a space in the middle are applied as 2 arguments. Spaces at the beginning and end of the name should be ignored.
Reading the thread at macnn, I get the impression that quite a high percentage of users had such a setup.
Apple is bound to have at least some hundred NDAd beta testers. They overlooked TWO serious bugs in the installer of a final version. I think they must have tested the product, but entirely failed to have the final version of the installer tested.
I think this has to be called gross negligence. I really hope they can own up with a tool to restore rm -rf'ed files. The usual data recovery tools do not seem to work.
Well I don't know too much about US law.
But in Germany, if you cause damage by
being grossly careless (grob fahrlaessig),
you're generaly held responsible for the
damage you do. I wonder if a license can/
should be able to override such laws.
The other question is: Can you really expect
people to do a daily backup? What's the
percetage of computer users (and companies)
doing this?
Yes. I suspected that SGML is age old. But they either should've cleaned it up more or started XML from scratch.
However it hardly disproves my points:
1. Many font encodings, changeable on the fly -> slow, big parsers. If the encodings are optional, it only increases the mess.
2. No escape sequence (<, >, & instead) -> ugly.
3. CDATA - can't define closing sequence -> embedded binary data has to be checked, maybe transformed.
4. DTDs were a noncontender.
I still think in specifying the standard (XML not SGML) mostly trivial choices had to be made. And I disagree with a lot of them. It's a pain to write a XML parser. I can't understand the hype.
Doesn't anyone else think that a pretty bad job was done on XML?
Don't get me wrong - saving data as plaintext with tags to mark the structure is ok as long you don't have to care too much about footprint. This was done long before XML was specified. Chomski did all the basic work on generative grammatics ages ago. It was simply necessary to put this old stuff into a simple standard.
IMO they did a bad job. Probably SGML was specified before UTF was. But when a new standard is created, it really shouldn't support dozens of old encodings. And allow to change them on the fly. It makes the parsers big, slow and complicated. And I simply hate how CDATA looks. Plus the DTDs obviously aren't/weren't a contender.
All in all I think specifying XML was a pretty trivial job. And the result is lousy.
If you want a nice GUI API, try Qt. For most stuff it really rocks (though there are some limitations imposed by the X system).
IMO the good thing about BeOS APIs is that they are consistent and cover the whole system and not just the GUI part.Also what makes BeoS great are the easy setup and the responsiveness. Porting the BeOS GUI APIs wouldn't help to improve Linux in those aspects.
The US claim to enforce human rights all over the planet. However there seems to be a blind spot.
DoJ analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act:
"This retroactivity provision ensures that no limitation period will bar the prosecution of crimes committed in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The constitutionality of such retroactive applications of changes in statutes of limitations is well-settled."
Declaration of human rights, Article 11.2:
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Why should you want information about scurity
issues or security patches? From now on the law protects your servers against terrorists.:-P
Couldn't resist. In fact it looks like the
whole shit (PDF w.o. translation) is coming to Europe (Swiss). That doc is a very corporate friendly proposal for new laws about copyright and reverse engeneering.
I think the DRM initiatives are not aimed at pirating alone. The new standards will also be used to keep new competition from arising. Before independend artists or small companies can publish material, they'll have to sign restrictive agreements and pay lot's of money. If you cannot afford this, you're out of luck.
Look at the restrictions of the DVD burners of the new Macs. They won't hinder piracy. They just make sure that not anyone can create and market new content.
Rumsfeld:
"Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system."
Declaration of human rights (29.2):
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
"
I'm all for democracy. But the argument strikes me as odd.
I'm a Bokonovist. I might be the only one, since Bokonovism is a religion entirely made up by Kurt Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle).
But it is a great religion. Maybe I'll no longer need to lie about my true belief.
I strongly suspect that this technique is pretty useless for large networks. Those use optical repeaters that work like a laser where the signal initiates the avalanche effect.
And I'm quite sure that the polarization will be lost that way. Since polarized signals cannot be made to work on the existing backbone, this idea will likely not make it to the market.
Yes. The Java integration in Konqi has been a bit shitty. The latest version fixes this.
But starting the JVM and loading the JARs will still cost some extra time.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster itself is not illegal. It offers a service for sharing files. Sharing files wo the permission of the author (or copyright holder) is illegal.
Napster is a platform. So is Linux. You can pirate DVDs using Linux. So if Napster is required to ban copyrighted material, can Linux be required to make copying DVDs impossible?
I think books about the near future are bound to be ignored after a few years.
Have a look at William Gibson: His predictions about corporatism and a worldwide network became mostly true. I you give one of his books to a youngster, he will ignore those bits as self evident and only see what hasn't become reality (AI).
Neal Stephenson is a younger writer. He's great. But his books are likely to suffer the same fate.
Here's a quote from the discussion at macnn:
<quote>
Aha! It seems that this is not quite correct for some jurisdictions. They could be liable per the EULA, last line of implied warranty section:
"SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. "
</quote>
(BTW: You definitely got the uppercase right. Obviously it is used to make the EULAs even more unreadable.)
As I read it, it's vice versa. Names with a space in the middle are applied as 2 arguments. Spaces at the beginning and end of the name should be ignored.
Reading the thread at macnn, I get the impression that quite a high percentage of users had such a setup.
Apple is bound to have at least some hundred NDAd beta testers. They overlooked TWO serious bugs in the installer of a final version. I think they must have tested the product, but entirely failed to have the final version of the installer tested.
I think this has to be called gross negligence. I really hope they can own up with a tool to restore rm -rf'ed files. The usual data recovery tools do not seem to work.
Well I don't know too much about US law.
But in Germany, if you cause damage by
being grossly careless (grob fahrlaessig),
you're generaly held responsible for the
damage you do. I wonder if a license can/
should be able to override such laws.
The other question is: Can you really expect
people to do a daily backup? What's the
percetage of computer users (and companies)
doing this?
I really wonder about the legal foundation of:
"You should've backuped. We're not responsible
for any damage that erasing all your data caused."
(Yes, it's in the license. But can it be valid?)
Can anyone tell me how long it takes
to turn that box on? Any boot time?
Yes. I suspected that SGML is age old. But they either should've cleaned it up more or started XML from scratch.
However it hardly disproves my points:
1. Many font encodings, changeable on the fly -> slow, big parsers. If the encodings are optional, it only increases the mess.
2. No escape sequence (<, >, & instead) -> ugly.
3. CDATA - can't define closing sequence -> embedded binary data has to be checked, maybe transformed.
4. DTDs were a noncontender.
I still think in specifying the standard (XML not SGML) mostly trivial choices had to be made. And I disagree with a lot of them. It's a pain to write a XML parser. I can't understand the hype.
Doesn't anyone else think that a pretty bad job was done on XML?
Don't get me wrong - saving data as plaintext with tags to mark the structure is ok as long you don't have to care too much about footprint. This was done long before XML was specified. Chomski did all the basic work on generative grammatics ages ago. It was simply necessary to put this old stuff into a simple standard.
IMO they did a bad job. Probably SGML was specified before UTF was. But when a new standard is created, it really shouldn't support dozens of old encodings. And allow to change them on the fly. It makes the parsers big, slow and complicated. And I simply hate how CDATA looks. Plus the DTDs obviously aren't/weren't a contender.
All in all I think specifying XML was a pretty trivial job. And the result is lousy.
Nope. Every window has it's own thread.
You mean their IP is GOING to be sold to palm.
This still needs to be sanctioned by the shareholders on Nov 12th.
If you want a nice GUI API, try Qt. For most stuff it really rocks (though there are some limitations imposed by the X system).
IMO the good thing about BeOS APIs is that they are consistent and cover the whole system and not just the GUI part.Also what makes BeoS great are the easy setup and the responsiveness. Porting the BeOS GUI APIs wouldn't help to improve Linux in those aspects.
Oh and really - give Gt a try.
The US claim to enforce human rights all over the planet. However there seems to be a blind spot.
DoJ analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act:
"This retroactivity provision ensures that no limitation period will bar the prosecution of crimes committed in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The constitutionality of such retroactive applications of changes in statutes of limitations is well-settled."
Declaration of human rights, Article 11.2:
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Why should you want information about scurity issues or security patches? From now on the law protects your servers against terrorists. :-P
Couldn't resist. In fact it looks like the whole shit (PDF w.o. translation) is coming to Europe (Swiss). That doc is a very corporate friendly proposal for new laws about copyright and reverse engeneering.
I might be terribly wrong about this.
But isn't it the case that PGP 2.6.x was
actually more secure than the later versions?
So anyone really interested in security would
stay with the (free?) 2.6.x release and not
spend money on updates.
I think the DRM initiatives are not aimed at pirating alone. The new standards will also be used to keep new competition from arising. Before independend artists or small companies can publish material, they'll have to sign restrictive agreements and pay lot's of money. If you cannot afford this, you're out of luck.
Look at the restrictions of the DVD burners of the new Macs. They won't hinder piracy. They just make sure that not anyone can create and market new content.
And that's only a first small step.
Rumsfeld:
"Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system."
Declaration of human rights (29.2):
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. "
I'm all for democracy. But the argument strikes me as odd.
Oops - I better remember the spelling when I fill out all those forms ;-)
I'm a Bokonovist. I might be the only one, since Bokonovism is a religion entirely made up by Kurt Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle).
But it is a great religion. Maybe I'll no longer need to lie about my true belief.
I strongly suspect that this technique is pretty useless for large networks. Those use optical repeaters that work like a laser where the signal initiates the avalanche effect.
And I'm quite sure that the polarization will be lost that way. Since polarized signals cannot be made to work on the existing backbone, this idea will likely not make it to the market.
Yes. The Java integration in Konqi has been a bit shitty. The latest version fixes this.
But starting the JVM and loading the JARs will still cost some extra time.
In that case:
Can they register the tones as trademarks?
What are you taking about?
The Java security model works pretty flawless.Apart from the age-old 'brown orifice' attack I never heard about it fail.
You're badmouthing one of the best security models.
Well - I'm happy for you if you found a nice partner.
Not all people have the luck to find the right one first try.
Besides: Most religions were founded before there were
safe contraceptives available.