Yeah right, kiss my ass, I wouldn't let them touch my computer when they installed it in the first place. I told the guy run the coax here, give me the cable modem and the info sheet and have a nice day. Under no circumsatces was he to lay a finger on the keyboard, or open his little cd case to isntall software.
Accessing several websites at the same time?? I do this all this time, you see I have a windowing system wherein I can have several different browsers running at once.
Wonder what they'll say when they see Linux and Windows traffic coming from my ip at different times. Technically I'm only ever using one at a time, they can suck a bag of if they think I'm paying for two ip's when only one machine can be running at a time. And if they are going to start enforcing this, they can give me back my damn static ip. Guess I'll be switching to DSL soon too.
Hmmm just like the raid on a completely innocent Steve Jackson Games for writing a game about black hat hacking? That company almost went out of business because of that fiasco. No, the government should not have that kind of power.
I think it's pretty fair. It is your content, and if you don't want yahoo making a profit off of your work you have that right. Wow, gray area, I've always been against sites that say you can't link to them, but this is a version of that.
Yes, but I would be peeved if yahoo was making money off of my site when I was not. Easy to fix though, deny access to hits with a referrer of yahoo. People who paid for the service would be pretty ticked to click on a link and have a page show up that says "you were just ripped off" follow this link to access the content, hits directly from yahoo are denied automatically".
I'm not sure I buy that analogy. You're talking about two completely different paradigms of data access.
Internet access is based on the moving of data, not of the reciever of that data. Physical location (theoretically) does not filter the content you have access to. This network however is quite the opposite, the physical application of the client is a necessary parameter for the data you can access.
I will admit though that it is possible that there could be different levels of the service for instance, a public free-for all, a government level, a commercial level. But of course other that the government level and the free for all level, how do you determine qualifications for belonging to a level? It's solvable of course, but I'm betting this never takes off as more than a novel technology.
Granted, there are an infinite number of ways to maintain your brain power. I wasn't trying to say chess was the only one (hell I suck at the game, I'm smart enough to play really well IMHO, but I can't sit still and concentrate:>), just to point out why I believe that it does have RL applications. As far as I'm concerned anything people do to increase their mental power is a Good Thing.
LOL, better point with "girlfriends bathroom", or bedroom or anything. Vice versa for that matter, can you imagine bringing somone home, and having her checking her gizmo while you're in the bathroom? You'd come out and she'd be armed with records of all the girls you brought back that used on in your place.
Definitely, I didn't even mention that, but disregarding the real life applications chess is definitely mind exercise. I remeber reading somewhere that constantly working your mind is a substantially preventative measure against the debilitating effect of old age. It was shown somewhere that people who stay intellectually active have less occurence of Alzheimers (sp?) and memory loss.
..if most people were intelligent and responsible, but personally I don't feel like accessing it at some point in the woods during a camping trip and seeing that someone took a shit where I'm pitching my tent.
I will basically degenerate into graffiti that needs no physical object to exist, "I wuz here" messages written in empty space.
If the goal is preparation for more important battles of wits, though -- things often likened to "a chess match" -- chess didn't appear (to me) to be more useful than a whole lotta other activities.
That's true, there are a lot of other example, but few as old and as well known as chess. Nor does anything else (other than GO) carries the association with intellectual prowess.
Hmmm, another poster had a good quote (he should be modded up by the way), but I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. These patterns that you're talking about DO have applications in the real world. Not as specific details but as abstract concepts. The srategies of chess, solid defense of you weaker pieces, backing up and protecting your resources, well thought out moves, attacking from multiple directions at once, these all map directly to just about any sort of competition you can imagine. The same way that "The Art of War" doesn't necessary provide lessons solely on military success, but for any type of competition.
Actually I don't have a real stance on the issue, I was just pointing out that the standard arguments against crypto regulations did not apply in this case, regardless of how many people felt the need to post them.
Actually, lawyers should *not* make that sort of moral decision. It is a right, granted in the constitution, for every citizen to be granted a fair trial. Part of our conception of a fair trial is the idea that the accused be represented by someone properly trained in the law. The solution you propose - having a lawyer say, "Nope, I think you're 'obviously wrong', and I won't offer you representation!" - flies in the face of that notion.
No it doesn't. This right is more than fulfilled by the public defender. That's why we provide them, fi you can't get a single private lawyer to believe you then there is obviously something wrong with your case.
Because lawyers (should) have the responsibility to not represent a client that is obviously wrong. If lawyers had morals we'd have less jaw dropping articles on/. about some poor geek who's getting the shaft.
We do have laws concerning vehichles, smoking and unhealthy food. Your analogies are completlely baseless. There's a difference between outlawing someone altogether and imposing restriction on them, which is what we do with crypto, vehichles, and most things that are sold to consumers.
How ignorant can you be that you can't see that your weak argument supports my point, we do have regulations on things that have the potential to cause harm, and crypto shouldn't be any different.
I know this is definitely an "anti-slashdot opinion" take on the matter, but hear me out.
Just to be clear, I don't really have views on eportation of encryption. In this case, however, I see a lot of responses that just repeat the party lines "encryption can be found outside the US", "the US doesn't have a monopoly", and "criminals will get encryption anyway"
In this particular case these just aren't true. We got useful information BECAUSE the encryption used was weak. Ther's no way to calculate how many lives were potentially saved because of this situation, but as far as I'm concerned one life saved would be enough to justify exportation laws. It's not that strong encryption won't be found outside the US but that it's more difficult to get ahold of. If ridiculously strong encryption was available and packaged by default with operating systems, we would have had a much harder time getting access to those files. So, in this situation at least, the fact that strong encryption was not redily available did do some good.
...that I'm not sure what the argument is about. this is pretty much an anarchy, if someone wants to develope this then more power to them. they're free to do what they want, if it's good enough then it should be accepted into distros. That's my official thinking answer.
My emotional reaction is Noooooooo! Not because I'm elitist and arrogant, I can always find another thing to be arrogant about, ("You use the newbie tool to rebuild, loser" ) but I don't want to field a hundred questions each from a hundred people. I don't want my mother calling me and asking me if she needs iRDA modules, or constantly answering questions at the bar from people who probably have no need to get into that stuff. It's bad enough now fielding questions about windows... I gotta get this shirt from thinkgeek.
Which I have to say is why I like that fact that Windows is the supported desktop at work, the last thing I need is some MIS guy telling me that I can't recompile my kernel or make the changes I want.
It seems to me that this type of material appears in cycles, from the industrial revolution on for sure, and probaly previous to that some chicken little decides to write a book about how changing technology is going to destroy our way of life, or dehumanize us or whatever. Not that they aren't an interesting read sometimes but this sort of babble really gets tiresome after a while. Am I the only one who feels this way?
TERM AND TERMINATION
The term of this agreement shall be for so long as we and/or our licensors own any intellectual property rights in the Player or Content. You may terminate this agreement at any time by returning to us the CD you purchased
At any time you may return the cd you purchased. I don't see anything about refunds, but they should be accountable for a refund at any point after purchase, if the store will not take it back. And another interesting point. Assume that for in some scenariosUMG must provide a rfund for the cd based on the store reciept. What if I were to have a freidn who owns a store cell me a cd for several thousand dollars? Wonder if I could send the reciept and the cd back to UMG and demand a refund?
AAACK, I just checked the list, I will no longer be able to rip Kathee Lee Gifford and S Club 7 to my Linux box!! My productivity is going to drop[ big time.
Seriiously though, as soon as I saw this article earlier I checked the list for bands I DO listen to, I'll be sending email to those I can tonight I urge everyone else who listens to bands on that list to do the same.
Yes but the disagreement with the license cannot be a defect. Maybe it's possible that the stores will try to stop issuing refunds, not sure if legally they can or not, but that will lead to a better scenario, Universal will have to refund the money. Not the cost to the distrbutor, the full retail price. If that were the case I'd spend $200 a month on cd's that had the license and send them back to universal for a refund. Imagine the class action suit that would follow if they couldn't get everyone their money back.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right, kiss my ass, I wouldn't let them touch my computer when they installed it in the first place. I told the guy run the coax here, give me the cable modem and the info sheet and have a nice day. Under no circumsatces was he to lay a finger on the keyboard, or open his little cd case to isntall software.
Accessing several websites at the same time?? I do this all this time, you see I have a windowing system wherein I can have several different browsers running at once.
Wonder what they'll say when they see Linux and Windows traffic coming from my ip at different times. Technically I'm only ever using one at a time, they can suck a bag of if they think I'm paying for two ip's when only one machine can be running at a time. And if they are going to start enforcing this, they can give me back my damn static ip. Guess I'll be switching to DSL soon too.
Hmmm just like the raid on a completely innocent Steve Jackson Games for writing a game about black hat hacking? That company almost went out of business because of that fiasco. No, the government should not have that kind of power.
I think it's pretty fair. It is your content, and if you don't want yahoo making a profit off of your work you have that right. Wow, gray area, I've always been against sites that say you can't link to them, but this is a version of that.
Yes, but I would be peeved if yahoo was making money off of my site when I was not. Easy to fix though, deny access to hits with a referrer of yahoo. People who paid for the service would be pretty ticked to click on a link and have a page show up that says "you were just ripped off" follow this link to access the content, hits directly from yahoo are denied automatically".
I'm not sure I buy that analogy. You're talking about two completely different paradigms of data access.
Internet access is based on the moving of data, not of the reciever of that data. Physical location (theoretically) does not filter the content you have access to. This network however is quite the opposite, the physical application of the client is a necessary parameter for the data you can access.
I will admit though that it is possible that there could be different levels of the service for instance, a public free-for all, a government level, a commercial level. But of course other that the government level and the free for all level, how do you determine qualifications for belonging to a level? It's solvable of course, but I'm betting this never takes off as more than a novel technology.
Granted, there are an infinite number of ways to maintain your brain power. I wasn't trying to say chess was the only one (hell I suck at the game, I'm smart enough to play really well IMHO, but I can't sit still and concentrate :>), just to point out why I believe that it does have RL applications. As far as I'm concerned anything people do to increase their mental power is a Good Thing.
LOL, better point with "girlfriends bathroom", or bedroom or anything. Vice versa for that matter, can you imagine bringing somone home, and having her checking her gizmo while you're in the bathroom? You'd come out and she'd be armed with records of all the girls you brought back that used on in your place.
Definitely, I didn't even mention that, but disregarding the real life applications chess is definitely mind exercise. I remeber reading somewhere that constantly working your mind is a substantially preventative measure against the debilitating effect of old age. It was shown somewhere that people who stay intellectually active have less occurence of Alzheimers (sp?) and memory loss.
..if most people were intelligent and responsible, but personally I don't feel like accessing it at some point in the woods during a camping trip and seeing that someone took a shit where I'm pitching my tent.
I will basically degenerate into graffiti that needs no physical object to exist, "I wuz here" messages written in empty space.
Still a cool idea though.
That's true, there are a lot of other example, but few as old and as well known as chess. Nor does anything else (other than GO) carries the association with intellectual prowess.
Hmmm, another poster had a good quote (he should be modded up by the way), but I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. These patterns that you're talking about DO have applications in the real world. Not as specific details but as abstract concepts. The srategies of chess, solid defense of you weaker pieces, backing up and protecting your resources, well thought out moves, attacking from multiple directions at once, these all map directly to just about any sort of competition you can imagine. The same way that "The Art of War" doesn't necessary provide lessons solely on military success, but for any type of competition.
Actually I don't have a real stance on the issue, I was just pointing out that the standard arguments against crypto regulations did not apply in this case, regardless of how many people felt the need to post them.
Actually, lawyers should *not* make that sort of moral decision. It is a right, granted in the constitution, for every citizen to be granted a fair trial. Part of our conception of a fair trial is the idea that the accused be represented by someone properly trained in the law. The solution you propose - having a lawyer say, "Nope, I think you're 'obviously wrong', and I won't offer you representation!" - flies in the face of that notion.
No it doesn't. This right is more than fulfilled by the public defender. That's why we provide them, fi you can't get a single private lawyer to believe you then there is obviously something wrong with your case.
Because lawyers (should) have the responsibility to not represent a client that is obviously wrong. If lawyers had morals we'd have less jaw dropping articles on /. about some poor geek who's getting the shaft.
We do have laws concerning vehichles, smoking and unhealthy food. Your analogies are completlely baseless. There's a difference between outlawing someone altogether and imposing restriction on them, which is what we do with crypto, vehichles, and most things that are sold to consumers.
How ignorant can you be that you can't see that your weak argument supports my point, we do have regulations on things that have the potential to cause harm, and crypto shouldn't be any different.
I know this is definitely an "anti-slashdot opinion" take on the matter, but hear me out.
Just to be clear, I don't really have views on eportation of encryption. In this case, however, I see a lot of responses that just repeat the party lines "encryption can be found outside the US", "the US doesn't have a monopoly", and "criminals will get encryption anyway"
In this particular case these just aren't true. We got useful information BECAUSE the encryption used was weak. Ther's no way to calculate how many lives were potentially saved because of this situation, but as far as I'm concerned one life saved would be enough to justify exportation laws. It's not that strong encryption won't be found outside the US but that it's more difficult to get ahold of. If ridiculously strong encryption was available and packaged by default with operating systems, we would have had a much harder time getting access to those files. So, in this situation at least, the fact that strong encryption was not redily available did do some good.
My emotional reaction is Noooooooo! Not because I'm elitist and arrogant, I can always find another thing to be arrogant about, ("You use the newbie tool to rebuild, loser" ) but I don't want to field a hundred questions each from a hundred people. I don't want my mother calling me and asking me if she needs iRDA modules, or constantly answering questions at the bar from people who probably have no need to get into that stuff. It's bad enough now fielding questions about windows... I gotta get this shirt from thinkgeek.
Which I have to say is why I like that fact that Windows is the supported desktop at work, the last thing I need is some MIS guy telling me that I can't recompile my kernel or make the changes I want.
Been a long, long time since I read Dharma Bums, what's GORP?
It seems to me that this type of material appears in cycles, from the industrial revolution on for sure, and probaly previous to that some chicken little decides to write a book about how changing technology is going to destroy our way of life, or dehumanize us or whatever. Not that they aren't an interesting read sometimes but this sort of babble really gets tiresome after a while. Am I the only one who feels this way?
The term of this agreement shall be for so long as we and/or our licensors own any intellectual property rights in the Player or Content. You may terminate this agreement at any time by returning to us the CD you purchased
At any time you may return the cd you purchased. I don't see anything about refunds, but they should be accountable for a refund at any point after purchase, if the store will not take it back. And another interesting point. Assume that for in some scenariosUMG must provide a rfund for the cd based on the store reciept. What if I were to have a freidn who owns a store cell me a cd for several thousand dollars? Wonder if I could send the reciept and the cd back to UMG and demand a refund?
AAACK, I just checked the list, I will no longer be able to rip Kathee Lee Gifford and S Club 7 to my Linux box!! My productivity is going to drop[ big time.
Seriiously though, as soon as I saw this article earlier I checked the list for bands I DO listen to, I'll be sending email to those I can tonight I urge everyone else who listens to bands on that list to do the same.
Yes but the disagreement with the license cannot be a defect. Maybe it's possible that the stores will try to stop issuing refunds, not sure if legally they can or not, but that will lead to a better scenario, Universal will have to refund the money. Not the cost to the distrbutor, the full retail price. If that were the case I'd spend $200 a month on cd's that had the license and send them back to universal for a refund. Imagine the class action suit that would follow if they couldn't get everyone their money back.