I believe that they are only poisoning files that are owned by their members. If it were shown that they were poisoning non-member music, my stance would do a complete 180 degree turn. However, as long as they are protecting their own music (including that of their member companies and contractees), I fully support their right to do this.
If Evian did not exists, water would still be available to the average person. However, if the RIAA didn't agree, how much recorded music would be available to the average person?
While I can't get through to the RIAA website right now, I beleive that it probably is the RIAA's job to protect the music. The individual companies are in the business of making music, while the Association is there to protect its members, and that includes protecting the music they produce.
If I boycott nothing records and go ahead and download the new Nine Inch Nails album, they are not out a sale. I got free music, they lost nothing
I see this "logic" all the time on Slashdot, and it still annoys me.
Yes, it is true that they did not lose a sale. However, how can you say that it is not theft?
Something costs money to get.
You get it without paying any money
Therefore, you have committed theft.
It doesn't matter that they didn't lose money on it. It does matter that they didn't get the money that should have come to them for the transfer of property.
Let me put this a different way.
You buy the rights to download something digitally
You download said item
You steal the money you used to buy the rights
Is this theft? The owner can still sell more copies of the digital item. However, they are now out the money you originally paid them. Where is the difference between these two scenarios?
Where is the vandalism in this case? Are you saying that it is vandalism for a copyright owner to make a fake copy of his own work and put it on the P2P networks?
Explain this to me. If I recorded music and sold it, without any provision for download, when would it be legal for you to download it? Why should I not be allowed to make fakes of my own music and put them online?
[R]efusal to obey governmental demands or commands
OK, so you're refusing to obey the law (meaning that yes, you admit that it's illegal but you don't think it should be).
[...]
means of forcing concessions from the government
Here's where I don't beleive that you're practicing civil disobedience. See, you're breaking the law from the privacy of your own home. This means that the government doesn't see that you're doing it, so you're not making much of a statement. You're not going to acheive anything doing it this way, and you know it. This makes it not civil disobedience, but regular lawbreaking.
If you really feel that it's civil disobedience, get a bunch of people together, set up a network in a public place (rented hall, maybe), and download there. Make sure the media is there, and hand out pamphlets telling what you're doing. Get your message out there. Face the risks of being arrested.
Until you do something like this, I say you are not practicing civil disobedience, but plain old lawbreaking.
Why should the music industry be prohibited from putting junk on the network? If the user gets frustrated enough when trying to download music illegally (and yes, copyright infringement is illegal), maybe they'll actually spend money to buy music.
Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network? Or when software goes online? Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?
I see many people worried about Linux not working with Trusted Computing. What I'm wondering is if other operating systems will work. It has often been the case that something will come out for Windows, then get ported to Linux because they are the most visible minority group.
One of the operating systems I use is FreeBSD. Will that still be usable, or will it be forced to deal with substandard or non-existant drivers (think NVidia until recently). I also use QNX. Will that work? How about a new OS that will be created sometime in the future?
For the PMTU, yes it's marked DNF. The host computer should be intelligent enough to send a smaller packet after enough DNF packets disappear into the ether.
Once a PTMU has been calculated, the data packets should not be marked DNF, as the path may change as routers change states, and the PTMU may change and fragmenting still occur.
your clients will be unable to reach sites if part of your path to them has a smaller MTU than the MTU of your local interface.
I suppose you've never heard of packet fragmenting, then? MTU discovery tries to ensure that your packets won't be fragmented by routers, but if you send larger packets, they'll be fragmented by routers and re-assembled by the destination machine.
Although I'm probably feeding a troll here, I'll respond anyway.
If they get delayed by two weeks, they'll miss the interim funding bill at the end of this month. If that happens, they have to wait until the next funding bill at the beginning of the fiscal year, in six months.
After reading the article, I see the second-to-last paragraph, where they mention the FCC. Basically, the FTC hasn't been talking with the FCC. This means that if the list were to go through in its current form, there are many types of telemarketing that would not be bound by it. This delay is to review the proposal, and to bring the FCC, who controls areas that the FTC doesn't, into the picture.
To say it plainly: In the current form, a credit card company could call you even if you're on the do-not-call list. Once the FCC is in the picture, that credit card company is also blocked from calling.
Of course, things went different with the Commodore...
10 rem Hello world program
20 pR "Hello World."
Hmmm...IIRC, line 20 would cause an error. I think that pR would translate to "print#", which required a channel number before the string. The abbreviation for "print" was still "?".
My guess is that he can learn over time if he can watch numbers entered in a keypad
My wife's lab has a keypad with sunken keys and LEDs under the keys. To open the door, you press the "reset" button, which will put all ten digits on the keypad in random order. This ensures that someone shoulder surfing can't get the code, as you need to be directly above the keypad in order to read the LEDs.
You might even consider a 'turing test' type of system. Put a few hundred very simple questions in the system. They press a button, it asks them the question, and they give an answer. Since the speech program as speaker independant, it should be fairly robust. You'll need to choose your questions carefully, and change them from time to time.
It can be thought of as a teaching tool, even. Make sure the questions are simple enough that you don't have to program too many possible 'right' answers (put 5 pictures on the screen - ask what color the bird is type of thing).
Hmm...Not only could that restrict the middle child's movements, you could also ensure that the other kids can't go out without a certain amount of studying. Put questions from their classes on the system, and don't let them out if they can't open the door themselves.
Only thing you have to worry about there, though, is ensuring that the proper questions get asked of the proper people. It would probably be unfair to the youngest child if it kept asking questions based on the eldest child's schooling;)
I would extend this so that if the system goes down, the doors unlock. Otherwise, you may be stuck on the wrong side of the door when you need to fix it, unless you have another way in. And, of course, it should also prevent the door from locking down in an emergency.
I think this looks like the best solution I've seen so far. Get a shepherd breed of dog, who's training and instinct will make it herd the child into a limited area.
Or you can get an akita and train it to "protect" your autistic child.
That's a good question. I haven't actually read the Halloween memos, only browsed them a while ago, but here's my take.
In this case, the guy used his priviledged position (working in DirecTV's law firm) to gain information, while ESR got his through a leak.
The DirecTV documents contain design information that can be used to break the system and to create an equivalent system without researching it. Halloween is, I believe, a set of strategy documents which can be used to aid the competition.
The biggest difference, however, is given in the article. Before March 2002, it was very difficult to use the Corporate Espionage law. It required the cooperation of highly-placed Justice department officials. I don't know what happened to change it, but before that date, Microsoft may not have had whatever was required to activate the clause; now, it may be too late to activate it.
Sorry to reply to myself...I read the article and missed the line where he acquired it through the law firm he worked for.
So he probably had a non-disclosure agreement that he broke. Breach of contract. Trafficking stolen goods. Even without the Corporate Espionage charge, he'd be in a bit of shit.
OK, this guy "acquires" design documents for DirecTV's system. How did he get them? He probably acquired them illegally. Then, holding documents that were probably labelled as "Internal Use - Do Not Distribute", he distributes them to warez sites. Then we make a big deal 'cause he gets busted.
Listen people. You do the crime, you do the time. Would we be whining if he was arrested for stealing DirecTV's CEO's car? How about their money? Why are these documents any different?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that they are only poisoning files that are owned by their members. If it were shown that they were poisoning non-member music, my stance would do a complete 180 degree turn. However, as long as they are protecting their own music (including that of their member companies and contractees), I fully support their right to do this.
If Evian did not exists, water would still be available to the average person. However, if the RIAA didn't agree, how much recorded music would be available to the average person?
If you use Emacs, you have a programming language, OS, and editor all in one happy package.
While I can't get through to the RIAA website right now, I beleive that it probably is the RIAA's job to protect the music. The individual companies are in the business of making music, while the Association is there to protect its members, and that includes protecting the music they produce.
Yes, it is true that they did not lose a sale. However, how can you say that it is not theft?
- Something costs money to get.
- You get it without paying any money
- Therefore, you have committed theft.
It doesn't matter that they didn't lose money on it. It does matter that they didn't get the money that should have come to them for the transfer of property.Let me put this a different way.
- You buy the rights to download something digitally
- You download said item
- You steal the money you used to buy the rights
Is this theft? The owner can still sell more copies of the digital item. However, they are now out the money you originally paid them. Where is the difference between these two scenarios?Where is the vandalism in this case? Are you saying that it is vandalism for a copyright owner to make a fake copy of his own work and put it on the P2P networks?
OK, so you're refusing to obey the law (meaning that yes, you admit that it's illegal but you don't think it should be). Here's where I don't beleive that you're practicing civil disobedience. See, you're breaking the law from the privacy of your own home. This means that the government doesn't see that you're doing it, so you're not making much of a statement. You're not going to acheive anything doing it this way, and you know it. This makes it not civil disobedience, but regular lawbreaking.
If you really feel that it's civil disobedience, get a bunch of people together, set up a network in a public place (rented hall, maybe), and download there. Make sure the media is there, and hand out pamphlets telling what you're doing. Get your message out there. Face the risks of being arrested.
Until you do something like this, I say you are not practicing civil disobedience, but plain old lawbreaking.
Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network? Or when software goes online? Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?
One of the operating systems I use is FreeBSD. Will that still be usable, or will it be forced to deal with substandard or non-existant drivers (think NVidia until recently). I also use QNX. Will that work? How about a new OS that will be created sometime in the future?
I don't know how much you pay, but here are the numbers for Canada. The CCFDA (Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access) is trying to fight it.
Once a PTMU has been calculated, the data packets should not be marked DNF, as the path may change as routers change states, and the PTMU may change and fragmenting still occur.
If they get delayed by two weeks, they'll miss the interim funding bill at the end of this month. If that happens, they have to wait until the next funding bill at the beginning of the fiscal year, in six months.
To say it plainly: In the current form, a credit card company could call you even if you're on the do-not-call list. Once the FCC is in the picture, that credit card company is also blocked from calling.
Only thing you have to worry about there, though, is ensuring that the proper questions get asked of the proper people. It would probably be unfair to the youngest child if it kept asking questions based on the eldest child's schooling ;)
So use some intelligence. Only select the data that you need. It'll cut down on resource use and make the code that much cleaner.
I would extend this so that if the system goes down, the doors unlock. Otherwise, you may be stuck on the wrong side of the door when you need to fix it, unless you have another way in. And, of course, it should also prevent the door from locking down in an emergency.
I think this looks like the best solution I've seen so far. Get a shepherd breed of dog, who's training and instinct will make it herd the child into a limited area.
Or you can get an akita and train it to "protect" your autistic child.
Good luck.
In this case, the guy used his priviledged position (working in DirecTV's law firm) to gain information, while ESR got his through a leak.
The DirecTV documents contain design information that can be used to break the system and to create an equivalent system without researching it. Halloween is, I believe, a set of strategy documents which can be used to aid the competition.
The biggest difference, however, is given in the article. Before March 2002, it was very difficult to use the Corporate Espionage law. It required the cooperation of highly-placed Justice department officials. I don't know what happened to change it, but before that date, Microsoft may not have had whatever was required to activate the clause; now, it may be too late to activate it.
So he probably had a non-disclosure agreement that he broke. Breach of contract. Trafficking stolen goods. Even without the Corporate Espionage charge, he'd be in a bit of shit.
Listen people. You do the crime, you do the time. Would we be whining if he was arrested for stealing DirecTV's CEO's car? How about their money? Why are these documents any different?