Like the subject says, intermittent blocking is still blocking which is what Comcast is doing. Should they be allowed to do so? I don't know. Should they be allowed to lie about it? I don't think so.
You can also build a detonator that looks NEARLY EXACTLY like a cell phone. So, should we be giving people badges and guns to run around killing people with cell phones? How about ink pens? You can make a detonator look like one of those too. You can make a detonator look like a wallet too. Maybe we should kill people for showing up at the airport with a wallet (The NYC police seem to have gotten a jump on this). In fact, you can make such a device look like almost anything. Some people just seem to go around looking for an excuse to go off, so to speak.
Get real. This could only look like a bomb to an idiot with an overactive imagination after watching too many movies. The scary thing is that such idiots are running with guns and badges. Now THAT'S a danger at the airport. Yeah, talk about no common sense.
Of course that weapons grade material would be traced back to the reactor in the United States that made it in the first place, thus rendering your conspiracy theory moot. Any halfway advanced nuclear power (think, the US, Russia, UK, France, Israel, etc) can tell from the isotopes of the material where and when it was produced.
Future news story:
In other news, the administration announced today that incontrovertible evidence has been found at the recently destroyed Iranian sites which proves that Iran had succeeded in exactly copying American nuclear isotopes.
This is often brought up as a bad thing. But it's not that at all. Usually there's an emotional reaction like "how cold-hearted!". And it's easy to feel indignant, etc.
I would have to disagree. I think it is much harder to be moral than amoral. You should try it sometime to see how difficult it can be.
If the ISPs filter based on torrent source, then they cease to be common carriers, and lose common carrier protection. Then they immediately become liable for every case of copyright infringement that they are accessory to.
ISP's are protected from liability over the actions of their users by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and not by any notion of "common carrier" status. So the loss of such a status, even if they have it, would not affect their liability under US law.
I've often thought that I should be allowed to just pay something "up to" whatever my monthly bills amount to. I mean, is it MY fault if I oversubscribe my monthly income?
Considering that the photos are digital and that the companies operating the system are basically paid a bounty on convictions, "photoshop" wouldn't surprise me.
In the town where I grew up, motorcycle cops working in pairs would open up traffic light control boxes and switch them over to manual control. Then they would sit there, pick a victim, and one would make the light suddenly turn red just as the victim approached the intersection with no possibility of being able to stop in time. His partner would then chase the victim-now-turned-offender down and give them a ticket. Then they would switch roles and the other cop would score the next victim. I watched them do this for hours at a time sometimes and people who got the tickets said the judges only cared that the light was red, not how it got that way. Anyway, the moral of the story is that cops will abuse technology to make cases and many judges don't care. That they would use unreliable breath-alcohol analyzers to secure convictions is just another example.
Third, and slightly off topic, but the word monopoly irks me to no end; somebody said cable companies are monopolies. Strictly speaking - WRONG! Cable companies have to sign franchise agreements with every city, and may be fined, or even kicked out for violating those agreements. However ANY company is free to come in and compete. Verizon FIOS and AT&T are doing just this. DirectTV is there with Satellite.
In most places only one company has the legal right to use the required right-of-ways to operate a cable system. The idea that just ANY company is free to come in install their own system is just not true and anyone foolish enough to try such a stunt would be arrested and taken away. This constitutes a government protected monopoly, NOT free competition. Strictly speaking.
Yeah, other companies compete indirectly, but then again all companies indirectly compete with each other for the same dollar. That still doesn't mean that there are no such things as monopolies.
Remember that feature wise it was doing most of what it does back in 1991 when other FS drastically PALED in comparison.
As a blanket statement, that just isn't true. It had more features than some other file systems, but less than others. Microsoft didn't exactly invent NTFS from scratch, they copied much of it from elsewhere and from some other systems that NTFS and Windows still can't match. Ever hear of FILES-11 and VMS? I thought not. Believe it or not, the whole world of computers isn't just Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux vs. BSD.
And even today the only FS that comes close to being as features as NTFS is ZFS and it even is missing several features NTFS has had for 10 years.
There you go again. NTFS has some features that some other file systems don't and others have some features that NTFS doesn't. It depends on what you're looking for.
Wow, someone else that missed the point utterly...
Yes, but it believe it may have been you. The point was that maybe IBM shouldn't be using games such as this in the first place (they're not really a "game" company). Hence, they should block it, not encourage it in the first place. I'm not saying whether I agree or not, but just that you missed the point.
The "Virtual World Guidelines" seem to written to allow IBM to arbitrarily punish employees after the fact. For example:
You need to be especially sensitive to the appropriateness of your avatar or persona's appearance when you are meeting with IBM clients or conducting IBM business.
without defining "appropriateness". Can you be fired for wearing the wrong color suit? How about for having a tail? It's all up to how some manager wants to interpret it after the fact (and perhaps increase his bonus by having an excuse to deny you a bonus or raise).
I found this comment by Eyal Rozenberg over on the referenced blog:
"Over time, the Mozilla Foundation's mission has evolved to focus on advancing the open web through browsing and related activities. Today, Thunderbird, as a desktop mail client, does not supports this mission."
Translation:
Over time, Google bought us, so the Mozilla Foundation's mission has evolved to focus on ad-revenue-stream-related activities, and the number of mail&news developers has evolved towards 0. Today, Thunderbird, as a desktop mail client, does not support this mission, plus it's competing with GMail and Larry and Sergeyi say that's just wrong.
Nice try, OverlordQ. Now let's take a look at the notice the article was actually about, shall we?
From http://www.resnet.ku.edu/
Welcome to ResNet. We provide network connectivity, voice service and cable TV to the University's students, faculty and staff.
Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds. One violation and your ResNet internet access is gone for as long as you reside on campus.
This seems to boil down to the age old question of whether or not true "freedom" also includes the ability to take away the freedom of others. A good example of this belief existed amongst some of the founders of the United States who believed that true freedom included the "freedom" to take away the freedom of slaves. They accused those who were against slavery of being "hypocrites" for wanting to deny them their "freedom" to hold slaves.
In a similar manner there are now those who claim that TiVo should have the "freedom" to take take away the freedom of TiVo owners. Those who disagree they call "hypocrites".
My contention is that talking about the "spirit" of the GPL or being against the "spirit" is nonsense...
You were the one who started talking about you called "the spirit of the GPL". If I had realized you were talking nonsense I would have never bothered responding to you in the first place.
Let me put it this way then. You said that Linus is not against "the spirit of the GPL". However, he is against GPL3. Therefore, there must be some part of GPL3 that is against "the spirit of the GPL" in order for Linus to be against it but not against "the spirit of the GPL". So my question for you is, what part of GPL3 is against "the spirit of the GPL"?
Not quite. They left out the portion of the code that was necessary to make it actually run on the computer.
People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL.
Distribution inside a box has always counted as distribution when the box was distributed.
Hardware manufacturers can actually lose their IP now so vendor provided drivers might be harder to come by
If they are going to patent their drivers anyway then I would rather them *not* use GPL code to do so. I would much rather they keep their proprietary drivers secret but release the device specifications to allow non-patented third party drivers to be developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the subject says, intermittent blocking is still blocking which is what Comcast is doing. Should they be allowed to do so? I don't know. Should they be allowed to lie about it? I don't think so.
You can also build a detonator that looks NEARLY EXACTLY like a cell phone. So, should we be giving people badges and guns to run around killing people with cell phones? How about ink pens? You can make a detonator look like one of those too. You can make a detonator look like a wallet too. Maybe we should kill people for showing up at the airport with a wallet (The NYC police seem to have gotten a jump on this). In fact, you can make such a device look like almost anything. Some people just seem to go around looking for an excuse to go off, so to speak.
Get real. This could only look like a bomb to an idiot with an overactive imagination after watching too many movies. The scary thing is that such idiots are running with guns and badges. Now THAT'S a danger at the airport. Yeah, talk about no common sense.
ATI/AMD's New Open-Source Strategy Explained says that the specs will actually still be kept secret under NDA's. Does this really qualify as "Open"?
Oops..., so much for that judge.
I've often thought that I should be allowed to just pay something "up to" whatever my monthly bills amount to. I mean, is it MY fault if I oversubscribe my monthly income?
Considering that the photos are digital and that the companies operating the system are basically paid a bounty on convictions, "photoshop" wouldn't surprise me.
In the town where I grew up, motorcycle cops working in pairs would open up traffic light control boxes and switch them over to manual control. Then they would sit there, pick a victim, and one would make the light suddenly turn red just as the victim approached the intersection with no possibility of being able to stop in time. His partner would then chase the victim-now-turned-offender down and give them a ticket. Then they would switch roles and the other cop would score the next victim. I watched them do this for hours at a time sometimes and people who got the tickets said the judges only cared that the light was red, not how it got that way. Anyway, the moral of the story is that cops will abuse technology to make cases and many judges don't care. That they would use unreliable breath-alcohol analyzers to secure convictions is just another example.
Yeah, other companies compete indirectly, but then again all companies indirectly compete with each other for the same dollar. That still doesn't mean that there are no such things as monopolies.
This seems to boil down to the age old question of whether or not true "freedom" also includes the ability to take away the freedom of others. A good example of this belief existed amongst some of the founders of the United States who believed that true freedom included the "freedom" to take away the freedom of slaves. They accused those who were against slavery of being "hypocrites" for wanting to deny them their "freedom" to hold slaves.
In a similar manner there are now those who claim that TiVo should have the "freedom" to take take away the freedom of TiVo owners. Those who disagree they call "hypocrites".
Let me put it this way then. You said that Linus is not against "the spirit of the GPL". However, he is against GPL3. Therefore, there must be some part of GPL3 that is against "the spirit of the GPL" in order for Linus to be against it but not against "the spirit of the GPL". So my question for you is, what part of GPL3 is against "the spirit of the GPL"?
"Vilify - To make vicious and defamatory statements about."
I don't see that in any of your examples.
What provisions of GPL3 are against "the spirit of the GPL" that Linus otherwise finds acceptable?