If you move your story to 1800 you are even more in the clear: U.S. copyright law did not include foreign works so you could copy them as much as you liked.
You mean 100% atheists yes? Christians for instance are 99% atheists - there are hundreds of gods they do not believe in. Why is it so hard to understand that people can not believe in one more god than they do?
they seem to religiously believe that their is nothing in the universe and that the universe appeared by some miraculous event that no one can explain
Er, ever hear of the Big Bang theory? As good an explanation as science (not this strawman "atheism" you refer to) can come up with at present. You mean scientists looking for possible explanations is more religious than taking a fairy-tale non-answer provided by a nomadic tribe thousands of years ago as the truth?
It mandates for ISPs to implement it, so the word fits.
No, it does not mandate use by customers, but if the police gets access to lists over ISP customers and whether they use the filter or not, they could "keep an eye out" for the people who apparently must be interested in child porn since they don't use the filter that prevents access to an undisclosed list of sites with "inappropriate" content (say, Aboriginal rights groups).
There are two types of Australians: Descendants from the convicts (mostly Irish), and descendants from the wardens (mostly English). The convicts are still voting for the wardens.
The laws defines the consumer of child pornography as being the beneficiary of a crime against a child.
You seem to be unaware that the definition of child porn has been... expanded in later years. These days, the painting "Puberty" by Edvard Munch would be child porn. A Gap ad where an under-age model showing clothes would be child porn if the model was "posing" in a way that couild be interpreted as flirtous. An textual adaptation of Little Red Riding-hood where the wolf rapes the girl would be child porn. Where in that list is the crime against an actual child?
in many cultures would warrant the death penalty.
In some cultures, so would drinking alcohol, denying the existence of God or saying the president should resign.
The last time I looked at our county's sex offender registry, public urination had not put anyone on the list.
Have you been totally oblivious to the discussions taking place here? There have been multiple references to people being put in the register for doing just that.
If you want to solve real crimes against children, go to Asia or Africa and save some child prostitutes. Don't pretend anything is solved by filtering the net or jailing people for drawing perverted fantasies.
No they just want Microsoft's IE to support W3C (you know, the body that Microsoft is a member of?) standards, or Microsoft to provide a compliant browser in its place. And yes, small companies will "use government force" to fight illegal business practices, that is after all what laws targeting corporations are for.
The "spyware" claims have been revealed to be FUD form Firefox diehards, and they quieted up when it transpired Firefox was even more a candidate for the label. Go wank yourself.
Standards usually mean published specifications. That is also what they mean to Microsoft, who actually back the W3C in its standard efforts - even if their IE team appears to be unable to match this effort in their implementation.
If IE was a standard, there would be a way beyond trial-and-error or reverse engineering for other browser manufacturers to implements its particular interpretation of HTML. Opera already do, using IE "compatibility" whenever it seems likely the user wants it, but this compatibility is something they had to spec themselves based on observing behavior.
(The people defending Microsoft's wayward ways - and IE in particular - are just deluded. Why they come to Slashdot where they will be lambasted for their Microsoft-loving paranoia is a mystery.)
There was not an "internet" before the first cross-Atlantic connection (to Norway) was established. The protocols are managed by international organizations like IETF, IANA etc. and not just Americans.
"US technology" my ass - maybe your arrogant asshole would stop using European WWW and go back to using American Gopher? Maybe invent your own mode of transportation instead of using German technology (in the form of cars)? Or did you mean Germany gets to decide about U.S. car models and production?
Inventing something does not give you a right to rule over its use. European internet infrastructure is paid by Europeans. There is no "piggybacking".
(And Europe DID have "their own network" with full 8-bit transport (instead of the American "seven bits is enough for ASCII" blind alley) and multimedia support years before the internet technologies got around to MIME. It failed mostly because it was backed and provided by the national telecom carriers which charged too much for the services. And Internet technologies were adapted instead because they were simpler and cheaper.)
having one set of rules for Microsoft, and another for everything else in the universe.
Why are you constructing this straw man? Where did I say anything about "everything else in the Universe"? Are your arguments so bad you need to construct false statements like that?
Microsoft is in a position where their market dominance means different rules DO apply to them.
arbitrary and MS-hating standards which is user unfriendly and full of memory leaks and security holes
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. These standards are the same Microsoft have said thgey are backing.
As a security professional
You do not come off as "professional" in anything but Microsoft-shilling. Or trolling. You spread hate but show zero knowledge of anything related to software. You lose.
Actually, I believe in the past MS's TCP/IP stack did have some annoying traits, but I'm too lazy to chase down a link.
Back in the day, they added some undocumented calls in their 32-bit implementation of Winsock 1.1 that made Powerpoint and an Outlook beta crash if you used, say, FTP Software's implementation, because those two applications used those calls. Microsoft were forced to relent (Winsock standard was managed by some other entity) and removed the calls in patches to the calling applications. They might have removed the functions from the library as well, I don't remember any longer.
I have installed an OEM Vista and there was no option to not install IE. It was thus "pre-installed". Now, the fabled "OEM kit" used to "OEM-alize" Windows (that I did not run) MIGHT have the option of removing at least the IE front-end, but I highly doubt it. And that would still be AFTER Microsoft Windows' installer pre-installed Internet Explorer.
And not everyone gets Windows from OEMs. They do sell it in stores, you know, but mostly upgrade versions.
That was back with IE 2 based on one of the NCSA Mosaic spin-offs, wasn't it? I doubt the current IE 7 shares even a line of source code with that one though.
So, did Opera also file a complaint so that Apple would unbundle Safari from OSX, or so Teh Lunix would unbundle Mozilla (or whatever the shit they use) from Teh Lunix?
No, because neither of those have a 95% effective monopoly of the desktop market, nor have they been judged to abuse their monopoly since they don't have one.
If not, Opera's filing is without merit and blatantly hypocritical.
In case you have been sleeping under a rock lately: EU considers Microsoft's bundling of WMP to be illegal, this is just an extension of that.
There's absolutely no reason a modern computer operating system should be shipping without a web browser.
But why does it need to ship with a buggy, non-copmpliant to standards, user-unfriendly mess full of security holes? If you bought a garage and it came with a Yugo or Edsel, would you blush with pride over your car or would you replace it with something GOOD? Same difference.
Amazing, you made two assumptions not in any way backed by the information in the post you replied to. Are you on some crusade and construct "facts" out of whole cloth?
Since frames is a fucked-up technology that breaks navigation, breaks bookmarking, breaks printing - basically, it ruins the page - the page IS changed!
Judge Death, in the "Judge Dredd" comic-book universe, had come to the conclusion that since the living commit crimes, and all criminals were "innocent" before they committed their first crime, then the obvious solution to crime would be to pre-emptively kill people before they manage to commit any crimes. And that includes everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you move your story to 1800 you are even more in the clear: U.S. copyright law did not include foreign works so you could copy them as much as you liked.
I think it's brilliant.
Want to teach about how things oxidise when they burn? Have to teach about the old phlogiston theories as well.
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? These old folks say: maybe not.
Did Nazi Germany kill six million Jews in the Holocaust? Class, today we present an alternative view from Mr. David Irving.
Teaching the ten-digit number system? Have to teach an alternative Mayan numbering as well. Roman numerals an optional extra.
Teaching about germs and bacteria? These nice people will tell your children why diseases are caused by evil spirits.
The possibilities are endless.
I've always considered atheists to be religious,
You mean 100% atheists yes? Christians for instance are 99% atheists - there are hundreds of gods they do not believe in. Why is it so hard to understand that people can not believe in one more god than they do?
they seem to religiously believe that their is nothing in the universe and that the universe appeared by some miraculous event that no one can explain
Er, ever hear of the Big Bang theory? As good an explanation as science (not this strawman "atheism" you refer to) can come up with at present. You mean scientists looking for possible explanations is more religious than taking a fairy-tale non-answer provided by a nomadic tribe thousands of years ago as the truth?
It mandates for ISPs to implement it, so the word fits.
No, it does not mandate use by customers, but if the police gets access to lists over ISP customers and whether they use the filter or not, they could "keep an eye out" for the people who apparently must be interested in child porn since they don't use the filter that prevents access to an undisclosed list of sites with "inappropriate" content (say, Aboriginal rights groups).
There are two types of Australians: Descendants from the convicts (mostly Irish), and descendants from the wardens (mostly English). The convicts are still voting for the wardens.
The laws defines the consumer of child pornography as being the beneficiary of a crime against a child.
You seem to be unaware that the definition of child porn has been... expanded in later years. These days, the painting "Puberty" by Edvard Munch would be child porn. A Gap ad where an under-age model showing clothes would be child porn if the model was "posing" in a way that couild be interpreted as flirtous. An textual adaptation of Little Red Riding-hood where the wolf rapes the girl would be child porn. Where in that list is the crime against an actual child?
in many cultures would warrant the death penalty.
In some cultures, so would drinking alcohol, denying the existence of God or saying the president should resign.
The last time I looked at our county's sex offender registry, public urination had not put anyone on the list.
Have you been totally oblivious to the discussions taking place here? There have been multiple references to people being put in the register for doing just that.
If you want to solve real crimes against children, go to Asia or Africa and save some child prostitutes. Don't pretend anything is solved by filtering the net or jailing people for drawing perverted fantasies.
No they just want Microsoft's IE to support W3C (you know, the body that Microsoft is a member of?) standards, or Microsoft to provide a compliant browser in its place. And yes, small companies will "use government force" to fight illegal business practices, that is after all what laws targeting corporations are for.
The "spyware" claims have been revealed to be FUD form Firefox diehards, and they quieted up when it transpired Firefox was even more a candidate for the label. Go wank yourself.
Standards usually mean published specifications. That is also what they mean to Microsoft, who actually back the W3C in its standard efforts - even if their IE team appears to be unable to match this effort in their implementation.
If IE was a standard, there would be a way beyond trial-and-error or reverse engineering for other browser manufacturers to implements its particular interpretation of HTML. Opera already do, using IE "compatibility" whenever it seems likely the user wants it, but this compatibility is something they had to spec themselves based on observing behavior.
When did the W3C try to challenge IE?
:)
When they released Amaya?
(The people defending Microsoft's wayward ways - and IE in particular - are just deluded. Why they come to Slashdot where they will be lambasted for their Microsoft-loving paranoia is a mystery.)
There was not an "internet" before the first cross-Atlantic connection (to Norway) was established. The protocols are managed by international organizations like IETF, IANA etc. and not just Americans.
"US technology" my ass - maybe your arrogant asshole would stop using European WWW and go back to using American Gopher? Maybe invent your own mode of transportation instead of using German technology (in the form of cars)? Or did you mean Germany gets to decide about U.S. car models and production?
Inventing something does not give you a right to rule over its use. European internet infrastructure is paid by Europeans. There is no "piggybacking".
(And Europe DID have "their own network" with full 8-bit transport (instead of the American "seven bits is enough for ASCII" blind alley) and multimedia support years before the internet technologies got around to MIME. It failed mostly because it was backed and provided by the national telecom carriers which charged too much for the services. And Internet technologies were adapted instead because they were simpler and cheaper.)
What, SCO suing the RIAA for stealing the business practice of suing?
having one set of rules for Microsoft, and another for everything else in the universe.
Why are you constructing this straw man? Where did I say anything about "everything else in the Universe"? Are your arguments so bad you need to construct false statements like that?
Microsoft is in a position where their market dominance means different rules DO apply to them.
arbitrary and MS-hating standards which is user unfriendly and full of memory leaks and security holes
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. These standards are the same Microsoft have said thgey are backing.
As a security professional
You do not come off as "professional" in anything but Microsoft-shilling. Or trolling. You spread hate but show zero knowledge of anything related to software. You lose.
Maybe the people trying to shift the focus onto unbundling make money slapping together web sites that only work well in IE?
It's called "File Transfer Protocol".
ftp.
sheesh!
Windows+R
cmd
ftp ftp.uninett.no
anonymous
whatever@wherever.com
cd pub/network/www/opera/win/924/int/
ls
get Opera_9.24_International_Setup.exe
You can substitute some other FTP mirror for the one I used here.
Actually, I believe in the past MS's TCP/IP stack did have some annoying traits, but I'm too lazy to chase down a link.
Back in the day, they added some undocumented calls in their 32-bit implementation of Winsock 1.1 that made Powerpoint and an Outlook beta crash if you used, say, FTP Software's implementation, because those two applications used those calls. Microsoft were forced to relent (Winsock standard was managed by some other entity) and removed the calls in patches to the calling applications. They might have removed the functions from the library as well, I don't remember any longer.
I have installed an OEM Vista and there was no option to not install IE. It was thus "pre-installed". Now, the fabled "OEM kit" used to "OEM-alize" Windows (that I did not run) MIGHT have the option of removing at least the IE front-end, but I highly doubt it. And that would still be AFTER Microsoft Windows' installer pre-installed Internet Explorer.
And not everyone gets Windows from OEMs. They do sell it in stores, you know, but mostly upgrade versions.
That was back with IE 2 based on one of the NCSA Mosaic spin-offs, wasn't it? I doubt the current IE 7 shares even a line of source code with that one though.
You use rundll32 to call a download function in msinet.dll using the URL you found when using your phone's copy of Opera Mini.
What do I know - back in the day I installed Opera 2.12 form a floppy. Eek, physical media!
So, did Opera also file a complaint so that Apple would unbundle Safari from OSX, or so Teh Lunix would unbundle Mozilla (or whatever the shit they use) from Teh Lunix?
No, because neither of those have a 95% effective monopoly of the desktop market, nor have they been judged to abuse their monopoly since they don't have one.
If not, Opera's filing is without merit and blatantly hypocritical.
In case you have been sleeping under a rock lately: EU considers Microsoft's bundling of WMP to be illegal, this is just an extension of that.
There's absolutely no reason a modern computer operating system should be shipping without a web browser.
But why does it need to ship with a buggy, non-copmpliant to standards, user-unfriendly mess full of security holes? If you bought a garage and it came with a Yugo or Edsel, would you blush with pride over your car or would you replace it with something GOOD? Same difference.
Amazing, you made two assumptions not in any way backed by the information in the post you replied to. Are you on some crusade and construct "facts" out of whole cloth?
And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Since frames is a fucked-up technology that breaks navigation, breaks bookmarking, breaks printing - basically, it ruins the page - the page IS changed!
Plus tax evaders, speeders, DUI offenders, people drinking in public where prohibited...
Hell, throw out the laws altogether! Every man and his S&W!
Judge Death, in the "Judge Dredd" comic-book universe, had come to the conclusion that since the living commit crimes, and all criminals were "innocent" before they committed their first crime, then the obvious solution to crime would be to pre-emptively kill people before they manage to commit any crimes. And that includes everyone.