LDAP and the pam_ldap libraries are already headed in that direction.
While ignoring whatever M$ is doing right now (I've given up on following what standard they are mauling today - regardless of what you think of the rest of their work, they have a habit of breaking standards that is inexcusable), LDAP is fast becoming the directory protocol of choice. Currently, one can use LDAP directory services for any Unix utilizing PAM (definately Linux and Solaris, possibly others?), Novell, Apache, Netscape Suitespot/Iplanet, and alledgedly NT 4.0 (with the netscape synch tool - I've never actually found anyone who got this to work, though).
Right now, the worst problem I've seen with LDAP is the lack of a really good administrative interface - managing users, groups, etc., is a real pain with every interface I've had the mispleasure of using.
Well, the first thing I have to say here is that a significant portion of the population (not all, or even most, but significant) don't agree with the current drug legislation, either. Personally, if it has a sane disclaimer on it, then the decision to take the risk of using the drug should be up to the adult. Now, if a drug dealer sells you pot laced with something else, and claims that it's pure mary jane, that's product liability. In the same vein, I feel that the tabaco companies may have a liability for their additives - but aside from that, if people choose to smoke, that's their decision.
Getting back to the software question...
Let's examine napster. Written by a college student who wants to trade mp3s with some friends. Alright, this is illegal. But no more illegal than trading dubbed copies at this point - it's still among friends.
Time goes on, and napster grows in popularity. At some arbitrary point, it's no longer trading among friends, it's trading among the general populace. Napster itself is a company at this point, selling a service (not a product - the software was necessary to use the service, but it was the service that offered the illegal mp3s).
The point in all this? The software was used both legally and illegally in the above example... the differance was in scale and method, which the author has no control over (at the point of authoring).
It was the decisions of Napster as a company that made it illegal - not the software itself. The software itself is just a collection of 1s and 0s, a set of instructions.
It's been moded back up somewhat (look at the totals).
A hint for the moderators out there... if it has a smiley face, at least consider the fact that it is meant as "funny," not as "flame" or "troll."
And for the rest of the moderators, follow the second moderators example - if you see something that was unfairly moderated, mod it back up! A post that is genuinely brilliant will be modded up by someone - but not enough moderators will overturn another moderators trend.
I used to go to the movie theater 2-3 times a week.
But I patently refuse to give them money which is being used to harass and smash people like me, which some day may be used to harass and smash me.
(Ok, I'm not that cool. But you get the point.)
I won't even rent movies from the vidio store until they are off the "new release" wall - because if I rent them, the movie rental store may have to purchase more to cover the demand, which is more money to the MPAA.
My point is, I like movies. I used to give the MPAA members a reasonable chunk of money (from my perspective, not theirs - it takes a large number of individuals to influence their bottom line).
I don't anymore, because I think they suck. A lot of people said they wouldn't anymore, because they suck. How many are carrying through with this?
Hell! I could even support someone writing the code segment that does the actual exploit (it has been my personal experience, having had to clean up after script kiddie attacks, that your typical script kiddie doesn't have the skills necessary to drop a small piece of code into a working frame) - just don't write automated scripts that do the entire thing for them. When all the script kiddies have to know is how to use tar and make, things have gone a little far.
Another reason for the release of code segments is the classic M$ answer of: "That security hole is theoretical."
Fine. Write the damn code segment. Test it yourself in a working frame. Release the code segment. People with half a clue will be able to demo it. 90% of script kiddies won't be able to even get the thing to compile.
In my mind, the term "Script 'Kiddies'" is more a reference to maturity than age.
Until recently, most Script Kiddies where in college - simply because that was when people received net access. Recently, the 'Kiddies' tend to be younger - but we also have 40 year old Script Kiddies. They're still 'Kiddies' however - because they're acting like immature 8 year olds.
At least when I use the term, please don't take the term "Script Kiddie" as a reference to all young computer techs... instead take it as a reference to those techs who shouldn't be allowed to go to the grocery store alone, much less use a computer.
This isn't quite the same... personally, I would assume that anyone who stuck that sign on their front lawn either a) owned a large mean dog, b) owned a large firearm, or c) didn't have anything worth stealing in the first place.
Instead, I'd go a few blocks over, find the house with a good, expensive lock, and break through the window.
The simple fact of the matter is, anyone who really wants to examine how a security method works only needs to get a copy and run it through a debugger anyway.
Script kiddies are something of a necessary evil. As annoying as they may be, they are much less dangerous than someone who has a real purpose in cracking into a site... and I would rather a thousand script kiddies force me into keeping my security tight than one "real" attacker waltzing in through a hole that I didn't know about - because I don't have the time to disassemble the binary, but the attacker does.
I first got on the boycott bandwagon over Amazon, and then jumped on it full throttle over DeCSS and the MPAA. This weekend I finally stopped and looked around me... and realized that I was alone. I haven't gone to the movie theater since DeCSS; I have purchased books through Barnes and Noble (I had been using Amazon), yet all the geeks I know have fallen back into the same old patterns. Even my wife (just as much of a geek as I) uses Amazon.
I don't get it - why are people giving their enemies money?
I draw the line at this one. Especially given the particulars of this court case, I'm not even certain that it was worth a boycott in the first place. But I'm already on two "geek" boycotts... along with the five other geeks in the world who are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
On the other hand, if any of you are having any quirks of the conscious, it isn't too late! You can still stop giving people money so they can buy the rope to hang you with. But please, before we get all fired up over another boycott, remember the ones you've already said you would do - and decide why you aren't following through.
"In a court ruling yesterday, Mr. Jones was ordered to give up control the domain mrjones.com to online strawberry-polisher, MRJ-ones. Though Mr. Jones has has operated this website since 1997, and despite the fact that name "Jones" has been in Mr. Jones' family for centuries, the court ruled that the domain name was a violation of the trademark held by MRJ-ones. When asked why the company did't simply register the domain "mrj-ones.com," the spokesman for MRJ-ones replied "We should not have to settle for a lesser domain simply because someone wanted to violate our trademark."
MRJ-Ones has held the trademark for 3 months as of next friday.
What I don't even see mentioned in the article is the verification process used to insure that the keyholder really is the person they claim to be.
Anyone can create a key claiming to be someone else - the only way you know that the key really does represent the person it claims to be representing is if: a) the person gave you their public key in person, or b) there is an authority that "signs" the key, confirming that it is in fact from that person.
Now, this is really no differant than the way things are today - anyone can sign a check as "Bill Gates," this is why Notaries exist. Are we going to extend the Notary system to have them sign public keys as well?
Slightly off topic, but in reference to the Canadian tax...
Yes, taxes are higher in Canada, but the services provided by the government are more, as well.
Now, I'm not a Canadian, and I may have this wrong - if so, please correct me, I'd rather know the truth than a pleasant fiction.:) However, from my understanding, Canada has a better welfare system, state provided health coverage, state funded college, and various other services (this is really vague - if you have more detail, please let me know).
In the US, we have a fairly pathetic welfare system (in more ways that one, but that's a differant ball of wax altogether), rather limited need-based aid for college tuition (primarily loans), and no state provided health coverage aside from medicare/medicade (very difficult for most people to get, unless you are past retirement age), and a mish-mash of programs provided on the State and local level.
In other words, Canadians pay more, and get more, from their government than US citizens.
Some people consider this a good thing (the people who see welfare as creeping socialism or worse) and some people think this is a bad thing (people who believe that the care of the citizens should go beyond terms such as "socialist").
Personally, I'd like see something that is a little more of a compromise. But regardless, I for one wouldn't mind seeing my taxes increase dramatically, provided that the money was actually going to help people in the US, and potentially myself.
But one way or the other, Canadians pay more tax because they get more services.
Which book was that, and where did you find out about it?
I'm always curious about books that have accurately predicted the future.:)
-d
Re:This has been going on for a long time...
on
The Leased Life?
·
· Score: 1
Specifically regarding maintenance, there is a certain amount of economics that should be going into these decisions.
For example, the oil change on my car. Yes, I could spend 20 minutes changing the oil myself, but it's really going to take me more time than that (I have to purchase the oil and filter, change into work clothes, change the oil, clean up, change clothes, take the oil to a recycling station), probably at least an hour.
Now, if we break out my salary into a monthly wage, I make over $20/hr post tax, doing what I know how to do well. Thus, that oil change cost me $30 to do myself, as opposed to $20 from the oil change shop.
Given the choice, I will have someone else change my oil.
On the flip side, I tend to repair my own plumbing. Why? Because I can usually do it "cheaper" than a plumber, including the cost of my time, and I know how to do it. I'm not as fast as the plumber, it takes me 4 hours to do a 2 hour plumbing job. But given the cost comparison, it's worth it for me to do.
Now, if you are going to examine lease vs. own, you need to figure out how much it would cost you to purchase the item versus lease it. Maintenance costs, initial purchase price, finance costs, resell value at the end of the lease terms, lease buyout costs, etc. Most of the time, it's cheaper (in the long view) to buy.
What if you can't afford to buy?
Well, then you need to figure out the costs to you of not having that item/resource at all. If it's a car, you can probably get by with a cheaper car until you can afford the downpayment (or, stick with cheaper cars altogether). If it's a washer/dryer, the cost of going to the laundromat may make leasing the better option (if you can even lease washer/dryers - I don't know).
It's all a question of economics. If you're like most us, your buy your money by selling your time/skills. Thus, "services" should be considered in those terms as well. (Just remember to figure in taxes!)
However, there is a lot of precedent for "fan work" being allowed to slip by, and a company still being able to protect their trademark. The website ironfist.com may be going a bit far, but a site called ironfistfanclub.com would probably be fine, even though it is still technically a trademark violation.
IANL, but there's a lot of sites similiar which set precedent. tmbg.org, the They Might be Giants (unofficial) fan site. Hundreds of Sailor Moon fan sites, too numerous to list. www.ranma.org, a ranma fansite.
All in all, there appears to be plenty of precedent for fan sites, clubs, etc. to "use" the trademark without getting in trouble, yet the companies can still enforce these trademarks. Why? Probably the non-for-profit nature and the fact that they are referencing the actual product the trademark refers to.
Regardless, I sincerely doubt that this "crackdown" is necessary.
Actually, they did have another option, albeit it a strange one...
They can't let people produce non-licensed Napster materials... It's a really bad PR idea to sue... so that only leaves one choice - make it licensed Napster materials.
Mail The Offspring a marketing agreement.
Good for 1 month, no requirements on The Offsprings part. Thus, the merchandise becomes legally licensed, and it gives them a month to try to talk The Offspring into being a little more cooperative.
A bit unorthodox, but it would have solved their problem.
Napster is going to have a hard time not looking like a hypocrite with all of this.
Yes, trademarks are a differant thing from copyrights. Yes, Napster is not directly (or so they claim) performing copyright violations anyway. Yes, this is potentially a bigger deal, since as opposed to simply providing a service that allows illegal trading to occur (the same can be said of the telcos), The Offspring are directly ripping off Napster's trademark.
However, public opinion is rarely based on facts, and is more often based on perception. And as far as the public's perception of this will run, we've got a really fantastic case of the Pot and the Kettle going on here.
Not to mention the necessity of striking at a the group that stood up in their defence. That's going to look pretty bad too.
Napster would have been better of simply mailing them a merchandising agreement, and then striking at anyone else who started selling products with their name attached. But then, it's a little late now...
What's wrong with this? I don't see the problem...
Excite is still connecting up to the backbone, so people won't have any worse service connecting to a place that's not paying Excite for the extra link.
What these companies are in effect paying for is a second "internet" connection, one that allows people using Excite as their ISP to connect faster. Companies already pay similiar fees to connect to multiple backbone providers in order to increase their throughput and response time to a wider customer base.
The only real differance here is that these links will carry traffic from Excite only. Even this, however, is not really "new," local peering groups for a geographical area do much the same thing.
So long as Excite continues to maintain it's public Internet lines as well, I see no problem with this. Of course, if they don't maintain those lines to a reasonable level, all of a sudden their customers will suffer when attempting to get to 95+% of the internet - a sure fire way of losing customers.
It is nearly impossible for an ISP to protect against certain forms of DoS...
Smurf, for example, which simply throws a lot of packets in your direction. Yes, you can implement filters to help stop such attacks, but mainly those filters stop your customers from attacking, or being used to attack, other sites. You are not protected until the other ISP's involved also implement protection.
Not saying I agree with the action taken, but I can understand it. It's rough running the tech end of an ISP... you usually have low budget, unreasonable demands, and little to no cooperation from other ISPs. Just remember, some forms of attack can't be succesfully filtered on the receivers end.
I own a 2400 sq ft 3 bedroom home. And it could use to have one of the bedrooms knocked out to make the dining room bigger.
Now, this number does not include my basement. If this fellow is including his basement, our houses are about the same size. Even if it isn't, it makes perfect sense to me.
What do we have? We have 3 large bedrooms, a dining room, a utility closet (can not be called a laundry room, not big enough), a large kitchen, a sun room (decent sized), a living room, a mud room, and an "entertainment" room. The latter is easily the largest room in the house, coming in at 1200 square feet by itself (the size of some small houses). If it was up to me, we would have another room about half the size of the entertainment room as a library.
Anyway, my point is, I could easily add another thousand square feet to the house in larger rooms and additional rooms that I woud like to have. And, from experience, I have learned that I should never underestimate other people's ability to take what I would like a couple steps farther.:)
Oh, and a little more on topic - in addition to that already listed, I have a real yard and an extra-deep two stall garrage. A year and a half ago I paid $92K for this monster. How? By living out in the middle of nowhere, a full half hour from Peoria, the small little "city" I work at. Yet, small as it is, I currently make just under 60K, and just received an offer that looks worth around 75K all together. In Peoria.
Personally, I'll take 75K in Peoria over 150K in the Valley - I'll live better. Out here, my half hour long drive is considered rediculously long.:)
First of all, I'd like to give a big kudos to/. and anyone else involved in setting up this interview. Frankly, I didn't expect it would ever happen, and I'm happily surprised to see that it did.
Second, I am convinced that this was not set up by the label - the grammer was too bad, and the positions too garbled, to be a purposeful PR thrust.:)
Aside from that, he makes some valid points. Those songs are intellectual property, and shouldn't be being traded without the consent of the I.P. owners. Also, I have to admit that the scale arguement does at least have some validity.
However, one of the things mentioned was "perfect quality." Hah! Any true audiophiles out here will argree with me - mp3 is no where near perfect quality. It's good - considering the amount of compression applied, it's amazingly good - but the dynamic range just isn't there.
In addition, most people don't have the equipment to properly enjoy mp3 music, at least not yet. How many people own a portable mp3 player? An mp3 player for their car? How many people have a truely good sound card w/ decent speakers? More of the latter than the first two, but still not many.
For most of us, mp3's are simply not convienient enough. I need my music to be able to travel with me, and without the need for a special/non-portable player.
I will grant that he did at least admit that the issue is not lost revenues now, but lost revenues in the future. However, how much longer before a product exists that works similiar to Napster, but uses a pre-existing common carrier network (IRC, anybody?)? I can understand his concern, even if I don't agree with it. But fighting these on a case-by-case basis is going to be a losing battle - and based on this interview, that's what I don't think he gets.
1) Who cares? Or, put a little more kindly, I don't care if the French make it a requirement that all web pages have a footer that says "The US is a bunch of arrogant snots." In their own country, they can enforce that. Outside of their country, they can shove it. Likewise, if a French web hosting company is posting something illegal in the US, then the US can just deal.
2a) I respect their opinions. I am deeply offended by their demand that a US company spend a great deal of effort to comply with their opinions on what is "right."
2b) Agreed perfectly. Does not change jurisdiction issues in the slightest.
3) Flat wrong. What about museums? US history books occasionally show samples of Nazi propoganda to hammer home the point of just how bigotted these people were. Even if I granted you that 80% were Nazi jerks, that's a/very/ far cry from 99.99999999%. Exagerating your claim does nothing to help your credibility.
And for your closing statement:
I, too, just want to keep this in perspective. In a large sense, this has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with jurisdiction. Everyone (or so it seems) bashes the US for overstepping it's jurisdiction (and rightly so - often times, what the US does is WRONG, regardless of the motivation). Likewise, France has done the same stunt - and I will stand as firm as stone in my statement that they are wrong, it is not in their jurisdiction, and if they want it filtered, then/they/ can do the filtering. Once they stop overstepping their bounds, the rest is an internal issue - which, while I may have my own opinions towards, I recognize that it is France's issue, and I do not have the right to jump up and down screaming about it.
That's fine. I promise I will not move to France and sell Nazi relics. But if they don't want their citizens buying the stuff from me, it is/their/ responsibility to stop it. I won't help their citizens get around their blocks, but I certaintly won't do their work for them.
Oh, and personally - I would be livid if the US tried to tell a foreign corporation that was selling child porn that they had to stop. They can ask if they want. If it's a US citizen, or a US company, then they can get the person or seize assets in the US. And, IMHO, that applies to child porn, drugs, Nazi materials, and MP3's.;)
If the US (or France) wants to stop it that badly, then let the US try to enforce it inside their own borders. Not that I will always agree with them, but at least then they are staying within their jurisdiction.
(Note: This is my understanding of the situation. After all, I'm not a lawyer.)
I belive that items 1,3,4 and 5 are the important items for Andover in a legal sense. In essence, Andover is challenging that Microsoft has any grounds to request this information removed in the first place. Of course, this letter isn't much legally better than having just ignored M$ in the first place - however, it does let M$ know that they are at least considering standing and fighting.
It is worth noting that this letter never directly challenges M$ or promises any form of action, either favourable or unfavourable to M$.
If I was M$ reading this, I would assume that/. was silently challenging me to make the next move - which more than likely would be either dropping the issue or going to the courts.
For those of you who are upset at the lack of a "Defence" in the Andover letter, please remember that Andover is under no obligation whatsoever to defend it's actions to M$. Andover is in no obligation whatsoever to even acknowledge M$'s existance - until they are summoned to court.
I don't know if Andover can win if M$ pushes it (as I said before, IANL), but I wish them luck. I firmly believe that a person's (or corp's) work belongs to that person - which is why this Kerberos thing makes me see red. IMHO, M$ stole the name and is trying to steal the standard - I hope someone kicks them back to their hole.
[Section 1,3,4 and 5 from letter above]
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
One thing I see here is that slashdot does not moderate posts - slashdot's readers moderate the posts. In addition, there is no set group of people who moderate - it is a psuedo-random selection of individuals. And even in the case of moderated posts, they are still viewable by slashdot readers who set a low threshold in their preferences.
Since Slashdot is not truely acting as a carrier here, I don't know that they would be protected anyway. However, I have a hard time seeing how the "moderating" built in to the Slashdot system constitutes moderation in the typical sense of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
> 7.Something like Novell Directory Services
LDAP and the pam_ldap libraries are already headed in that direction.
While ignoring whatever M$ is doing right now (I've given up on following what standard they are mauling today - regardless of what you think of the rest of their work, they have a habit of breaking standards that is inexcusable), LDAP is fast becoming the directory protocol of choice. Currently, one can use LDAP directory services for any Unix utilizing PAM (definately Linux and Solaris, possibly others?), Novell, Apache, Netscape Suitespot/Iplanet, and alledgedly NT 4.0 (with the netscape synch tool - I've never actually found anyone who got this to work, though).
Right now, the worst problem I've seen with LDAP is the lack of a really good administrative interface - managing users, groups, etc., is a real pain with every interface I've had the mispleasure of using.
But it's on it's way.
Well, the first thing I have to say here is that a significant portion of the population (not all, or even most, but significant) don't agree with the current drug legislation, either. Personally, if it has a sane disclaimer on it, then the decision to take the risk of using the drug should be up to the adult. Now, if a drug dealer sells you pot laced with something else, and claims that it's pure mary jane, that's product liability. In the same vein, I feel that the tabaco companies may have a liability for their additives - but aside from that, if people choose to smoke, that's their decision.
Getting back to the software question...
Let's examine napster. Written by a college student who wants to trade mp3s with some friends. Alright, this is illegal. But no more illegal than trading dubbed copies at this point - it's still among friends.
Time goes on, and napster grows in popularity. At some arbitrary point, it's no longer trading among friends, it's trading among the general populace. Napster itself is a company at this point, selling a service (not a product - the software was necessary to use the service, but it was the service that offered the illegal mp3s).
The point in all this? The software was used both legally and illegally in the above example... the differance was in scale and method, which the author has no control over (at the point of authoring).
It was the decisions of Napster as a company that made it illegal - not the software itself. The software itself is just a collection of 1s and 0s, a set of instructions.
It's been moded back up somewhat (look at the totals).
A hint for the moderators out there... if it has a smiley face, at least consider the fact that it is meant as "funny," not as "flame" or "troll."
And for the rest of the moderators, follow the second moderators example - if you see something that was unfairly moderated, mod it back up! A post that is genuinely brilliant will be modded up by someone - but not enough moderators will overturn another moderators trend.
I /love/ movies.
I used to go to the movie theater 2-3 times a week.
But I patently refuse to give them money which is being used to harass and smash people like me, which some day may be used to harass and smash me.
(Ok, I'm not that cool. But you get the point.)
I won't even rent movies from the vidio store until they are off the "new release" wall - because if I rent them, the movie rental store may have to purchase more to cover the demand, which is more money to the MPAA.
My point is, I like movies. I used to give the MPAA members a reasonable chunk of money (from my perspective, not theirs - it takes a large number of individuals to influence their bottom line).
I don't anymore, because I think they suck. A lot of people said they wouldn't anymore, because they suck. How many are carrying through with this?
This I can agree to.
Hell! I could even support someone writing the code segment that does the actual exploit (it has been my personal experience, having had to clean up after script kiddie attacks, that your typical script kiddie doesn't have the skills necessary to drop a small piece of code into a working frame) - just don't write automated scripts that do the entire thing for them. When all the script kiddies have to know is how to use tar and make, things have gone a little far.
Another reason for the release of code segments is the classic M$ answer of: "That security hole is theoretical."
Fine. Write the damn code segment. Test it yourself in a working frame. Release the code segment. People with half a clue will be able to demo it. 90% of script kiddies won't be able to even get the thing to compile.
In my mind, the term "Script 'Kiddies'" is more a reference to maturity than age.
Until recently, most Script Kiddies where in college - simply because that was when people received net access. Recently, the 'Kiddies' tend to be younger - but we also have 40 year old Script Kiddies. They're still 'Kiddies' however - because they're acting like immature 8 year olds.
At least when I use the term, please don't take the term "Script Kiddie" as a reference to all young computer techs... instead take it as a reference to those techs who shouldn't be allowed to go to the grocery store alone, much less use a computer.
This isn't quite the same... personally, I would assume that anyone who stuck that sign on their front lawn either a) owned a large mean dog, b) owned a large firearm, or c) didn't have anything worth stealing in the first place.
Instead, I'd go a few blocks over, find the house with a good, expensive lock, and break through the window.
The simple fact of the matter is, anyone who really wants to examine how a security method works only needs to get a copy and run it through a debugger anyway.
:)
Script kiddies are something of a necessary evil. As annoying as they may be, they are much less dangerous than someone who has a real purpose in cracking into a site... and I would rather a thousand script kiddies force me into keeping my security tight than one "real" attacker waltzing in through a hole that I didn't know about - because I don't have the time to disassemble the binary, but the attacker does.
That said, script kiddies still annoy me.
I first got on the boycott bandwagon over Amazon, and then jumped on it full throttle over DeCSS and the MPAA. This weekend I finally stopped and looked around me... and realized that I was alone. I haven't gone to the movie theater since DeCSS; I have purchased books through Barnes and Noble (I had been using Amazon), yet all the geeks I know have fallen back into the same old patterns. Even my wife (just as much of a geek as I) uses Amazon.
I don't get it - why are people giving their enemies money?
I draw the line at this one. Especially given the particulars of this court case, I'm not even certain that it was worth a boycott in the first place. But I'm already on two "geek" boycotts... along with the five other geeks in the world who are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
On the other hand, if any of you are having any quirks of the conscious, it isn't too late! You can still stop giving people money so they can buy the rope to hang you with. But please, before we get all fired up over another boycott, remember the ones you've already said you would do - and decide why you aren't following through.
"In a court ruling yesterday, Mr. Jones was ordered to give up control the domain mrjones.com to online strawberry-polisher, MRJ-ones. Though Mr. Jones has has operated this website since 1997, and despite the fact that name "Jones" has been in Mr. Jones' family for centuries, the court ruled that the domain name was a violation of the trademark held by MRJ-ones. When asked why the company did't simply register the domain "mrj-ones.com," the spokesman for MRJ-ones replied "We should not have to settle for a lesser domain simply because someone wanted to violate our trademark."
MRJ-Ones has held the trademark for 3 months as of next friday.
What I don't even see mentioned in the article is the verification process used to insure that the keyholder really is the person they claim to be.
Anyone can create a key claiming to be someone else - the only way you know that the key really does represent the person it claims to be representing is if: a) the person gave you their public key in person, or b) there is an authority that "signs" the key, confirming that it is in fact from that person.
Now, this is really no differant than the way things are today - anyone can sign a check as "Bill Gates," this is why Notaries exist. Are we going to extend the Notary system to have them sign public keys as well?
Slightly off topic, but in reference to the Canadian tax...
:) However, from my understanding, Canada has a better welfare system, state provided health coverage, state funded college, and various other services (this is really vague - if you have more detail, please let me know).
Yes, taxes are higher in Canada, but the services provided by the government are more, as well.
Now, I'm not a Canadian, and I may have this wrong - if so, please correct me, I'd rather know the truth than a pleasant fiction.
In the US, we have a fairly pathetic welfare system (in more ways that one, but that's a differant ball of wax altogether), rather limited need-based aid for college tuition (primarily loans), and no state provided health coverage aside from medicare/medicade (very difficult for most people to get, unless you are past retirement age), and a mish-mash of programs provided on the State and local level.
In other words, Canadians pay more, and get more, from their government than US citizens.
Some people consider this a good thing (the people who see welfare as creeping socialism or worse) and some people think this is a bad thing (people who believe that the care of the citizens should go beyond terms such as "socialist").
Personally, I'd like see something that is a little more of a compromise. But regardless, I for one wouldn't mind seeing my taxes increase dramatically, provided that the money was actually going to help people in the US, and potentially myself.
But one way or the other, Canadians pay more tax because they get more services.
Which book was that, and where did you find out about it?
:)
I'm always curious about books that have accurately predicted the future.
-d
Specifically regarding maintenance, there is a certain amount of economics that should be going into these decisions.
For example, the oil change on my car. Yes, I could spend 20 minutes changing the oil myself, but it's really going to take me more time than that (I have to purchase the oil and filter, change into work clothes, change the oil, clean up, change clothes, take the oil to a recycling station), probably at least an hour.
Now, if we break out my salary into a monthly wage, I make over $20/hr post tax, doing what I know how to do well. Thus, that oil change cost me $30 to do myself, as opposed to $20 from the oil change shop.
Given the choice, I will have someone else change my oil.
On the flip side, I tend to repair my own plumbing. Why? Because I can usually do it "cheaper" than a plumber, including the cost of my time, and I know how to do it. I'm not as fast as the plumber, it takes me 4 hours to do a 2 hour plumbing job. But given the cost comparison, it's worth it for me to do.
Now, if you are going to examine lease vs. own, you need to figure out how much it would cost you to purchase the item versus lease it. Maintenance costs, initial purchase price, finance costs, resell value at the end of the lease terms, lease buyout costs, etc. Most of the time, it's cheaper (in the long view) to buy.
What if you can't afford to buy?
Well, then you need to figure out the costs to you of not having that item/resource at all. If it's a car, you can probably get by with a cheaper car until you can afford the downpayment (or, stick with cheaper cars altogether). If it's a washer/dryer, the cost of going to the laundromat may make leasing the better option (if you can even lease washer/dryers - I don't know).
It's all a question of economics. If you're like most us, your buy your money by selling your time/skills. Thus, "services" should be considered in those terms as well. (Just remember to figure in taxes!)
Possibly...
However, there is a lot of precedent for "fan work" being allowed to slip by, and a company still being able to protect their trademark. The website ironfist.com may be going a bit far, but a site called ironfistfanclub.com would probably be fine, even though it is still technically a trademark violation.
IANL, but there's a lot of sites similiar which set precedent. tmbg.org, the They Might be Giants (unofficial) fan site. Hundreds of Sailor Moon fan sites, too numerous to list. www.ranma.org, a ranma fansite.
All in all, there appears to be plenty of precedent for fan sites, clubs, etc. to "use" the trademark without getting in trouble, yet the companies can still enforce these trademarks. Why? Probably the non-for-profit nature and the fact that they are referencing the actual product the trademark refers to.
Regardless, I sincerely doubt that this "crackdown" is necessary.
Actually, they did have another option, albeit it a strange one...
They can't let people produce non-licensed Napster materials... It's a really bad PR idea to sue... so that only leaves one choice - make it licensed Napster materials.
Mail The Offspring a marketing agreement.
Good for 1 month, no requirements on The Offsprings part. Thus, the merchandise becomes legally licensed, and it gives them a month to try to talk The Offspring into being a little more cooperative.
A bit unorthodox, but it would have solved their problem.
Napster is going to have a hard time not looking like a hypocrite with all of this.
Yes, trademarks are a differant thing from copyrights. Yes, Napster is not directly (or so they claim) performing copyright violations anyway. Yes, this is potentially a bigger deal, since as opposed to simply providing a service that allows illegal trading to occur (the same can be said of the telcos), The Offspring are directly ripping off Napster's trademark.
However, public opinion is rarely based on facts, and is more often based on perception. And as far as the public's perception of this will run, we've got a really fantastic case of the Pot and the Kettle going on here.
Not to mention the necessity of striking at a the group that stood up in their defence. That's going to look pretty bad too.
Napster would have been better of simply mailing them a merchandising agreement, and then striking at anyone else who started selling products with their name attached. But then, it's a little late now...
What's wrong with this? I don't see the problem...
Excite is still connecting up to the backbone, so people won't have any worse service connecting to a place that's not paying Excite for the extra link.
What these companies are in effect paying for is a second "internet" connection, one that allows people using Excite as their ISP to connect faster. Companies already pay similiar fees to connect to multiple backbone providers in order to increase their throughput and response time to a wider customer base.
The only real differance here is that these links will carry traffic from Excite only. Even this, however, is not really "new," local peering groups for a geographical area do much the same thing.
So long as Excite continues to maintain it's public Internet lines as well, I see no problem with this. Of course, if they don't maintain those lines to a reasonable level, all of a sudden their customers will suffer when attempting to get to 95+% of the internet - a sure fire way of losing customers.
It is nearly impossible for an ISP to protect against certain forms of DoS...
Smurf, for example, which simply throws a lot of packets in your direction. Yes, you can implement filters to help stop such attacks, but mainly those filters stop your customers from attacking, or being used to attack, other sites. You are not protected until the other ISP's involved also implement protection.
Not saying I agree with the action taken, but I can understand it. It's rough running the tech end of an ISP... you usually have low budget, unreasonable demands, and little to no cooperation from other ISPs. Just remember, some forms of attack can't be succesfully filtered on the receivers end.
Good though, but nonsense. :)
:)
:)
I own a 2400 sq ft 3 bedroom home. And it could use to have one of the bedrooms knocked out to make the dining room bigger.
Now, this number does not include my basement. If this fellow is including his basement, our houses are about the same size. Even if it isn't, it makes perfect sense to me.
What do we have? We have 3 large bedrooms, a dining room, a utility closet (can not be called a laundry room, not big enough), a large kitchen, a sun room (decent sized), a living room, a mud room, and an "entertainment" room. The latter is easily the largest room in the house, coming in at 1200 square feet by itself (the size of some small houses). If it was up to me, we would have another room about half the size of the entertainment room as a library.
Anyway, my point is, I could easily add another thousand square feet to the house in larger rooms and additional rooms that I woud like to have. And, from experience, I have learned that I should never underestimate other people's ability to take what I would like a couple steps farther.
Oh, and a little more on topic - in addition to that already listed, I have a real yard and an extra-deep two stall garrage. A year and a half ago I paid $92K for this monster. How? By living out in the middle of nowhere, a full half hour from Peoria, the small little "city" I work at. Yet, small as it is, I currently make just under 60K, and just received an offer that looks worth around 75K all together. In Peoria.
Personally, I'll take 75K in Peoria over 150K in the Valley - I'll live better. Out here, my half hour long drive is considered rediculously long.
First of all, I'd like to give a big kudos to /. and anyone else involved in setting up this interview. Frankly, I didn't expect it would ever happen, and I'm happily surprised to see that it did.
:)
Second, I am convinced that this was not set up by the label - the grammer was too bad, and the positions too garbled, to be a purposeful PR thrust.
Aside from that, he makes some valid points. Those songs are intellectual property, and shouldn't be being traded without the consent of the I.P. owners. Also, I have to admit that the scale arguement does at least have some validity.
However, one of the things mentioned was "perfect quality." Hah! Any true audiophiles out here will argree with me - mp3 is no where near perfect quality. It's good - considering the amount of compression applied, it's amazingly good - but the dynamic range just isn't there.
In addition, most people don't have the equipment to properly enjoy mp3 music, at least not yet. How many people own a portable mp3 player? An mp3 player for their car? How many people have a truely good sound card w/ decent speakers? More of the latter than the first two, but still not many.
For most of us, mp3's are simply not convienient enough. I need my music to be able to travel with me, and without the need for a special/non-portable player.
I will grant that he did at least admit that the issue is not lost revenues now, but lost revenues in the future. However, how much longer before a product exists that works similiar to Napster, but uses a pre-existing common carrier network (IRC, anybody?)? I can understand his concern, even if I don't agree with it. But fighting these on a case-by-case basis is going to be a losing battle - and based on this interview, that's what I don't think he gets.
Line by line response...
/very/ far cry from 99.99999999%. Exagerating your claim does nothing to help your credibility.
/they/ can do the filtering. Once they stop overstepping their bounds, the rest is an internal issue - which, while I may have my own opinions towards, I recognize that it is France's issue, and I do not have the right to jump up and down screaming about it.
1) Who cares? Or, put a little more kindly, I don't care if the French make it a requirement that all web pages have a footer that says "The US is a bunch of arrogant snots." In their own country, they can enforce that. Outside of their country, they can shove it. Likewise, if a French web hosting company is posting something illegal in the US, then the US can just deal.
2a) I respect their opinions. I am deeply offended by their demand that a US company spend a great deal of effort to comply with their opinions on what is "right."
2b) Agreed perfectly. Does not change jurisdiction issues in the slightest.
3) Flat wrong. What about museums? US history books occasionally show samples of Nazi propoganda to hammer home the point of just how bigotted these people were. Even if I granted you that 80% were Nazi jerks, that's a
And for your closing statement:
I, too, just want to keep this in perspective. In a large sense, this has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with jurisdiction. Everyone (or so it seems) bashes the US for overstepping it's jurisdiction (and rightly so - often times, what the US does is WRONG, regardless of the motivation). Likewise, France has done the same stunt - and I will stand as firm as stone in my statement that they are wrong, it is not in their jurisdiction, and if they want it filtered, then
My 2c.
That's fine. I promise I will not move to France and sell Nazi relics. But if they don't want their citizens buying the stuff from me, it is /their/ responsibility to stop it. I won't help their citizens get around their blocks, but I certaintly won't do their work for them.
;)
Oh, and personally - I would be livid if the US tried to tell a foreign corporation that was selling child porn that they had to stop. They can ask if they want. If it's a US citizen, or a US company, then they can get the person or seize assets in the US. And, IMHO, that applies to child porn, drugs, Nazi materials, and MP3's.
If the US (or France) wants to stop it that badly, then let the US try to enforce it inside their own borders. Not that I will always agree with them, but at least then they are staying within their jurisdiction.
(Note: This is my understanding of the situation. After all, I'm not a lawyer.)
/. was silently challenging me to make the next move - which more than likely would be either dropping the issue or going to the courts.
I belive that items 1,3,4 and 5 are the important items for Andover in a legal sense. In essence, Andover is challenging that Microsoft has any grounds to request this information removed in the first place. Of course, this letter isn't much legally better than having just ignored M$ in the first place - however, it does let M$ know that they are at least considering standing and fighting.
It is worth noting that this letter never directly challenges M$ or promises any form of action, either favourable or unfavourable to M$.
If I was M$ reading this, I would assume that
For those of you who are upset at the lack of a "Defence" in the Andover letter, please remember that Andover is under no obligation whatsoever to defend it's actions to M$. Andover is in no obligation whatsoever to even acknowledge M$'s existance - until they are summoned to court.
I don't know if Andover can win if M$ pushes it (as I said before, IANL), but I wish them luck. I firmly believe that a person's (or corp's) work belongs to that person - which is why this Kerberos thing makes me see red. IMHO, M$ stole the name and is trying to steal the standard - I hope someone kicks them back to their hole.
[Section 1,3,4 and 5 from letter above]
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet?
4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable?
One thing I see here is that slashdot does not moderate posts - slashdot's readers moderate the posts. In addition, there is no set group of people who moderate - it is a psuedo-random selection of individuals. And even in the case of moderated posts, they are still viewable by slashdot readers who set a low threshold in their preferences.
Since Slashdot is not truely acting as a carrier here, I don't know that they would be protected anyway. However, I have a hard time seeing how the "moderating" built in to the Slashdot system constitutes moderation in the typical sense of the word.