Those "indipendint" investigations were all haphazard, and in my mind didn't prove or disprove anything. The bottom line is that the margin of victory was significantly less than the margin of error; we will never know who actually won. Bush just happened to have several things go his way -- it's up to the reader to decide the legality or fairness of such events -- and found himself in the White House.
But Bush sure is lucky that tens of thousands of blacks -- an ethnic group in which 91% voted for Gore -- were "mistakenly" labeled as felons and removed from the rolls. A lawyer for the company that put the list together explains
"Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let (local election) supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether," attorney Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, the state's point man on the felon purge effort, said in a March 1999 e-mail to the company.
Statistically speaking, only about 2,500 of the tens of thousands removed would have made the difference in the election.
Remember kiddies: better to disenfranchise voters than to actually do our jobs!
What if we replaced "Linux" with "Windows" in the Forbes article. By making that change (and a few others), we get this article
A sample:
For several months, officials from the Microsoft Licensing Department have been quietly pushing Cisco and Broadcom for a resolution. According to Microsoft Licensing Department Executive Director Bradley Kuhn, the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) rip out all the Microsoft code in the router and use some other operating system, or b) make their code available to Microsoft.
And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. "We defend the rights protected by the MS-EULA license," he says. "We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share with us, we can make them obey the rules."
Write emphatic -- but polite -- messages to Forbes, pointing out that their article hinted at the acceptability of committing software piracy. Violation of the GPL == violation of a EULA. Period.
Even PHB's understand that violating EULAs is a Bad Thing(tm) can get you into a boatload of trouble.
My letter:
Your article attacking the Free Software Foundation omits one important point: the companies that the FSF spoke out against had violated the terms of Linux's EULA. If these companies found the conditions of the license not to their liking, that does not give them a blank check to violate that license. To do so is to commit software piracy. Period.
It is irresponsible for a Forbes columnist even to hint that the theft of intellectual property is an acceptable business practice. Either abide by the software license -- be it from Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, or the FSF -- or expect the owner of the code to seek financial or legal remedies.
Actually, the DMCA does explicitly state it's illegal to bypass an "effective means" of copy protection. Not even the most tech-clueless judge would consider suncomm's protection effective.
Unfortunately, you're using what you think is the standard definition of "effective". The legal definition of "effective" in the DMCA is this (17 USC 1201(3)(B))
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Knowing "you have to press the Shift key when inserting the disc" -- the application of information -- could fall under this definition of "effective".
And that's Reason #701 the DMCA is a Bad Idea(tm).
Okaaaay, someone needs to take a chill pill and actually READ the comment to which they are responding. The original poster said
However, the RIAA views buying a CD or tape as licencing the right to play the music, not for the actual media the music comes on, and are pressing for making backup copies (allowed under Fair Use) illegal.
Notice the highlighted part. The poster is not saying what their view is, they are saying what the RIAA claims the situation is. So spare us your rants about misapplied copyright law and the person misreading copyright law.
NOW, the fun part is that iTMS and other online places have a license for their music. Transactions at the iTMS do not trigger the Right of First Sale because you do not purchase the music; you license it for your computer/iPod/whatever.
This is a key distinction, and one that you failed to make. For further discussion of a EULA vs. a sale, see the ProCD case. Google is your friend.
"... the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
This section says that the sender must submit that they are acting on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right; namely, the six listed in 17 USC Section 106. But are they stating under penalty of perjury that they are acting on behalf of the owner of the alleged work for which a right has (possibly) been infringed (i.e., Motown's Usher in my example) or the actual work for which a right has (possibly) been infringed (i.e., Professor Usher).
In other words, can a copyright owner send out takedown notices without fear of perjury charges, as long as the takedown notices claim infringement of a right in one of their works regardless of whether or not the online work is theirs?
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and
under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis mine).
Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
It was an mp3.
It did have the name of an RIAA-represented artist in the title, and
It was at a university.
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.
And I'm sure it's only a very very small minority of drivers that ever speed. And I'm sure when people get on the highway, they very rarely ever go 20+ (15+, depending on the jurisdiction) MPH over the limit, which usually leads to an automatic six-month suspension of one's driver's license.
File-swapping should be analagous to speeding. Everyone does it, it's wrong, it's illegal, but in reality only the major offenders -- the ones going 10 MPH faster than you when you're doing 75 in a 55 zone -- get busted and get in major trouble.
Unless, of course, you'd like to put speed govenors (sp?) in all cars, force those devices to report speed data back to the car dealer, and give non-governmental vigilante groups the right to examine those records and get personal information about the drivers using only a court clerk's signature.
It doesn't matter what "everyone knows", it only matters if there's significant non-infringing uses, and that the creators of the tool are not directly and knowingly encouraging people to break the law. Period.
Re:CD sales and concert attendance both down
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That's not a very good analysis. The subject deserves a better one.
I agree completely. But no one had done anything of the sort, so I figured I'd give it a shot. If you can do better, please do. Hard numbers are much better than wild claims.:)
-jdm
Re:Eastman-Kodak a good comparison?
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
E-K might be suffering from their own economic problems, but they're not running to Congress to get laws enacted to protect their business model, or outlaw the competition. My theory is that when new laws are proposed, the first question should be "Is there a valid problem that this is going to help fix?" I think my analysis hints that the problem might be -- not so much piracy -- but just a plain side effect of the economic downturn.
I don't think my numbers are wrong. I think they paint a relatively accurate picture. However since I'm not a professional statistician, I figured it would be better to put this up front so people wouldn't accuse me of being a fraud.:)
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.
Well I agree that "free State" could have a few intepretations:
The "free State" being the new country, which would require militias to defend it.
"free State" actually meaning one of the States in the United States of America. This would mean that the second amendment was telling each individual state to keep a militia (ie, "You guys better be able to defend yourselves").
That each person is in a "free State" of being (as you suggest), and they should protect themselves.
Of the three, I would think that the second would be most likely. The National Guard agrees with this interpretation as well; if you look at the FAQ on their site, it confirms this view. Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.
To be honest, if I had my wish, all guns would vanish tomorrow. However, I still support the right of the citizens to own guns since it is in the Constitution. I just feel that with most amendments there is a reasonable interpretation which can allow for some limits.
First Amendment: free speech, but we do have laws against slander and libel; petition for grievances, but we do have laws against riots (we'll ignore the fact that police often provoke such riots).
Fourth Amendment: search and seizure, but we do allow police to seize illegal material that is in plain view when investigating a crime (aka, don't leave your open Bud cans in the front seat).
Sixth Amendment: trial required in district that crime was committed, but we allow prosecutors and/or defendants the right to petition for a change of venue.
In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?
Yes, but the whole purpose of needing computers and operating servers would be to form a well organized network (given your analogy).
Let us now go 200 years into the future. Computers are ubiquitous, low-power, and freely available to all. The government provides all necessary computational equipment and a low-power, well-organized network. Which is nice, since we've run out of oil, and ancient computers consumed 250-400W each (as opposed to the 0.01-0.02W models of "today"). These particular computers decrease the stablity of the fragile power grid, causing mass blackouts, sucking down bandwidth with their naive TCP implementations, and in general causing problems for society at large.
Where's the need for these excessively dangerous computers? The government provides computers to all, information is free, and the laws allow you to still own computers up to around 120 years old (which is when Intel finally got its IA-64 out the door). Why why why do you have to insist on owning these dangerous objects?
Re the second amendment, I read it as "The country needs to be protected, and since we need a militia to do that people should own guns so they can join their local militia." Wake up!! This is post World War II!! We've got the largest military in the world to protect the security of our free state. By and large, militias are outdated concepts, and the view that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have automatic weapons in every household is absurd.
Absurd in the same sense that they meant "limited times" for copyright to be 95 years, or life+70. Both the second amendment and the copyright clause contain phrases that can be read literally and therefore naively. Should we read them that way?
I said I have nothing against handgun ownership and the right of ordinary citizens to own them. I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles, hollow-point bullets, and anti-tank-grade weapons. And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles. I also don't see how trading one gun death for another lowers gun violence (which is what the parent posted advocated).
Besides, I read a diverse cross-section of news sources. CNN and their ilk are the tabloids, which I ignore. So where is your 85% figure from, Mr Anonymous Coward?
And I'm glad to see you know for a certainty that all criminals deserve to die, and have solid statistical facts to back it up. I wouldn't want any anonymous people with fuzzy from-an-NRA-pamphlet morals clouding the debate.
You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.
Hrm. Pot... kettle... black?
the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans]
I'm a white, middle class male.
Try being agnostic. At that point you're everyone's whipping boy.
Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.
Oh, I'm sorry; is this clashing with your view of reality? Pardon me.
and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves].
I see. So it's the victim's fault for not shooting their attackers? I suppose all the sniper victims should have been in full urban warfare mode, ready for an assault from the treeline at any moment. And how the hell does replacing one victim of gun violence (the original victim) with another victim (the aggressor) decrease gun violence? Explain it to me.
Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote
Well in that case I don't feel like giving you any of my tax dollars. Boy, it's a good thing you don't use any public services like, say, roads or your local police office. Since those are, after all, other people's money. Because if you did I'd have to call you a hypocrite.
Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country. I'm impressed.[/sarcasm]
There are limits on free speech -- such as the imminent harm and "clear and present danger" doctrines; I don't see why owning heavy weaponry falls into that same category. I have nothing against licensed handgun ownership (a la driver's licenses) or even hunting rifle ownership. But, pray tell, why do you (as a member of a militia) need up to and including anti-tank-grade weapons?
Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote
HAHAHAHA!! .
..
...
....
*sniff* Ah. Wow. That was a good laugh. I'd be more impressed if these "environmentally conscious" companies -- I assume you're including ExxonMobil, who let their captains drunkenly slalom through icebergs -- would focus on long-term economic growth by exploring naturally renewable energy sources.
Oh, wait, they don't have to. They can line their pockets and let libertarian apologists make their case for them. It's amazing how well libertarians can play the apologetic sycophants to die-hard conservatives. Don't worry, Alethes, one day you might make enough money to actually have the Republicans pay attention to you, too. Keep trolling, and you, too, could be like Ari Fleicher and say that 1 + 1 = 11 with true passion.
It's too bad that I agree with you on the rest of the issues, though. Including the "vote for who you feel truly represents your views." Unfortunately true progressives that want to represent the people (you remember that who "We the People..." bit, right, as opposed to "We the multi-national conglomerates) and protect the country and our rights don't get on the ballot too often.
As an excersize, remove GNU glibc from your (GNU/)Linux system and reboot. If that doesn't make clear the fallacy of your argument, then I suspect nothing ever will.
Call it GNU/Linux, or just call it Linux if you prefer, but please cease and desist spreading absolute nonsense about what is and is not a part an operating system v. what are user space utilities that run on top of an operating system.
I enjoy how you contradict yourself here. Funny, but I thought glibc was for userspace applications. Every single textbook, paper, and non-MS-influenced publication I can find -- and there are about 5 of them at my desk, including the Tannenbaum book you claim to cite in another post -- defines an operating system as the (as in singular) program which serves as a layer between the hardware and the application author, and presents a consistent system call API to these applications. They say nothing about it being "the program... oh yeah, plus some libraries and utilities." Nothing. They do talk about the API the OS provides for those libraries and utilities, but they are separate.
I agree with you that we shouldn't call it "Berkely/GNU/X/Apache/Netscape/Linux". I just don't see how you can selectively ignore your own arguments when they stop being convenient for you.
[ dig dig dig ] Oooh, I do have troll food with me. Lucky me!:)
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth. Sure, you can get by without gcc, gimp, gnome, ncurses, emacs, bash. But you can start by getting glibc off your systems. And after you delete it, reboot.
I drive a Saturn. Actually it might be a GM/Saturn. I tried to just drive a plain Saturn, but a GM rep told me the engine in my car was built by GM, and that if I wanted to just drive (*chuckle*) a plain Saturn I should try taking the engine out and using it.
So then I coasted in a GM/Saturn. Actually maybe it's a Firestone/GM/Saturn. I tried to just coast in the plain GM/Saturn, but a Firestone rep told me that my car was actually a Firestone/GM/Saturn, and to prove it he took the wheels off my car and told me to take it for a drive.
I was in awe of their intellectual and moral high ground.
But don't worry. Nobody really expects any of you to actually DO anything in defense of free software. It's clear enough that with you folks, it's all take and no give.
Ooooh, you know me so well! I'm a leech. I scavenge for free stuff and claim it as my own. In fact, I wrote the above post just so I could respond to it and satisfy my multiple personalities.
I admire the FSF and the GNU project and RMS's foresight. I actually donate money to the FSF now and again. I just wish he (and some others) would get the bug out of their ass and let people call it what they will. I use "Linux". I happen to use GNU tools when I run "Linux". But it's just that: "Linux". In fact, I'm feeling childish enough that it bears repeating: Linux. Linux linux linux.
If you want to make decisions about political questions that touch on the sovereignty of the individual and the balance between that and the good of the community based on a joke by a grade-B homosexual transvestite commedian, be my guest.
And, of course, making personal attacks on the voice of an idea completely discredits the idea itself. Good show.
I prefer to rely on actual statisitical studies of the effects of various choices together with an analysis of the ethics involved in those choices.
I will, however, have to agree with you here. Sooooo....
It's "they're." The question is what happens in places where its illegal to have guns and a "loose screw" gets one and starts to go to it, vs. places where people can legally carry. And the answer is, where people can legally carry they stop the "loose screw" before he does much damage. Not to mention the fact that fewer people try to commit violent crimes in places where the victim pool can arm themselves legally.
After all that I'm still waiting for a solid statistic or citation. As a starting place, try this page at the Violence Policy Center, that actually cites research into gun violence. (Hint: they disagree with your "facts".)
I realize that my comment isn't funny, but
perhaps you would be better served by using it as a starting point then Eddie Izzard or Bart Simpson.
How so? You a) failed to provide any statistics about an issue on which you took a high moral and ethical ground, b) demonstrated your own egotism about said issue and debating techniques, and c) failed to be even remotely entertaining.
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it.
Sounds like a good remedy to me. I mean, isn't that what this is all about? Making MS compete on the same footing as everyone else and not undercutting competitors by including the software for free with their OS?
Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
Well if IE is so tightly integrated into Windows, I'd have to go with 'yes'. Possibly more than 30% for the average user.
I probably shouldn't be feeding trolls since I have work to do, but what the heck...
DISCLAIMER: I use Ximian Gnome. KDE might do some of this stuff, too, I just don't know about it. Feel free to chime in in support of KDE rather than flame me for being anti-KDE.:)
Great, now you have a few thousand computers with identical root passwords!
I'm glad you're not my sysadmin. An even halfway decent one would have a little script that sets the root account password to something slightly different for each machine, turns off all dangerous services (in this case 'dangerous' includes all forms of connecting to the box) and creates a unique user account and password.
Not to mention that to someone just powering on his or her new computer, being greeted with a login must be a nightmare... Granted you will still get it in XP, they can always configure it from the images to load the default user account automatically, without a login. Even if this is not the case, WinXP is much more appealing in the login process than KDE/Gnome
You can do this in Ximian Gnome, too. And most people I've talked to (non-technical ones included) think that the look and feel of XP is something out of Fischer-Price, not Microsoft; it's childish and just looks ugly.
Linux is a bit easier to break than windows... Ever powered off a Linux machine without halting it? Sometimes it makes u type in commands just to get it to boot up... Not only that, Netscape Navigator tends to crash, and bring everything down with it (very similar to an Internet Explorer and Windows 98 effect) Besides most likely Windows XP would be the operating system of choice.
I have a journaled fs (default in RH 7.2) and I've had the power go out from under it three times in the past six months (including 7.2 beta). Each time my 13 GB IDE partition recovered in about 5 seconds, no problems, no error messages. The times where my FS is so fsck'ed that I need to manually repair usually means it's about time for me to send it back (I was a sysadmin for a cluster of 300+ machines, so this isn't just me talking about my piddly home system).
The other (very obvious) solution to Netscape crashing and taking down X (not Linux, just X) is don't use Netscape! Use galeon or mozilla. I use galeon and am very happy with it. It's fast, reliable, and has tons of neat features.
All arguments aside, if you cannot install Linux, you have no business using it.
Bzzzzt! Sorry, try again. I spent two hours setting up and fully configuring a Linux partition for my fiancee, and she hasn't bothered to boot into Windows since. She uses e-mail, web browses, does some work processing, and plays some games (which work fine under wine). She's non-technical, and has no clue what ARP is, why an ethernet card sending to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff doesn't work, or how to use ifconfig to fix it. But if a 3com driver craps out in windows, do you think the average user is going to fix it themselves? Hell no, they're going to call tech support.
(Go ahead and tell some new computer user to type man rpm and learn from that how to install an rpm package... Due to the various different desktop options, there haven't been many graphical guides to how to do something and they opt for command based ones instead.
Bzzzt! Care to try again? Red Carpet is a great package management tool, and includes an option to install local packages. I spent about 30 seconds showing a non-techie how to use it, and she was good to go from there ("You mean I just click on the software I want and it does everything for me? Neat.")
I will grant you that applications for Linux are a bit thin, but wine can take care of most of that pretty well. Linux distributions have made great software over the last two or three years, and it's (obviously) only going to get better. Whether this is going to have any effect is yet to be seen, but arguing against it on technical grounds is no longer really valid.
The poll is still available here. It carries no warnings or disclaimers that the poll has been massively rigged by Microsoft
Sounds like it's time to put the Slashdot 31337 h@x0r sk1llz to use and swing the poll back the correct way. I mean, are we really going to let some MS-scripting-language-based ballot stuffer beat out a good ol' PERL ballot stuffer??
Slashdot Mirror
Those "indipendint" investigations were all haphazard, and in my mind didn't prove or disprove anything. The bottom line is that the margin of victory was significantly less than the margin of error; we will never know who actually won. Bush just happened to have several things go his way -- it's up to the reader to decide the legality or fairness of such events -- and found himself in the White House.
But Bush sure is lucky that tens of thousands of blacks -- an ethnic group in which 91% voted for Gore -- were "mistakenly" labeled as felons and removed from the rolls. A lawyer for the company that put the list together explains
Statistically speaking, only about 2,500 of the tens of thousands removed would have made the difference in the election.Remember kiddies: better to disenfranchise voters than to actually do our jobs!
-jdm
What if we replaced "Linux" with "Windows" in the Forbes article. By making that change (and a few others), we get this article
A sample:
-jdm
Write emphatic -- but polite -- messages to Forbes, pointing out that their article hinted at the acceptability of committing software piracy. Violation of the GPL == violation of a EULA. Period.
Even PHB's understand that violating EULAs is a Bad Thing(tm) can get you into a boatload of trouble.
My letter:
-jdm
Actually, the DMCA does explicitly state it's illegal to bypass an "effective means" of copy protection. Not even the most tech-clueless judge would consider suncomm's protection effective.
Unfortunately, you're using what you think is the standard definition of "effective". The legal definition of "effective" in the DMCA is this (17 USC 1201(3)(B))
Knowing "you have to press the Shift key when inserting the disc" -- the application of information -- could fall under this definition of "effective".
And that's Reason #701 the DMCA is a Bad Idea(tm).
-jdm
Okaaaay, someone needs to take a chill pill and actually READ the comment to which they are responding. The original poster said
However, the RIAA views buying a CD or tape as licencing the right to play the music, not for the actual media the music comes on, and are pressing for making backup copies (allowed under Fair Use) illegal.
Notice the highlighted part. The poster is not saying what their view is, they are saying what the RIAA claims the situation is. So spare us your rants about misapplied copyright law and the person misreading copyright law.
NOW, the fun part is that iTMS and other online places have a license for their music. Transactions at the iTMS do not trigger the Right of First Sale because you do not purchase the music; you license it for your computer/iPod/whatever.
This is a key distinction, and one that you failed to make. For further discussion of a EULA vs. a sale, see the ProCD case. Google is your friend.
And chill out.
-jdm
Bloom County turned out to be just a bunch of tossed-out references to '80's pop culture.
Hmm, let's see here
- A Republican in office: check
- Rampant corporate and investment corruption: check
- A proposed missile-defense system: check
- John Poindexter-concieved schemes being considered/implemented by the government: check
Sounds like 80's culture (and politics) is back "in" these days.-jdm
A quick clarification ....
This section says that the sender must submit that they are acting on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right; namely, the six listed in 17 USC Section 106. But are they stating under penalty of perjury that they are acting on behalf of the owner of the alleged work for which a right has (possibly) been infringed (i.e., Motown's Usher in my example) or the actual work for which a right has (possibly) been infringed (i.e., Professor Usher).
In other words, can a copyright owner send out takedown notices without fear of perjury charges, as long as the takedown notices claim infringement of a right in one of their works regardless of whether or not the online work is theirs?
Thank you.
-jdm
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
(emphasis mine).Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
Thank you.
-jdm
While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.
And I'm sure it's only a very very small minority of drivers that ever speed. And I'm sure when people get on the highway, they very rarely ever go 20+ (15+, depending on the jurisdiction) MPH over the limit, which usually leads to an automatic six-month suspension of one's driver's license.
File-swapping should be analagous to speeding. Everyone does it, it's wrong, it's illegal, but in reality only the major offenders -- the ones going 10 MPH faster than you when you're doing 75 in a 55 zone -- get busted and get in major trouble.
Unless, of course, you'd like to put speed govenors (sp?) in all cars, force those devices to report speed data back to the car dealer, and give non-governmental vigilante groups the right to examine those records and get personal information about the drivers using only a court clerk's signature.
It doesn't matter what "everyone knows", it only matters if there's significant non-infringing uses, and that the creators of the tool are not directly and knowingly encouraging people to break the law. Period.
-jdm
UVa Computer Science
-jdm
That's not a very good analysis. The subject deserves a better one.
I agree completely. But no one had done anything of the sort, so I figured I'd give it a shot. If you can do better, please do. Hard numbers are much better than wild claims. :)
-jdm
E-K might be suffering from their own economic problems, but they're not running to Congress to get laws enacted to protect their business model, or outlaw the competition. My theory is that when new laws are proposed, the first question should be "Is there a valid problem that this is going to help fix?" I think my analysis hints that the problem might be -- not so much piracy -- but just a plain side effect of the economic downturn.
-jdm
I don't think my numbers are wrong. I think they paint a relatively accurate picture. However since I'm not a professional statistician, I figured it would be better to put this up front so people wouldn't accuse me of being a fraud. :)
-jdm
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.
Well I agree that "free State" could have a few intepretations:
Of the three, I would think that the second would be most likely. The National Guard agrees with this interpretation as well; if you look at the FAQ on their site, it confirms this view. Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.
To be honest, if I had my wish, all guns would vanish tomorrow. However, I still support the right of the citizens to own guns since it is in the Constitution. I just feel that with most amendments there is a reasonable interpretation which can allow for some limits.
In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?
Grr.
-jdm
Yes, but the whole purpose of needing computers and operating servers would be to form a well organized network (given your analogy).
Let us now go 200 years into the future. Computers are ubiquitous, low-power, and freely available to all. The government provides all necessary computational equipment and a low-power, well-organized network. Which is nice, since we've run out of oil, and ancient computers consumed 250-400W each (as opposed to the 0.01-0.02W models of "today"). These particular computers decrease the stablity of the fragile power grid, causing mass blackouts, sucking down bandwidth with their naive TCP implementations, and in general causing problems for society at large.
Where's the need for these excessively dangerous computers? The government provides computers to all, information is free, and the laws allow you to still own computers up to around 120 years old (which is when Intel finally got its IA-64 out the door). Why why why do you have to insist on owning these dangerous objects?
Re the second amendment, I read it as "The country needs to be protected, and since we need a militia to do that people should own guns so they can join their local militia." Wake up!! This is post World War II!! We've got the largest military in the world to protect the security of our free state. By and large, militias are outdated concepts, and the view that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have automatic weapons in every household is absurd.
Absurd in the same sense that they meant "limited times" for copyright to be 95 years, or life+70. Both the second amendment and the copyright clause contain phrases that can be read literally and therefore naively. Should we read them that way?
Apparently, according to you.
-jdm
I said I have nothing against handgun ownership and the right of ordinary citizens to own them. I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles, hollow-point bullets, and anti-tank-grade weapons. And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles. I also don't see how trading one gun death for another lowers gun violence (which is what the parent posted advocated).
Besides, I read a diverse cross-section of news sources. CNN and their ilk are the tabloids, which I ignore. So where is your 85% figure from, Mr Anonymous Coward?
And I'm glad to see you know for a certainty that all criminals deserve to die, and have solid statistical facts to back it up. I wouldn't want any anonymous people with fuzzy from-an-NRA-pamphlet morals clouding the debate.
-jdm
Hrm. Pot ... kettle ... black?
the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans]
Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.
Oh, I'm sorry; is this clashing with your view of reality? Pardon me.
and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves].
I see. So it's the victim's fault for not shooting their attackers? I suppose all the sniper victims should have been in full urban warfare mode, ready for an assault from the treeline at any moment. And how the hell does replacing one victim of gun violence (the original victim) with another victim (the aggressor) decrease gun violence? Explain it to me.
Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote
Well in that case I don't feel like giving you any of my tax dollars. Boy, it's a good thing you don't use any public services like, say, roads or your local police office. Since those are, after all, other people's money. Because if you did I'd have to call you a hypocrite.
Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote
Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country. I'm impressed.[/sarcasm]
There are limits on free speech -- such as the imminent harm and "clear and present danger" doctrines; I don't see why owning heavy weaponry falls into that same category. I have nothing against licensed handgun ownership (a la driver's licenses) or even hunting rifle ownership. But, pray tell, why do you (as a member of a militia) need up to and including anti-tank-grade weapons?
Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote
HAHAHAHA!!
.
..
...
....
*sniff* Ah. Wow. That was a good laugh. I'd be more impressed if these "environmentally conscious" companies -- I assume you're including ExxonMobil, who let their captains drunkenly slalom through icebergs -- would focus on long-term economic growth by exploring naturally renewable energy sources.
Oh, wait, they don't have to. They can line their pockets and let libertarian apologists make their case for them. It's amazing how well libertarians can play the apologetic sycophants to die-hard conservatives. Don't worry, Alethes, one day you might make enough money to actually have the Republicans pay attention to you, too. Keep trolling, and you, too, could be like Ari Fleicher and say that 1 + 1 = 11 with true passion.
It's too bad that I agree with you on the rest of the issues, though. Including the "vote for who you feel truly represents your views." Unfortunately true progressives that want to represent the people (you remember that who "We the People ..." bit, right, as opposed to "We the multi-national conglomerates) and protect the country and our rights don't get on the ballot too often.
*sigh*
-jdm
Are we talking about cramming a bunch of bad slashdot humorists into 1U racks? Because you may be on to something there ...
-jdm
As an excersize, remove GNU glibc from your (GNU/)Linux system and reboot. If that doesn't make clear the fallacy of your argument, then I suspect nothing ever will.
Call it GNU/Linux, or just call it Linux if you prefer, but please cease and desist spreading absolute nonsense about what is and is not a part an operating system v. what are user space utilities that run on top of an operating system.
I enjoy how you contradict yourself here. Funny, but I thought glibc was for userspace applications. Every single textbook, paper, and non-MS-influenced publication I can find -- and there are about 5 of them at my desk, including the Tannenbaum book you claim to cite in another post -- defines an operating system as the (as in singular) program which serves as a layer between the hardware and the application author, and presents a consistent system call API to these applications. They say nothing about it being "the program ... oh yeah, plus some libraries and utilities." Nothing. They do talk about the API the OS provides for those libraries and utilities, but they are separate.
I agree with you that we shouldn't call it "Berkely/GNU/X/Apache/Netscape/Linux". I just don't see how you can selectively ignore your own arguments when they stop being convenient for you.
-jdm
[ dig dig dig ] :)
Oooh, I do have troll food with me. Lucky me!
To all the genius-level deep thinkers who are dissing RMS: put your code where your mouths are. Get every bit of GNU software off your systems. Then see what your "linux" system is worth. Sure, you can get by without gcc, gimp, gnome, ncurses, emacs, bash. But you can start by getting glibc off your systems. And after you delete it, reboot.
I drive a Saturn. Actually it might be a GM/Saturn. I tried to just drive a plain Saturn, but a GM rep told me the engine in my car was built by GM, and that if I wanted to just drive (*chuckle*) a plain Saturn I should try taking the engine out and using it.
So then I coasted in a GM/Saturn. Actually maybe it's a Firestone/GM/Saturn. I tried to just coast in the plain GM/Saturn, but a Firestone rep told me that my car was actually a Firestone/GM/Saturn, and to prove it he took the wheels off my car and told me to take it for a drive.
I was in awe of their intellectual and moral high ground.
But don't worry. Nobody really expects any of you to actually DO anything in defense of free software. It's clear enough that with you folks, it's all take and no give.
Ooooh, you know me so well! I'm a leech. I scavenge for free stuff and claim it as my own. In fact, I wrote the above post just so I could respond to it and satisfy my multiple personalities.
I admire the FSF and the GNU project and RMS's foresight. I actually donate money to the FSF now and again. I just wish he (and some others) would get the bug out of their ass and let people call it what they will. I use "Linux". I happen to use GNU tools when I run "Linux". But it's just that: "Linux". In fact, I'm feeling childish enough that it bears repeating: Linux. Linux linux linux.
Cope.
-GNU/jdm
PS. Linux.
If you want to make decisions about political questions that touch on the sovereignty of the individual and the balance between that and the good of the community based on a joke by a grade-B homosexual transvestite commedian, be my guest.
And, of course, making personal attacks on the voice of an idea completely discredits the idea itself. Good show.
I prefer to rely on actual statisitical studies of the effects of various choices together with an analysis of the ethics involved in those choices.
I will, however, have to agree with you here. Sooooo ....
It's "they're." The question is what happens in places where its illegal to have guns and a "loose screw" gets one and starts to go to it, vs. places where people can legally carry. And the answer is, where people can legally carry they stop the "loose screw" before he does much damage. Not to mention the fact that fewer people try to commit violent crimes in places where the victim pool can arm themselves legally.
After all that I'm still waiting for a solid statistic or citation. As a starting place, try this page at the Violence Policy Center, that actually cites research into gun violence. (Hint: they disagree with your "facts".)
I realize that my comment isn't funny, but perhaps you would be better served by using it as a starting point then Eddie Izzard or Bart Simpson.
How so? You a) failed to provide any statistics about an issue on which you took a high moral and ethical ground, b) demonstrated your own egotism about said issue and debating techniques, and c) failed to be even remotely entertaining.
Bzzzzzt! Sorry, try again.
-jdm
You laugh now but soon, all your popups will be for Jergens, Vasoline and inflatable girlfriends.
Hell, whatever it takes to replace those damn X10 popups, sounds good to me.
-jdm
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it.
Sounds like a good remedy to me. I mean, isn't that what this is all about? Making MS compete on the same footing as everyone else and not undercutting competitors by including the software for free with their OS?
Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
Well if IE is so tightly integrated into Windows, I'd have to go with 'yes'. Possibly more than 30% for the average user.
-jdm
I probably shouldn't be feeding trolls since I have work to do, but what the heck ...
DISCLAIMER: I use Ximian Gnome. KDE might do some of this stuff, too, I just don't know about it. Feel free to chime in in support of KDE rather than flame me for being anti-KDE. :)
Great, now you have a few thousand computers with identical root passwords!
I'm glad you're not my sysadmin. An even halfway decent one would have a little script that sets the root account password to something slightly different for each machine, turns off all dangerous services (in this case 'dangerous' includes all forms of connecting to the box) and creates a unique user account and password.
Not to mention that to someone just powering on his or her new computer, being greeted with a login must be a nightmare ... Granted you will still get it in XP, they can always configure it from the images to load the default user account automatically, without a login. Even if this is not the case, WinXP is much more appealing in the login process than KDE/Gnome
You can do this in Ximian Gnome, too. And most people I've talked to (non-technical ones included) think that the look and feel of XP is something out of Fischer-Price, not Microsoft; it's childish and just looks ugly.
Linux is a bit easier to break than windows ... Ever powered off a Linux machine without halting it? Sometimes it makes u type in commands just to get it to boot up ... Not only that, Netscape Navigator tends to crash, and bring everything down with it (very similar to an Internet Explorer and Windows 98 effect) Besides most likely Windows XP would be the operating system of choice.
I have a journaled fs (default in RH 7.2) and I've had the power go out from under it three times in the past six months (including 7.2 beta). Each time my 13 GB IDE partition recovered in about 5 seconds, no problems, no error messages. The times where my FS is so fsck'ed that I need to manually repair usually means it's about time for me to send it back (I was a sysadmin for a cluster of 300+ machines, so this isn't just me talking about my piddly home system).
The other (very obvious) solution to Netscape crashing and taking down X (not Linux, just X) is don't use Netscape! Use galeon or mozilla. I use galeon and am very happy with it. It's fast, reliable, and has tons of neat features.
All arguments aside, if you cannot install Linux, you have no business using it.
Bzzzzt! Sorry, try again. I spent two hours setting up and fully configuring a Linux partition for my fiancee, and she hasn't bothered to boot into Windows since. She uses e-mail, web browses, does some work processing, and plays some games (which work fine under wine). She's non-technical, and has no clue what ARP is, why an ethernet card sending to ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff doesn't work, or how to use ifconfig to fix it. But if a 3com driver craps out in windows, do you think the average user is going to fix it themselves? Hell no, they're going to call tech support.
(Go ahead and tell some new computer user to type man rpm and learn from that how to install an rpm package ... Due to the various different desktop options, there haven't been many graphical guides to how to do something and they opt for command based ones instead.
Bzzzt! Care to try again? Red Carpet is a great package management tool, and includes an option to install local packages. I spent about 30 seconds showing a non-techie how to use it, and she was good to go from there ("You mean I just click on the software I want and it does everything for me? Neat.")
I will grant you that applications for Linux are a bit thin, but wine can take care of most of that pretty well. Linux distributions have made great software over the last two or three years, and it's (obviously) only going to get better. Whether this is going to have any effect is yet to be seen, but arguing against it on technical grounds is no longer really valid.
-jdm
The poll is still available here. It carries no warnings or disclaimers that the poll has been massively rigged by Microsoft
Sounds like it's time to put the Slashdot 31337 h@x0r sk1llz to use and swing the poll back the correct way. I mean, are we really going to let some MS-scripting-language-based ballot stuffer beat out a good ol' PERL ballot stuffer??
I think not. :) Let's get to work.
-jdm