The knowledge trade is much like an economy; maybe they realize that as fast as they're growing, pushing the envelope further would lead to an amazing boom that would inevitably lead to a massive bust. Good on them for avoiding it.
If you're right, that means that the board is resisting the urge to ride that boom and then hop off in some golden parachutes before everything falls to pieces. That's certainly not what microsoft would do!
Out of idle curiosity, is it safe to click that link, or will doing so get the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc following me? I'd just like to know so that when the feds show up I'll know what to say.
"[I]t is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to[...] (b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information"
I'd say this is pretty Pythonesque. I can't send you data until you invite me. Of course, you sending me an invitation is prohibited unless I invited you to do that. But I can't do that unless you invited me first. Etc.
That just means in theory that VZ customers can't contact each other.
Of course, in theoretical practice VZ customers can't contact anyone by any reasonable and modern protocol.
Of course, in practical practice it means VZ can terminate its customers whenever it wants.
you may not store any material or use Verizon's systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including under US copyright law.
Storing items protected by the DMCA is not against the law. Copying illegally DRM protected items is. I think they got that one confused.
I think you misread it (emphasis added). An "infringement" is AFAIK anything illegal under IP law. But IANAL, TINLA, YMMV, etc.
Except that they don't respond to complaints at all:
Repeated complaints to Verizon and to his [a troll on Wikipedia] family members have been completely unsuccessful at curbing his abuse. Due to collateral damage resulting from his vandalism, large numbers of Verizon customers have been unable to edit Wikipedia.
Well in a court of law the RIAA is obviously and irrefutably right!
I wish I was born ~(~20) (don't yell at me about the math, I'm too young to be educated about this) years ago so that at my current age the biggest evil online would be the cabal (OMG Firefox thinks "online" isn't a word).
Well, in general, if you petition a large number of others for advice on a decision you're not sure of, you'll probably be less likely to do something stupid. After all, the general public has a low but well-known level of intelligence, and as an individual you may be stupider than that yourself.
2. Gutenberg invented his press in 1436. Copyright was invented in Venice in 1486, a mere 50 years later. So no, people have not been writing books without copyright for as long as there's been books. Again, that doesn't address the point.
It appears that that was copyright not-as-we-know-it. The Statute of Anne in 1710 (or 1709, depending on your interpretation) gave rights to the authors and is much closer to modern copyright (the Venice thing was specific to one work anyway). The system in place (in England) before that had given a lot of power to the publishers; the Statute of Anne is seen as the first modern copyright act.
Also, copyright was not life of the author + 70 years for the longest time and it seems we did just fine without such long-lived copyrights for ages.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess he meant the very-very-early 90s, like 199(-1) and 199(-5) (aka the 80s).
And still, if it bothers you that tremendously, you can always drag the window to the full screen size.
But dragging it to full screen size doesn't placate my OCD because it is/could be a few pixels off!
It certainly isn't limited to /.; just look at the editor wars!
Didn't Reagan originate that (feel free to tell me to get off your lawn)?
He is (was) the "technology" supervisor, not the "power and utilities" supervisor.
My uncle's a lawyer, you insensitive clod!
- Netscape extended the web with audio and video capabilities in 1994.
And now Mozilla's doing it again with HTML 5, but this time they're doing it the right way (no stupid plugins).
Thanks to the two party system, elections suck at balancing the power.
Maybe hell froze over while I wasn't looking. Or maybe not.
The knowledge trade is much like an economy; maybe they realize that as fast as they're growing, pushing the envelope further would lead to an amazing boom that would inevitably lead to a massive bust. Good on them for avoiding it.
If you're right, that means that the board is resisting the urge to ride that boom and then hop off in some golden parachutes before everything falls to pieces. That's certainly not what microsoft would do!
Google McLibel for an interesting case where someone refused to apologise for statements that a reasonable person would consider true.
Wikipedia has the link
Out of idle curiosity, is it safe to click that link, or will doing so get the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc following me? I'd just like to know so that when the feds show up I'll know what to say.
Jesus (no I'm not religious; I liberally interpret the 1st amendment), look at that wiring job (see link in parent).
"[I]t is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to[...] (b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information"
I'd say this is pretty Pythonesque. I can't send you data until you invite me. Of course, you sending me an invitation is prohibited unless I invited you to do that. But I can't do that unless you invited me first. Etc.
That just means in theory that VZ customers can't contact each other.
Of course, in theoretical practice VZ customers can't contact anyone by any reasonable and modern protocol.
Of course, in practical practice it means VZ can terminate its customers whenever it wants.
you may not store any material or use Verizon's systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including under US copyright law.
Storing items protected by the DMCA is not against the law. Copying illegally DRM protected items is. I think they got that one confused.
I think you misread it (emphasis added). An "infringement" is AFAIK anything illegal under IP law. But IANAL, TINLA, YMMV, etc.
Except that they don't respond to complaints at all:
Repeated complaints to Verizon and to his [a troll on Wikipedia] family members have been completely unsuccessful at curbing his abuse. Due to collateral damage resulting from his vandalism, large numbers of Verizon customers have been unable to edit Wikipedia.
Source
Parent: Godwin's law or Quirk's exception?
Discuss.
Well in a court of law the RIAA is obviously and irrefutably right!
I wish I was born ~(~20) (don't yell at me about the math, I'm too young to be educated about this) years ago so that at my current age the biggest evil online would be the cabal (OMG Firefox thinks "online" isn't a word).
Definitely hyperbole in the U.S. (at least until ACTA gets ratified... if it is ratified at all). Not so sure about the U.K.
printf("La "); //anybody care to do it in e.g. LISP?
while(zomg linux ftw!){
printf("la ");
}
Then comment your code to that effect.
Well, in general, if you petition a large number of others for advice on a decision you're not sure of, you'll probably be less likely to do something stupid.
After all, the general public has a low but well-known level of intelligence, and as an individual you may be stupider than that yourself.
Average IQ is 100
Hopefully, IQ is higher on /.
2. Gutenberg invented his press in 1436. Copyright was invented in Venice in 1486, a mere 50 years later. So no, people have not been writing books without copyright for as long as there's been books. Again, that doesn't address the point.
It appears that that was copyright not-as-we-know-it. The Statute of Anne in 1710 (or 1709, depending on your interpretation) gave rights to the authors and is much closer to modern copyright (the Venice thing was specific to one work anyway). The system in place (in England) before that had given a lot of power to the publishers; the Statute of Anne is seen as the first modern copyright act.
Also, copyright was not life of the author + 70 years for the longest time and it seems we did just fine without such long-lived copyrights for ages.
IIRC the treaty has little/nothing to do with counterfeiting; the name is a coverup for what it's really about: a global DMCA.
So in other words you're saying that "Trusted Computing" is (potentially) evil?