Are you actually suggesting that the USPTO is not comprised completely of people who are completely clueless when it comes to computers and software? Do you honesty think there is a brain cell between all of them that understands the first thing about internet business, software developement, and computers in general? What planet do you live on?
It's not an ignorance of the law but rather a lack of due diligence to make sure the material was not copyrighted.
Yup, and you can get in just as much trouble for that.
Plus I would hope that most companies would be more concerned about removing the content then for seeking damages which usually would be very limited and subjective.
I would hope that too. Sadly, it rarely works out the way we hope. Most content companies these days are more concerned about "making an example" and hoping that example will act as a deterrent.
How do you stop terrorism? It is actually quite simple. You have three options
(1) Kill everyone who might present a terrorist threat. Downside: you create a lot more terrorists this way, but they think of themselves as "freedom fighters". People get irrational like that when their families are killed.
(2) Appease them. Bow down to every demand, every threat, and never give them cause to harm you. Downside: they own you, once you give in once they know it works and will do redouble efforts.
(3) Lock down your country so tightly that it is almost impossible for anyone to do anything even remotely terror-attack-like. Then all the citizens can enjoy their freedom too...well...be safe. Downside: that is the only freedom they get.
Hmmm, turns out it is not easy, but we are gonna try (1) and (3) just in case. However in real life you can never stop terrorism. No power hungry dictator can ever oppress the population enough that a motivated person cannot kill a bunch of other people. And you can never kill all the terrorists, that action breeds more. And you cannot give in to them or they fuels their fire.
Feel free to let him go. I know I like dirty bombs going off in my neighborhood.
I happen to have evidence that you are a child pornographer. It is secret evidence, however, and I will not charge you with a specific crime or even let you know what we claim to know about you. Do you think parents want perverts like you roaming the streets their children play on? Of course not. You need to be held indefinitely.
I'm sure some whiner will claim that this is unfair and that you should be let go, but I know I do not want child pornographers getting off in my neighborhood.
A more profound question is the following. What is the point of amateur radio when the Internet has connected most of the globe?
Can you do it without infrastructure? Didn't think so.
For me the point is the electronics. I really enjoy building something from scratch than can communicate around the globe and only spending a couple of dollars to do it. Radio propagation is also quite amazing.
You are right though, the draw is not to be able to talk to people around the globe, the internet serves that purpose just fine. It is the hobby aspect that I enjoy.
Well, and the civic service part too. Providing communications in cases of emergency is a noble goal. As a past commander of a search and rescue team I have seen amateur radio used in this capacity as well.
What I don't understand is how some computer geeks seem to have this major hatred toward amateur radio (and vice versa, but not as much). If you don't like it, don't do it.
Ok, say someone hits me intentionally, obviously they are at fault. However, what happens when my air bag does not go off like it is supposed to, or my seat belt breaks. Or perhaps the car just explodes. Now imagine Ford knew about these faults but decided against fixing them, or decided to fix them only with in next years model of car and tell everyone to upgrade if they want a product that is not broken.
Look no matter how you slice it, there really is no perfect analogy, the point I am trying to make is that MS has to share some of the blame here. They wrote the software that made what used to be an urban legend about email viruses a reality, they designed their operating systems so that everyone runs as root and to not run as root limits your ability to run applications (even many of their applications). They designed an RPC endpoint mapper with buffer overruns that allowed worms to hijack the system, and made it so this endpoint mapper could not be turned off, and had to always listen on all eth devices. They have such an abysmal security record that almost nobody in the security industry takes them seriously, and many enterprises have been trying to migrate from them for years on their security track record alone. Legally they have no responsibility, they absolve themselves of that in the EULA, but it would be nice if the tech media held them accountable for the vast number of flaws in their OS and apps that are exploited. Hell, how many exist in IE alone that have been unpatched for years. Last time I checked it was around 20 or so. Writing viruses should not be acceptable, but neither should their actions (or lack thereof) in the eyes of the world.
Finkployd
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi
on
Death Penalty For Hackers?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Really? Why not the same as a auto manufacturer who's defect in a car contributed to an accident? Perhaps car makers should include a EULA that absolves them of all liability too.
Not ignoring, just initially resisting it, and now it seems attempting to half-ass it. How it will end up remains to be seen but MS has a horrible history of tacking on features late in the game (for example, security and network related interoperability with their OS over the years).
They have recently been scrambling to backtrack on their previous stance against backward compatibility, however even their latest news still leaves a bit to be desired. We do not know how many or which games will be supported by so called "pre-loaded emulation profiles". It is a step in the right direction (for once) but still not nearly what I would call "backward compatibility". More like "limited emulation".
In other news Linksys announced that their routers will not support playing Doom3 on them.
If I want a router, I will buy a router. If I want a video game system I will buy a video game system. Making something more expensive by adding features that make absolutely no sense is not going to get my to buy your product. Frankly it wouldn't bother me if today's video game systems couldn't play DVDs either (although I understand why they do, it practically costs nothing to add that when you are using DVD media anyway). What I REALLY want to see is backward compatibility with older systems, which Sony seems to understand. Microsoft clearly does not.
The only way Apple can stop it is to use rock-solid DRM, and as there has never been a rock-solid DRM scheme to date, the odds are good that you'll be able to run Mac OS X on any Intel PC by loading it from a miniscule Linux install.
Perhaps you are looking at this the wrong way. Maybe Apple has been wanting to do this for a long time and has been waiting until Intel had rock solid DRM in their chips. There is certainly plenty of speculation along these lines.
Granted I would still be reluctant to call it rock solid, but hardware based DRM (read: giving a user a private key and trying to keep them from getting at it except via programs you trust, which is all DRM is) would be much stronger than the snake-oil software based DRM that exists today.
Another case of the slashdotter failing to understand the parent post.
I did read the next line, and it answered the question "is the loss of non-essential liberties worth the saftey of other citizens?". What I would like answered is "what liberties are considered "non-essential" in the context of his question"?
Anyone can tell the difference, the question is do they care enough to pay the price? And do they consider HD to be superior in the first place? I've watched a lot of it (too much actually) and in some cases I find it detracts from my viewing enjoyment. Nature shows rock, but I have no interest in seeing the individual pores in Jennifer Aniston's face.
I'll eventually get it, but certainly not at the price today. I imagine you will see a lot of that. Consumers remember what TVs, VCRs, CD Players, DVD players, etc. cost before they became ubiquitous and probably do not feel the need to be the early adopter who pays several times more than it will cost in 3 or 4 years.
TONS of people still think that. Frankly I don't buy DVD's for the picture quality, I would still have VHS if that were the case. I get them for the form factor, long life, and ability to easily skip around.
Forget this public, the opinions of those peons matter very little. This has the potential to affect CONGRESS! All those senators and representatives have Blackberries, and perhaps something that affects them personally will get them to realize there might be a problem with the patent system.
And there is no way a forced recall would ever happen or work, but preventing future sales will still cause an uproar I would think.
Slashdot Mirror
* Somebody out there is still running AIX
For sure, all serious datacenters use Gentoo running on (dude you're getting) Dells.
AIX is still used all over the place, Linux is not quite there yet in many areas.
Finkployd
Are you actually suggesting that the USPTO is not comprised completely of people who are completely clueless when it comes to computers and software? Do you honesty think there is a brain cell between all of them that understands the first thing about internet business, software developement, and computers in general? What planet do you live on?
It's not an ignorance of the law but rather a lack of due diligence to make sure the material was not copyrighted.
Yup, and you can get in just as much trouble for that.
Plus I would hope that most companies would be more concerned about removing the content then for seeking damages which usually would be very limited and subjective.
I would hope that too. Sadly, it rarely works out the way we hope. Most content companies these days are more concerned about "making an example" and hoping that example will act as a deterrent.
Finkployd
killing for a pair of shoes?
The early 90's called, they want their crime back.
Now we beat people for their Ipods.
Finkployd
how do you stop them again?
How do you stop terrorism? It is actually quite simple. You have three options
(1) Kill everyone who might present a terrorist threat. Downside: you create a lot more terrorists this way, but they think of themselves as "freedom fighters". People get irrational like that when their families are killed.
(2) Appease them. Bow down to every demand, every threat, and never give them cause to harm you. Downside: they own you, once you give in once they know it works and will do redouble efforts.
(3) Lock down your country so tightly that it is almost impossible for anyone to do anything even remotely terror-attack-like. Then all the citizens can enjoy their freedom too...well...be safe. Downside: that is the only freedom they get.
Hmmm, turns out it is not easy, but we are gonna try (1) and (3) just in case. However in real life you can never stop terrorism. No power hungry dictator can ever oppress the population enough that a motivated person cannot kill a bunch of other people. And you can never kill all the terrorists, that action breeds more. And you cannot give in to them or they fuels their fire.
Finkployd
Feel free to let him go. I know I like dirty bombs going off in my neighborhood.
:)
I happen to have evidence that you are a child pornographer. It is secret evidence, however, and I will not charge you with a specific crime or even let you know what we claim to know about you. Do you think parents want perverts like you roaming the streets their children play on? Of course not. You need to be held indefinitely.
I'm sure some whiner will claim that this is unfair and that you should be let go, but I know I do not want child pornographers getting off in my neighborhood.
See how that works? No evidence needed
Finkployd
A more profound question is the following. What is the point of amateur radio when the Internet has connected most of the globe?
Can you do it without infrastructure? Didn't think so.
For me the point is the electronics. I really enjoy building something from scratch than can communicate around the globe and only spending a couple of dollars to do it. Radio propagation is also quite amazing.
You are right though, the draw is not to be able to talk to people around the globe, the internet serves that purpose just fine. It is the hobby aspect that I enjoy.
Well, and the civic service part too. Providing communications in cases of emergency is a noble goal. As a past commander of a search and rescue team I have seen amateur radio used in this capacity as well.
What I don't understand is how some computer geeks seem to have this major hatred toward amateur radio (and vice versa, but not as much). If you don't like it, don't do it.
Finkployd
Ok, say someone hits me intentionally, obviously they are at fault. However, what happens when my air bag does not go off like it is supposed to, or my seat belt breaks. Or perhaps the car just explodes. Now imagine Ford knew about these faults but decided against fixing them, or decided to fix them only with in next years model of car and tell everyone to upgrade if they want a product that is not broken.
Look no matter how you slice it, there really is no perfect analogy, the point I am trying to make is that MS has to share some of the blame here. They wrote the software that made what used to be an urban legend about email viruses a reality, they designed their operating systems so that everyone runs as root and to not run as root limits your ability to run applications (even many of their applications). They designed an RPC endpoint mapper with buffer overruns that allowed worms to hijack the system, and made it so this endpoint mapper could not be turned off, and had to always listen on all eth devices. They have such an abysmal security record that almost nobody in the security industry takes them seriously, and many enterprises have been trying to migrate from them for years on their security track record alone. Legally they have no responsibility, they absolve themselves of that in the EULA, but it would be nice if the tech media held them accountable for the vast number of flaws in their OS and apps that are exploited. Hell, how many exist in IE alone that have been unpatched for years. Last time I checked it was around 20 or so. Writing viruses should not be acceptable, but neither should their actions (or lack thereof) in the eyes of the world.
Finkployd
Really? Why not the same as a auto manufacturer who's defect in a car contributed to an accident? Perhaps car makers should include a EULA that absolves them of all liability too.
Finkployd
I don't remember anything about sports bras in that book. And attempted rape?
:P
And the phrase "a sprinkling of shits" is probably not the best way for you to have worded that
Finkployd
Not ignoring, just initially resisting it, and now it seems attempting to half-ass it. How it will end up remains to be seen but MS has a horrible history of tacking on features late in the game (for example, security and network related interoperability with their OS over the years).
Finkployd
They have recently been scrambling to backtrack on their previous stance against backward compatibility, however even their latest news still leaves a bit to be desired. We do not know how many or which games will be supported by so called "pre-loaded emulation profiles". It is a step in the right direction (for once) but still not nearly what I would call "backward compatibility". More like "limited emulation".
Finkployd
Enough of these features drop away like this and it might be.
Finkployd
In other news Linksys announced that their routers will not support playing Doom3 on them.
If I want a router, I will buy a router. If I want a video game system I will buy a video game system. Making something more expensive by adding features that make absolutely no sense is not going to get my to buy your product. Frankly it wouldn't bother me if today's video game systems couldn't play DVDs either (although I understand why they do, it practically costs nothing to add that when you are using DVD media anyway). What I REALLY want to see is backward compatibility with older systems, which Sony seems to understand. Microsoft clearly does not.
Finkployd
Finkployd
The only way Apple can stop it is to use rock-solid DRM, and as there has never been a rock-solid DRM scheme to date, the odds are good that you'll be able to run Mac OS X on any Intel PC by loading it from a miniscule Linux install.
Perhaps you are looking at this the wrong way. Maybe Apple has been wanting to do this for a long time and has been waiting until Intel had rock solid DRM in their chips. There is certainly plenty of speculation along these lines.
Granted I would still be reluctant to call it rock solid, but hardware based DRM (read: giving a user a private key and trying to keep them from getting at it except via programs you trust, which is all DRM is) would be much stronger than the snake-oil software based DRM that exists today.
Finkployd
I fail to see how that would in any way impact how much he gets paid. Perhaps you are forgetting who's wedding it is.. (hint, not the photographer's)
Finkployd
Another case of the slashdotter failing to understand the parent post.
I did read the next line, and it answered the question "is the loss of non-essential liberties worth the saftey of other citizens?". What I would like answered is "what liberties are considered "non-essential" in the context of his question"?
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you?
...
For the sake of argument, however, is the loss of non-essential liberties worth the saftey of other citizens?
I was not aware we had non-essential liberties...can you list them?
Both did, and I doubt we will ever really know which did it first (we know when GCHQ did, not when the NSA did).
Finkployd
Anyone can tell the difference, the question is do they care enough to pay the price? And do they consider HD to be superior in the first place? I've watched a lot of it (too much actually) and in some cases I find it detracts from my viewing enjoyment. Nature shows rock, but I have no interest in seeing the individual pores in Jennifer Aniston's face.
I'll eventually get it, but certainly not at the price today. I imagine you will see a lot of that. Consumers remember what TVs, VCRs, CD Players, DVD players, etc. cost before they became ubiquitous and probably do not feel the need to be the early adopter who pays several times more than it will cost in 3 or 4 years.
Finkployd
TONS of people still think that. Frankly I don't buy DVD's for the picture quality, I would still have VHS if that were the case. I get them for the form factor, long life, and ability to easily skip around.
Finkployd
Forget this public, the opinions of those peons matter very little. This has the potential to affect CONGRESS! All those senators and representatives have Blackberries, and perhaps something that affects them personally will get them to realize there might be a problem with the patent system.
And there is no way a forced recall would ever happen or work, but preventing future sales will still cause an uproar I would think.
Every technological advancement will hurt the poor the most.
Quite the opposite actually, try this equation
new stuff == old stuff less expensive.
This is not an advance in technology, this is government mandated end of life for older, inexpensive technology.
Finkployd
Hey, are you at Penn State too? :)
Finkployd