In the end it works out for people who own property. For kids or people who rent, it works out a lot better. I mean, would you rather keep 85% of your income or 70% or even 67% of your income?
Although ESR is certainly a very out-spoken Open Source advocate, he doesn't strike me as a zealot and seems intelligent enough to offer real solutions to some of the problems the USPTO is having. Granted they committee probably doesn't have a hell of a lot of pull, just a foot in the door will do wonders for the system.
It's up to those of us who are directly involved with the 'Net to insure that privacy will also be an issue, until the 'Net is completely anonymous (which it NEVER will be).
Although I disagree with Internet sales taxes, I do feel it is inevitable. So, I believe it should be the exact same as the person's home state sales tax. Therefore, those of us in New Hampshire still won't have to pay any of that pesky sales tax (and still no income tax either:) ).
Perhaps. But, I know someone whose car was, for lack of a better term, stolen and sold. The guy that eventually bought the car will probably have to give it up, but he will not be punished, since he REALLY had no idea. So I would think that me downloading a copyrighted file and having absolutely no idea would be the same. Of course, each state probably has different laws for this kind of stuff.
I partially disagree with this. So long as I don't know the degree of "copyrightedness" of the file, it's not my fault. But I think that if people very well know they are downloading something that is copyrighted then it is their fault. Of course, it's tough as all hell to prove, but ignorance can't always be an excuse.
I like O'Reilly books a lot, but I really can't see how they can write a whole book on MP3s, unless there is a rediculous amount of political insight in what ought to be a computer book.
Thw Wired article was pretty cool, and hopefully UPnP will work better than the Plug and Pray of MS' USB stuff for Win98. This is the ultimate way to get Linux more widely accepted. Of course, people will not necessarily know they are using Linux, but since there stuff will actually work it doesn't matter. If the AOL/Gateway Network Computer could impliment this, it could not be easier for most people to use Linux and get onto the Internet.
This should not effect sites like Slashdot because normally Slashdot doesn't talk about closed betas, just links to them. Of course, who knows how linking might end up
I just want to know how it is powered, and how things like bed-space and hot water, cook, etc work out. I know, not exactly a techie-question, but how else could I ask?
Although 'Net gaming be be a bane to society, it also allows people to meet from all over the world. It can also be argued that gaming helps bring near-professional level graphics hardware to the masses.
It's really great to see Linux finally getting some games. One step closer to ditching Windoze forever. I think I just read somewhere that XFree86 4.0 will allow better use of the hardware and makes games with similar performance to Windoze. But I also agree with those people who think PCs will have tough contenders with the new PS2, Nintendo's Dolphin, and other high-powered and relatively low-cost consoles. Granted, some games will never be as good on a console as a PC, but I think they are getting better. If someone ever manages to develop a mouse or trackball like device for their console, even strategy games may become available. Who knows, future consoles may even run Linux and chunks of X.
How can someone possibly be removed from their ISP just for expressing an opinion? Instead of removing the victim, why doesn't the ISP try to do something about the attackers? Also, by losing his ISP even though he followed the AUP, isn't that a pretty grey-area issue? I would assume a lawyer would have a field day with that.
I would think that fighting back harshly (ie, not just "returning mail" like the article implies) would make the victim now no better than the attacker. It is pretty obvious the the e-hippies weren't so bright in using one IP (and their home one at that), and that most real crackers would use boat-loads of other systems. The victim in this case was fortunate to be able to trace it back to just one IP. Of course, hopefully DoS attacks will occur less now that security IT professionals know what to look for.
I think what the lawyers are trying to do is say: is that really copyrighted material? Can someone copyright an open standard? I guess they are saying if they are going to add proprietary extensions to Kerberos then Microsoft should not be allowed to call it Kerberos.
Why don't they just do it like each states sales tax. People who live in NH don't pay sales tax, so why should we have to pay a tax on the stuff we buy, from our own homes, just because it's over the Internet. Let each state levy its own Internet taxes.
Here at school I work for the WPI Venture Forum. Perhaps if there is a similar organization where ya'll are you can see if that would be an option. Even for the networking part it may well be worth it.
It's about time the public learned that not every computer-savvy individual is going to take over the world. It's good to see L0pht breaking some molds in the computer security industry as well.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end it works out for people who own property. For kids or people who rent, it works out a lot better. I mean, would you rather keep 85% of your income or 70% or even 67% of your income?
Although ESR is certainly a very out-spoken Open Source advocate, he doesn't strike me as a zealot and seems intelligent enough to offer real solutions to some of the problems the USPTO is having. Granted they committee probably doesn't have a hell of a lot of pull, just a foot in the door will do wonders for the system.
It's up to those of us who are directly involved with the 'Net to insure that privacy will also be an issue, until the 'Net is completely anonymous (which it NEVER will be).
Although I disagree with Internet sales taxes, I do feel it is inevitable. So, I believe it should be the exact same as the person's home state sales tax. Therefore, those of us in New Hampshire still won't have to pay any of that pesky sales tax (and still no income tax either :) ).
Perhaps. But, I know someone whose car was, for lack of a better term, stolen and sold. The guy that eventually bought the car will probably have to give it up, but he will not be punished, since he REALLY had no idea. So I would think that me downloading a copyrighted file and having absolutely no idea would be the same. Of course, each state probably has different laws for this kind of stuff.
I partially disagree with this. So long as I don't know the degree of "copyrightedness" of the file, it's not my fault. But I think that if people very well know they are downloading something that is copyrighted then it is their fault. Of course, it's tough as all hell to prove, but ignorance can't always be an excuse.
I like O'Reilly books a lot, but I really can't see how they can write a whole book on MP3s, unless there is a rediculous amount of political insight in what ought to be a computer book.
Well, as Al Gore invented the Internet, maybe BT will have to pay him royalties.
Thw Wired article was pretty cool, and hopefully UPnP will work better than the Plug and Pray of MS' USB stuff for Win98. This is the ultimate way to get Linux more widely accepted. Of course, people will not necessarily know they are using Linux, but since there stuff will actually work it doesn't matter. If the AOL/Gateway Network Computer could impliment this, it could not be easier for most people to use Linux and get onto the Internet.
This should not effect sites like Slashdot because normally Slashdot doesn't talk about closed betas, just links to them. Of course, who knows how linking might end up
I just want to know how it is powered, and how things like bed-space and hot water, cook, etc work out. I know, not exactly a techie-question, but how else could I ask?
Although 'Net gaming be be a bane to society, it also allows people to meet from all over the world. It can also be argued that gaming helps bring near-professional level graphics hardware to the masses.
It's really great to see Linux finally getting some games. One step closer to ditching Windoze forever. I think I just read somewhere that XFree86 4.0 will allow better use of the hardware and makes games with similar performance to Windoze. But I also agree with those people who think PCs will have tough contenders with the new PS2, Nintendo's Dolphin, and other high-powered and relatively low-cost consoles. Granted, some games will never be as good on a console as a PC, but I think they are getting better. If someone ever manages to develop a mouse or trackball like device for their console, even strategy games may become available. Who knows, future consoles may even run Linux and chunks of X.
How can someone possibly be removed from their ISP just for expressing an opinion? Instead of removing the victim, why doesn't the ISP try to do something about the attackers? Also, by losing his ISP even though he followed the AUP, isn't that a pretty grey-area issue? I would assume a lawyer would have a field day with that.
I would think that fighting back harshly (ie, not just "returning mail" like the article implies) would make the victim now no better than the attacker. It is pretty obvious the the e-hippies weren't so bright in using one IP (and their home one at that), and that most real crackers would use boat-loads of other systems. The victim in this case was fortunate to be able to trace it back to just one IP. Of course, hopefully DoS attacks will occur less now that security IT professionals know what to look for.
How do you think the new wave of Beowulf clusters will effect all of supercomputing, not just forcasting?
Good point.
I think what the lawyers are trying to do is say: is that really copyrighted material? Can someone copyright an open standard? I guess they are saying if they are going to add proprietary extensions to Kerberos then Microsoft should not be allowed to call it Kerberos.
Why don't they just do it like each states sales tax. People who live in NH don't pay sales tax, so why should we have to pay a tax on the stuff we buy, from our own homes, just because it's over the Internet. Let each state levy its own Internet taxes.
Here at school I work for the WPI Venture Forum. Perhaps if there is a similar organization where ya'll are you can see if that would be an option. Even for the networking part it may well be worth it.
It's about time the public learned that not every computer-savvy individual is going to take over the world. It's good to see L0pht breaking some molds in the computer security industry as well.