I ought not reply, you're obviously too dead-set in your opinion...
but don't you think that the RIAA is concerned, now that the 9th circuit has now shown a clear understanding of the value of reverse engineering?
First, their "trade secrets" are blown open, worldwide... and now they know that if their case gets appealed enough, the second highest federal court in California is on the side of DeCSS.
So, just keep sending the EFF money for the DeCSS defense.. and take heart. If the money holds up, to make it though enough appeals, the right side is bound to win.
people whine when MS gets the cops to enforce EULAS for them.. but nobody whimpers when Sun/AOL/Netscape gets governments to do its competing for it...
It is nice to see someone recognize, that big government, and all its regulations, is the *cause* of monopolies, and potential monopolies.
So, instead of setting up antitrust law, the solution is simply to abolish the laws, that set up the large companies to be successful in the first place.
Overregulation, and the teams of lawyers required to survive under such regimes, gives a competitive advantage to large corporations that 1) can afford the lawyers and 2) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage reductions in the regulation and 3) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage changes in the regulation to hurt their competitiors.
Example: Boeing lobbys the US, Airbus lobbys the EU. Result: everyone in aerospace dies, or is gobbled.
The DMCA is vague. On one hand, it bans cracking for piracy, but it allows cracking for compatibility.
So, what happens when someone publishes something that allows both (as DeCSS does)? I bet the courts will have to look back, before DMCA, to settle it.
Good News: This is the 9th Circuit, so any applicable precedent this sets, would probably be usable in the DeCSS suit (as that suit was filed in California).
Bad News: 9th Circuit decisions are only useful in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit includes a selection of Western states. While the 9th is the largest, its decisions carry no official weight in the other 8 Court of Appeals jurisdictions.
Really Bad News: The 9th Circuit, in recent years, has been the most liberal, and therefore the most overturned, by the Supreme Court. So, if Sony can get the Supreme Court to accept an appeal, then it just might go Sony's way, after all.
Good News: The Rehnquist Court doesn't accept many cases these days. The 9th circuit's decision will probably stand.
How many times you access a webpage with a cookie attached, and if you do not accept the cookie, you don't get to access that webpage?
Slow down there... if corporation X sets up their very own web server, they have every right to require cookies for the site to function. Setting up their server in this way, is not ROBBING you of anything!
Don't expect corporations to give you free stuff. Servers, maintenance, and bandwidth cost nontrivial amounts of money. It seems, to me, slightly unreasonable to expect them NOT to try to recoup some of those costs, with advertising, and the additional advertising revenue that cookie-based tracking provides.
Yeah, it's a pain.. but nobody's forcing anything.
~> whois slashdot.com@whois.networksolutions.com [whois.networksolutions.com] The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant: Chris Richardson (SLASHDOT-DOM) 345 S. Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 US
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: Chris Richardson (CR2220-ORG) crichardson@2WIRE.COM 408-205-8643 Fax- 895-1335 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: hostmasterpacbellinternetservices (HO1937-ORG) hostmaster@HOSTING.PACBELL.NET 877-494-7261
Record last updated on 10-Jan-2000. Record created on 17-Nov-1996. Database last updated on 6-Feb-2000 16:13:57 EST.
He made a point to sell slashdot to a non-linux company... specifically rejecting VA, so I understand.
And, no matter how much he says that he has a solid contract, people are now going to be questioning the integrity of his site, and of him personally, because of this.
Everyone keeps wondering... "How will slashdot cover VA fairly, now that VA will own slashdot?"
It seems to me that slashdot has a very large contingent of vocal readers, who seem to either 1) not understand US law or 2) refuse to accept US law.
How can things be made any more clear? Slashdot would never have been sold, except that Andover signed over all editorial control. And, now that VA is buying Andover, VA inherits Andover's assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations. VA can do no more under the law than Andover could.
If VA weren't obligated to abide by the terms of Andover's contract... then neither would Malda and Bates be obligated to give them their site. Don't you think that if corporate law allowed for one-sided nullification of contracts in a merger, someone would have noticed before now?
Example: See those slashboxes on the right side of the screen? Don't you think that, if Andover had true editorial control, that slashboxes for all Andover sites would be turned on by default?
In summary, don't be silly. It's unreasonable to think that anything will change editorially, because of this merger. If you don't trust that the contract selling slashdot to Andover is sound, then I don't really see why you sould trust anything at this site to begin with. Either you take Malda and Bates at their word, that their lawyers won an iron-clad contract, or you don't.
Moderated newsgroups *do* exist, to my knowledge... They send the messages to the moderator via email, and the moderator forwards the good stuff, if I understand correctly...
You forget that the good Commander was probably very cautious in his contract negotiations with Andover.. he says he has a very secure contract, allowing him to keep control.
Now, if you believe that he's lying, just to keep the audience... then I guess you should just go read another news source.
1) Read the subject line. I know that Mars is the red planet, not the Moon.
2) This is an attempt at humor; please don't accuse me of being an idiot, because I try to play off of the fact that China has a Communist government; and that the Communists are associated with the color red.
Slashdot Mirror
I ought not reply, you're obviously too dead-set in your opinion...
but don't you think that the RIAA is concerned, now that the 9th circuit has now shown a clear understanding of the value of reverse engineering?
First, their "trade secrets" are blown open, worldwide... and now they know that if their case gets appealed enough, the second highest federal court in California is on the side of DeCSS.
So, just keep sending the EFF money for the DeCSS defense.. and take heart. If the money holds up, to make it though enough appeals, the right side is bound to win.
people whine when MS gets the cops to enforce EULAS for them.. but nobody whimpers when Sun/AOL/Netscape gets governments to do its competing for it...
It is nice to see someone recognize, that big government, and all its regulations, is the *cause* of monopolies, and potential monopolies.
So, instead of setting up antitrust law, the solution is simply to abolish the laws, that set up the large companies to be successful in the first place.
Overregulation, and the teams of lawyers required to survive under such regimes, gives a competitive advantage to large corporations that 1) can afford the lawyers and 2) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage reductions in the regulation and 3) can afford to hire lobbyists to encourage changes in the regulation to hurt their competitiors.
Example: Boeing lobbys the US, Airbus lobbys the EU. Result: everyone in aerospace dies, or is gobbled.
So, basically, they're calling my mother fat, ugly, and unstable.
:-)
I doubt MS will advertise in a predominately black neighborhood, with a line like that.
I half-way agree with you.. but one question:
:-)
Don't you agree that Britons, and Americans, also have an irrational hatred of the French?
Maybe if that does happen, it'll help the Tories lead a charge to withdraw altogether.
I mean, the EU has no loyalty anymore to democratic or republican forms of government... just look at Portugal's treatment of Austria in recent weeks.
The DMCA is vague. On one hand, it bans cracking for piracy, but it allows cracking for compatibility.
So, what happens when someone publishes something that allows both (as DeCSS does)? I bet the courts will have to look back, before DMCA, to settle it.
Good News: This is the 9th Circuit, so any applicable precedent this sets, would probably be usable in the DeCSS suit (as that suit was filed in California).
Bad News: 9th Circuit decisions are only useful in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit includes a selection of Western states. While the 9th is the largest, its decisions carry no official weight in the other 8 Court of Appeals jurisdictions.
Really Bad News: The 9th Circuit, in recent years, has been the most liberal, and therefore the most overturned, by the Supreme Court. So, if Sony can get the Supreme Court to accept an appeal, then it just might go Sony's way, after all.
Good News: The Rehnquist Court doesn't accept many cases these days. The 9th circuit's decision will probably stand.
Fast is relative.
I'm running a Pentium Pro 233.. and it certainly doesn't *feel* outdated.
Now, if only I had a fast internet connection to match...
How many times you access a webpage with a cookie attached, and if you do not accept the cookie, you don't get to access that webpage?
Slow down there... if corporation X sets up their very own web server, they have every right to require cookies for the site to function. Setting up their server in this way, is not ROBBING you of anything!
Don't expect corporations to give you free stuff. Servers, maintenance, and bandwidth cost nontrivial amounts of money. It seems, to me, slightly unreasonable to expect them NOT to try to recoup some of those costs, with advertising, and the additional advertising revenue that cookie-based tracking provides.
Yeah, it's a pain.. but nobody's forcing anything.
GNUs-Not-Good?
Then I assume, as a matter of principle, you have no GNU software on your computer, at all, right?
No GCC/EGCS, no GNU command-line utilities, no Gimp, no GNOME, no,...
well, you get the idea.
yeah, all the banner ad people have been hit... and their pages defaced too.
:-)
They all say "JunkBUSTERS"
Yesterday, for the first time, I was getting *very* weird errors trying to connect to AOL's IM servers.
It wasn't a client error... it happened with AOL's "QuickBuddy" Java client, along with all the linux ones I tried.
But, the service stayed up, at least for all the time I was on... AOL must be like the good'ol cockroach: able to withstand any man-made holocaust.
Sonny was a proponent of this legistlation, in committee, in the past.
Copyright extension, and the Salton sea.
It's pretty sad, in a sense, that neither was actually passed while he was alive.
~> whois slashdot.com@whois.networksolutions.com
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
Chris Richardson (SLASHDOT-DOM)
345 S. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
US
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Chris Richardson (CR2220-ORG) crichardson@2WIRE.COM
408-205-8643
Fax- 895-1335
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
hostmasterpacbellinternetservices (HO1937-ORG) hostmaster@HOSTING.PACBELL.NET
877-494-7261
Record last updated on 10-Jan-2000.
Record created on 17-Nov-1996.
Database last updated on 6-Feb-2000 16:13:57 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HOSTING.PACBELL.NET 216.100.98.11
NS2.HOSTING.PACBELL.NET 216.100.99.11
He made a point to sell slashdot to a non-linux company... specifically rejecting VA, so I understand.
And, no matter how much he says that he has a solid contract, people are now going to be questioning the integrity of his site, and of him personally, because of this.
Everyone keeps wondering... "How will slashdot cover VA fairly, now that VA will own slashdot?"
It seems to me that slashdot has a very large contingent of vocal readers, who seem to either 1) not understand US law or 2) refuse to accept US law.
How can things be made any more clear? Slashdot would never have been sold, except that Andover signed over all editorial control. And, now that VA is buying Andover, VA inherits Andover's assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations. VA can do no more under the law than Andover could.
If VA weren't obligated to abide by the terms of Andover's contract... then neither would Malda and Bates be obligated to give them their site. Don't you think that if corporate law allowed for one-sided nullification of contracts in a merger, someone would have noticed before now?
Example: See those slashboxes on the right side of the screen? Don't you think that, if Andover had true editorial control, that slashboxes for all Andover sites would be turned on by default?
In summary, don't be silly. It's unreasonable to think that anything will change editorially, because of this merger. If you don't trust that the contract selling slashdot to Andover is sound, then I don't really see why you sould trust anything at this site to begin with. Either you take Malda and Bates at their word, that their lawyers won an iron-clad contract, or you don't.
Sonny Bono, the musician, had a very financial interest in extending copyright.
:-)
I still voted for him, but, for different reasons.
Ever tried to play a Quicktime movie made with the Sorenson codec? Or any of the other new codecs, which xanim doesn't have?
If Apple truly embraced linux, they'd be throwing some code our way.. in the same sense that IBM is porting JFS to linux.
I'll believe that Apple's embracing Linux, when a FULL Quicktime port is released for Linux.
Note that I didn't say an open source port...
Moderated newsgroups *do* exist, to my knowledge... They send the messages to the moderator via email, and the moderator forwards the good stuff, if I understand correctly...
(methinks procmail becomes useful to such people)
Didn't he/she post a story, not too long ago? I remember, someone posted a crack about "turning off comments" in the story.
You forget that the good Commander was probably very cautious in his contract negotiations with Andover.. he says he has a very secure contract, allowing him to keep control.
Now, if you believe that he's lying, just to keep the audience... then I guess you should just go read another news source.
Would you rather be thinking...
:-)
Ball lightning? Bah. One more electric energy, and I can bring out Zapdos!
I didn't think so.
1) Read the subject line. I know that Mars is the red planet, not the Moon.
2) This is an attempt at humor; please don't accuse me of being an idiot, because I try to play off of the fact that China has a Communist government; and that the Communists are associated with the color red.