SCO management has admitted that they are in financial trouble. And this is quite possibly one way to lift SCO out of potential bankruptcy. I'm not sure IBM's threat would keep SCO from trying to collect; especially if collecting is what is keeping SCO alive.
Desperate people/companies do desperate things. IBM could bankrupt SCO without noticing. If it's in IBMs best interest to do so, they will. Linux now has a pet 800lbs gorilla. Gotta watch them.
He said no such thing. The comment to which you responded was itself a response to someone asking whether this was a copyright or patent issue, and the section to which you object was laying out the reasons why the claim would be related to patents, not copyright.
Welcome to Being Wrong 101.
Original Post:
What intellectual property does SCO claim to own? Are these patents, or copyrights, and over what code or protocols?
Response:
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines... it innoculates against entities such as SCO submarining code into the OS and then making copyright claims down the road.
I didn't say anything about it being involved with copyrights. I was objecting to his reasoning as to why it wouldn't be encumbered by a patent.
What I was saying is his understanding of the patent system is flawed. It doesn't matter who submits it, and under what license, it is still a patent and it is still enforcable if you choose to distribute it. SCO can submit code, it can be accepted. It's up to the software maintainer to work out an agreement.
Since the rest of his comment was too long to quote, I brought in the only part that wasn't filled with a bunch of paranoia and other absolute drivel. Such as this:
What they own are almost certainly software patents, likely patents written from looking at the source code written and developed by others, and granted rubber-stamp style from the notoriously irresponsible US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As others have said, such are the equivelent of 'nuclear weapons' for IT, and if SCO were to do such a foolish thing (as a consiquence of their own stupidity, or shilling for Microsoft), the end result will be no GNU/Linux in the United States (the only country stupid enough to recognize such patents), and a United States with an IT industry that would be irrelevant not within the generous twenty years Alan Cox suggests, but within a scant 5 years at best.
Here, he proves he has no idea of what the patent in question is about (System V init) nor does he have any grasp for how patent law is actually applied. He has no idea about the patent encumbrance portion of the GPL either, or else he would have quoted that. He has no idea about how the patent system or prior art works, otherwise he wouldn't have said what he did.
His post was largely FUD, worthly of a Microsoft representative. If it was less paranoid, I'd worry about more people believing it.
Now you're just name calling...an ad hominem attack. This is even MORE ironic because I don't even own a PVR! Just because I've refuted the logic of your argument against those who do use PVRs you now think you have the right to recklessly accuse me of bad behavior. That's pretty weak. Believe it or not, I use my 7 year old videocassette recorder almost exclusively to view videotapes I rent; I only own one blank videotape and have only used the VCR TWICE to record a TV program. This underlines how desperate you are to make your ill-conceived point.
Sorry you misunderstood. This was a general "you" not directed at you as a person. In the sense of, "You can run around and shoot people in the game and it's fantastic" when talking to someone that doesn't own said video game.
There is absolutely no "implied commitment" by the viewer to watch commercials, as there is equally no "implied commitment" by the advertiser to provide you anything of value. It's a case of "take it or leave it"...on both sides of the tube. You clearly aren't a lawyer.
Everybody knows that commercials are what pay for the TV shows to be produced. There is no debate about this. By consisting skipping the commercials, you [in the everybody who does it, not you as a person] are causing financial loss to the network. No matter how you look at it, that's what happens.
This is TRULY IRONIC. *I'm old enough to remember advertisements that said that smoking WAS healthy.* Your argument is just as perverse as those advertisements were, advertisements that marketed cigarettes to young people--advertisements that you imply we all had an obligation to watch.
Just about the cigarettes, I'm assuming you are talking about the Camel ads that made smoking look cool. There has never been an ad that said that they improved health.
I did not imply everybody had an obligation to watch. I said that you have an obligation to not use technology to strip out every commercial on every show you watch. This is where you seem to be confused.
Don't you find it the least bit ironic that you have just admitted to changing the definition of thievery...just as the big media have attempted to do? How much more of your freedom do you wish to give away simply by allowing others to redefine your "old school" rights for you? You seem desperate to justify all this by vaguely equating it to blatant copyright infringement, a comparison that simply isn't valid.
They don't take any of my rights. I don't watch TV. I decide to get riled up about music, the PVR folks are wrong. So are people who trade music without paying a dime. If people continue to do wrong, they will have their "rights" taken away. I didn't realize that people had a right to strip adverts out of a show though. I didn't admit to changing the definition, I merely commented that to the rest of the world depriving someone of something, even if it's tertiary financial damage, but taking a non-tangible digital copy of something, is theft. Sorry, but most people agree. Most people say, "Copying mp3s over the internet without buying the CD is theft." Definitions are what the masses say they are, not what you think to satisfy your agenda or your opinions on what is and is not ethical.
No, what they are doing was always perfectly legal using the old technology (editing out or skipping over commercials), so doing it with newer, more efficient technology isn't any less legal, no matter how much the advertisers yammer about it. You seem to think that improvements in technology that collide with certain business perogatives ought to be illegal and that laws ought to be reinterpreted to give advertisers rights they never had to begin with. You're entitled to your personal beliefs, but regardless of how strongly you feel them they aren't equivalent to law.
It's not a question of editing it out. Previously you did it by hand, or with rough time estimates. Now it is automated and ensures you never have to see a commercial as long as you have your PVR on. That is wrong. No matter how you try to justify it, it's wrong.
Beliefs create laws, in case you missed that. As I said before, soon you will have to enter a special code in, or pay per show, and everyone will complain because they were too fucking stupid to just get up and take a piss instead of cutting out all the commercials.
It's legal now, but soon it probably won't be. At least not civilly. Wait for agreements before you watch a show, or at the bottom of every show.
Notice that what you're quoting is about copyright Copyright dealing [incorrectly] with patent royalties. He was saying that if SCO submitted patented code to a GPLd project than SCO loses the rights to enforce that patent. That is wrong. In his words, he seems to be under the impression that SCO is trying to exert copyright infringement claims. In which case it's also wrong. So no matter what his point was, he was wrong.
Ad hominem attacks aren't really very productive, and in this case you again missed (ignored?) the point. The United States sets precident for most of the world's treaties on international patent and trademark law. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to attack the US when speaking of the utter mess that such treaties have created. China is, in fact, making rather grand (if, as yet, unsuccesful) efforts to move toward compliance with those treaties in order to gain an equal footing with the west in international trade.
His point was absolutely ludicrious, and was hard to respond with any degree of respect towards him. What a lot of people fail to understand is that the US is not the center of the patent treaties. The patent system in the US needs reformed, but in a lot of countries it's improved upon. The treaties are trying to unify global commerce by allowing patents in one country to be valid (enforcable) in another. This has nothing to do with the United States at all.
What mess has the treaties caused? It's bringing a global standard together. Why is that a bad thing? It means that the US will have access to the patents of other countries for research and ideas. It's as if you people think that if something is patented it's some big secret that you can't even talk about. You can view and discuss, and educate yourself on existing patents. In order for China to fully be recognized in the various pacts, they will have to fix their copyright issues first.
Attacking the United States for working with treaties for working towards global unification of the patent system is pointless, irrelevant, and misguided. The United States is not alone, and when dealing with the other countries carries no more weight than any of them. The difference is the US has more experience than the other countries. The US has more patents, and typically a longer running history of a patent office.
Again, the reason why the US leads with precedents is because of experience, not because we have a gun to every other countries head saying "Conform to our standards or we shoot you." That's all there is, people who find a conspiracy for the favor of big business in international patent and trademark treaties have no understanding of business or patent law at all.
OK, so from your comments I assume that you've done an economics or maybe business ethics course. Nice. Well done. Now go and look at the real world.
Never, I'm self taught. Programmer by career, businessman by turn of events. So be it. I study business and economics more than software development at this point in my life.
You can hide your head in the sand as much as you want but this is how the system works. As the original poster put it; little kids in the playground screaming 'but I thought of that first, you can't use it'. That is the idiots approach to patents. It's not about lack of sharing. Patents are designed to continue shared knowledge. Patents are documented fully, design documents are also publicly available. You can get licenses, often times royalty free, to work with patents. Look at the vast armada of IBM patents that they allow people ot use for free. But no, patents are bad because you fail to understand how the real world works.
News flash: Without patents, the big companies will fuck you. End of story. Nothing you can do about it, you don't have the money to stop them.
Any larger company will be able to find a ton of patents that the smaller guy has infringed, and will offer to 'waive' them in exchange for free licensing rights to the little guys invention.
This is a bit wrong. A big company that wants the little guys invention will often times not find patent infringement. If there is, there is a precedent setup for those patents being royalty free. What happens is the big companies try to buy exclusive rights to market and use that patent, there by allowing the little guy to make money and the big company still makes money.
This is far more common than the little guy getting screwed, you really need to start paying attention in the world of business. The only little guys who get squashed are those trying to take too big of a bite out of the big companies. When you sleep with a bear, don't kick it in the nuts.
Yeah, because as we all know, absolutely nothing at all, no sirree, was ever invented before we had patents....... The very word "innovation" cannot have existed before then, since it had no meaning.
The difference is you know what wasn't around before the patent system? Huge corporations bent on greed and stock price. This is why patents are necessary.
I've seen this asserted many times, but never heard any evidence. Why do you think patents are a good thing?
Have you ever filed a patent, or been involved in patents in anyway? My guess is no, because if you had, you would understand and appreciate their merits.
I have a good idea, lets call it Flubberglitzen. It's something revolutionary and consists of 15 microsystems that will work together and be a complete networking solution, operating system, and extends computing to a whole new level. I patent all 15 pieces of it, and I grant royalty-free development for open projects that follow my guidelines.
Patent Good.
Lets say I'm more commercially minded, and I make developers pay $100 for the right to develop addonds to Flubberglitzen. I sell Flubberglitzen, and get paid developer royalties.
Patent still Good.
Lets say I'm just your typical Information Wants to Be Free zealot, and I don't patent it but I then release it to a news group. Then, a big corporation takes the concept (not the source or anything) and files their own patents slightly different to show their innovation that's piggy backed and now Flubberglitzen becomes corporate controlled and I would have to hire my own patent lawyer to not only prove prior art, but prove that my system was the inspiration for theirs. Since everything is free in my life, I can't afford a good lawyer and I get crushed by said corporation.
Patent bad.
Patents are a necessary part to prevent human greed from overpowering ethics. Given the chance, people will screw over other people. Patents make it a little bit more difficult.
This wins the ass-backward award for today. Did you read the story about what SCO are trying to do WITH patents? Don't you think that creating a $100+ Linux tax because they filed some obvious software tricks first is 'bullying smaller inventors' and keeping them 'out of the market' WITH patents?
Apparently you failed to see what I was saying with "Abuse". Say it with me here, Patents that are abused are bad. Patents that are not abused are good. It's not a hard concept here.
There is a good reason why the patent system is in existence. Obliterating the patent system will not have a positive result. Go take some economics and business ethics courses and you will understand. Little guys need protection, and the patent office gives them that.
Please have a good old cogitate on the points in the original post, it deserves +5 insightful, you should re-examine your thoughts on the matter. The original post should be locked away, never to see the light of day. It was absolutely stupid, assinine, and paranoid.
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines... it innoculates against entities such as SCO submarining code into the OS and then making copyright claims down the road.
Sorry to inform you, but if any developer writes code that violates SCOs patents it doesn't matter if it is GPLd or not. The patent encumbrance clause of the GPL states that if there is a patent dispute than distribution is forbidden.
This doesn't matter who wrote the code, or who put it in. Welcome to Patent Law 101: If you violate a patent, the patent holder can selectively enforce it.
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony, Ooook, it's time to go back on the meds and take off the tinfoil hat. There is no American Hegemony. In case you have failed to notice, a lot of Chinese are making a fortune on the internet. They don't care about the US. The US (and Americans) like to think they are much more important and far reaching than they are.
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last.
Sorry, you last all bits of sanity when you were writing this one out. First off, SCO is not a "knowledge squatter" -- they hold patents. Big deal, so does IBM. IBM strongly suggested SCO shouldn't do this, and my guess is that if SCO tries it IBM will fuck SCO. It's called checks and balances, and most markets have it. If there were no patents in place, than innovation would be halted. The bigger companies in existence would bully the small inventors and entrepeneurs out of the market and then who would keep the information open? No one. Patents are a good thing because not only do they expire, but they also force disclosure and public knowledge.
So.. again, relax man. The world isn't as bad as you see it. Patents are a good thing, when they aren't abused or issued improperly.
The viewer who declines to view the advertising is not a thief as there is no commitment by the viewer to watch the commercial, just as there is no requirement that your read your junk mail--even though junk mail may subsidize our mail system
It's an implied commitment. If you don't like commercials, fine, don't watch them. But then you are going to bitch when they cancel all the shows you like because advert dollars don't work. Or they'll make you enter in a special code that gets displayed through the adverts and you will bitch about that.
Not thinking you are screwing over the networks by deliberately circumventing all adverts with PVRs is like trying to say smoking is healthy. You are try to excuse your own bad behavior. You will lose. Maybe it's not the old school definition of thievery, but that's the ironic thing about the "Give Me Everything I want for Free" geeks. They use new technology, and when someone says it's wrong with old words, they say, "Nope, because it's digital it can't be theft!"
Well, you know what, words evolve too. Advert skippers are cheating the networks out of money, whether it's now or 6 months down the road. They're stealing free programming, by not following through with what was an implied contract with the networks. That's like saying, "He told me I could take his car", when he meant "You can borrow it for a day" and saying it's not theft. And yes, you are depriving them of money, so there is a tangible loss.
I hope that they do implement a really annoying method of having to enter in a special code during the commercials in order to watch the show. Then every one of the PVR owning commercial skipping assholes will be bitching their heads off about their choices being taken away and they did it all to themselves.
Wether or not someone skips commercials has no effect on the money that was paid for the commercial.
Wow... ok, lets break it down like this. PVRs are becoming very widespread. The more people that buy them, the more people that will skip adverts. Eventually, the price for television adverts will drop and your favorite shows will go away. I suppose it would be an implied contractual breach. Maybe they just need to put a little warning before the show saying, "By watching this show you agree to not circumvent the commercials"
I don't really care, I don't watch TV. But the way I see it, everybody who does skip the commercials using PVRs are in fact depriving the networks of something that they are supposed to get, the users attention.
Thievery is when someone deprives someone else of something that belongs to them.
You are depriving them of something that belongs to them. Advertising dollars. I don't buy into the music piracy shit, but you are stealing free programming when you strip out all the adverts from every show you watch.
If you try to justify getting something for nothing, by subverting the required payment, than I feel bad for you and your neighbors. You obviously fail to understand communal ethics.
I didn't say he did, did I. Uhm, you did say that he said that.
Jeez. If you're going to come up with some ludicrously over the top attack on someone, at least try to figure out what they said.
You attempted to label Kellner as an anti-freedom enemy-of-slashdot because he said that if you deliberately skip all adverts than you are a thief, and you turned it around and said, and I quote verbatim:...Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves
So, exactly which part of this am I not understanding that you said? The part where you lie about him, or the part where you say you never said it?
If you're going to use "FUD" to describe something that has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft's strategies to undermine competitors by making potential customers believe there are risks associated with purchasing those competitor's products, you could at least do me the favour of adding the usual Usenet insults to boot.
Sorry, but lying about something falls under that category. You are trying to undermine him by spreading things that aren't true. So... again, what am I doing here that is wrong?
Damned Slashbot. Yes, I'm the Slashbot because I'm defending the CEO of TW. Sure... I didn't actually think you would discredit yourselv further, thanks.
My kanji vocabulary is probably about 2nd grader or so myself... I know most of the 1st grade kanji, and then a smattering of other stuff. (the flip side is that my vocabulary as a whole is about the same)
If you have a good grasp of the dynamics of the language it should be pretty easy. With the exception of certain "shared" sounds (like ka, ego ka nihongo, or wakarimasuka) you can pick out the subjects in Japanese based upon the binding words.
You know, if you actually read my comment rather than just stopping at the link, you'll see that that's implied. The comment was that he said that "PVR owners are thieves because they skip the adverts". No, he never said that. Go back to the original 2400 article. Follow the link from the original/. story, back to the original 2600 story, which has the full quote.
Again, if we're talking of "over-the-top reaction" I'm pretty sure that saying that someone says something that they did not say is much worse than someone correcting you. But that's fine, you're just a slashbot. If the company is in this month/years badlist, than anything that someone says must be taken out of context, summarized incorrectly, and show that person is an enemy of free speech and they kick small puppies....it's more irritating that way. So is saying things that aren't true. Then saying they are true.
PVRs are bad for the industry in the current business model. Why? Because they allow people to skip advertisements. Why is this bad? Because the commercials are funded by advertisements. What is it when someone receives something without coming through with the payment of that? Thievery.
Now, the point comes to show that if you just watch a show you didn't agree to watch the commercials, that's fine. It's a valid point. But, it is implied that you agree to watch the commercials in exchange for free programming. What he said was absolutely valid.
Now, you were going to say something else to discredit yourself?
Time Warner is the part of AOLTW that includes Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves [slashdot.org] because they skip the commercials. Ironically, this person is head of the remains of what was Ted Turner's empire before it was swallowed up.
Wrong, and FUD. Granted, Kellner isn't exactly up on the current evolving digital market but he did not say PVR owners are thiefs. He said PVRs allow Advert skipping, and people who skip adverts are thiefs. He explains this in detail saying, "The programming is ad supported, when you skip those ads you are stealing programming."
What you (and Slashdot) are saying as a typical/. metaphor: Oil funds terrorism, so all people who own cars are terrorists.
If she were treated harshly in regards to grading, that's easily provable. Then would be the time to take the issue to the department head, principal, school board, whatever. My point is that simply getting pissed off and being bitter about the situation doesn't accomplish anything besides making one feel sorry for herself.
Exactly. I've had teachers that grade me down for BS reasons, and it's easily provable. There is also those wonderful people called "Superiorors". If you are truly good, than stand up for what you believe in, because it is really easy.
I run into this way too often: Female: You don't think I belong in IT because I'm a woman! Me: No, I don't think you belong in IT because you are an idiot.
Tons of the IT women that I know think they get extra points purely because they have a vagina. I'm sorry, but when someone who is supposed to be a "Web Developer" doesn't know how to write a quick javascript function to determine what the value of a checkbox is, they do not belong in IT. Whether they are a girl or a guy.
Most of the people who bitch about unfair treatment are the ones who say they know more than most the class, and are absolute idiots that don't know a damn "real" thing about IT. Those who get unfair treatment and know what they are doing, resolve it. Usually.
that's exactly why i hate Microsoft Natural keyboards... and why i love IBM/Lexmark keyboards.
For someone with long hands, the Natural style keyboards a are a godsend. I can hit about 130WPM on a natural or about 70 on a normal keyboard. Model Ms I can push the 100WPM mark because their key spacing is a bit easier, but nothing beats the comfort of the Natural wave style for me.
For coding, it's even easier, but I've been thinking that I'd like to design a keyboard with the most used functional buttons (* & ^ % # !) in a row down below the space bar that the thumbs can easily hit. The thumbs are the most underworked part of typing, hitting the space bar and nothing else... make em work!
Ok, it looks like two G4 towers that ran into each other at high speeds. Without handles. So what's the point? Yay, it has a folding down chasis design, but how the hell are you going to find the room in the back of the computer to do this? The reason why the Apple towers were so great, is they folded outward, not backward.
It seems to me to be another "We're trying to clone Apple and not get sued by mimicing their design so we're just making it stupid" case.
Because of this I can now take another approach - that of being modest - in interviews, because I let my cv talk for me.
Exactly, I used to have to talk and talk to get a job, after a few years I hand in my resume and wait for the phone call. I sit down, and 99% of the people that see my CV think it's bullshit. I think proceed to detail out all the technology, in the most modest way, and get the call for the job.
I think my longest period from interview to asking to take the contract was about 5 hours.
Modesty works when you have a CV to back it. Until then, be a sales person. Pitch yourself, but never say you can do something you can't do.
Well they're both motor vehicles which take you from A to B, powered by an internal combustion engine, travelling on the non-internet super-highway.
No, Seymore's 1977 accord will take you approximately 3/4(B-A) then it breaks down and you get laughed at.
The title of the article is "More Info on the October 2002 DNS Attacks". Personally I think a comment about another large-scale internet attack, carried out in the same way, is pretty on-topic. Well, except one in a mission critical DNS based attack and the other is an attack on a bunch of fat guys sitting in their mothers basement jacking off to kitty porn.
The Dalnet IRC network has been crippled for months due to continuing DDOS attacks. Now Dalnet is based on a small number of central IRC servers (20-30 I believe) so it isn't too far removed from the core DNS infrastructure (i.e. the root DNS servers).
That is like saying Seymore's geek-mobile 1977 Honda Accord isn't too far removed from a TVR Tuscan 6.
Here's why no one in the FBI cares about DalNET or their DDoS attacks: No one outside of DalNET gives a shit.
How did this get modded up? It's pretty damn offtopic. Yes, it deal with DDoS attacks but in no way is it remotely relevant to DNS root servers.
The P2P options continue to be more and more diluted. Finding a specific song that I am interested in is now not nearly as straight forward. If they continue to make rubble out of boulders, it will only get worse.
I'm not understanding why you aren't using a client that can connect to multiple networks then. It really isn't that hard actually, gtk-gnutella does it just fine. The more they shutdown, the more get created, and as long as they are open the pirates win! Now let me grab my eyepatch and parrot...
Slashdot Mirror
SCO management has admitted that they are in financial trouble. And this is quite possibly one way to lift SCO out of potential bankruptcy. I'm not sure IBM's threat would keep SCO from trying to collect; especially if collecting is what is keeping SCO alive.
Desperate people/companies do desperate things. IBM could bankrupt SCO without noticing. If it's in IBMs best interest to do so, they will. Linux now has a pet 800lbs gorilla. Gotta watch them.
Welcome to Being Wrong 101.
Original Post:
Response:
I didn't say anything about it being involved with copyrights. I was objecting to his reasoning as to why it wouldn't be encumbered by a patent.
What I was saying is his understanding of the patent system is flawed. It doesn't matter who submits it, and under what license, it is still a patent and it is still enforcable if you choose to distribute it. SCO can submit code, it can be accepted. It's up to the software maintainer to work out an agreement.
Since the rest of his comment was too long to quote, I brought in the only part that wasn't filled with a bunch of paranoia and other absolute drivel. Such as this:
Here, he proves he has no idea of what the patent in question is about (System V init) nor does he have any grasp for how patent law is actually applied. He has no idea about the patent encumbrance portion of the GPL either, or else he would have quoted that. He has no idea about how the patent system or prior art works, otherwise he wouldn't have said what he did.
His post was largely FUD, worthly of a Microsoft representative. If it was less paranoid, I'd worry about more people believing it.
Now you're just name calling...an ad hominem attack. This is even MORE ironic because I don't even own a PVR! Just because I've refuted the logic of your argument against those who do use PVRs you now think you have the right to recklessly accuse me of bad behavior. That's pretty weak. Believe it or not, I use my 7 year old videocassette recorder almost exclusively to view videotapes I rent; I only own one blank videotape and have only used the VCR TWICE to record a TV program. This underlines how desperate you are to make your ill-conceived point.
Sorry you misunderstood. This was a general "you" not directed at you as a person. In the sense of, "You can run around and shoot people in the game and it's fantastic" when talking to someone that doesn't own said video game.
There is absolutely no "implied commitment" by the viewer to watch commercials, as there is equally no "implied commitment" by the advertiser to provide you anything of value. It's a case of "take it or leave it"...on both sides of the tube. You clearly aren't a lawyer.
Everybody knows that commercials are what pay for the TV shows to be produced. There is no debate about this. By consisting skipping the commercials, you [in the everybody who does it, not you as a person] are causing financial loss to the network. No matter how you look at it, that's what happens.
This is TRULY IRONIC. *I'm old enough to remember advertisements that said that smoking WAS healthy.* Your argument is just as perverse as those advertisements were, advertisements that marketed cigarettes to young people--advertisements that you imply we all had an obligation to watch.
Just about the cigarettes, I'm assuming you are talking about the Camel ads that made smoking look cool. There has never been an ad that said that they improved health.
I did not imply everybody had an obligation to watch. I said that you have an obligation to not use technology to strip out every commercial on every show you watch. This is where you seem to be confused.
Don't you find it the least bit ironic that you have just admitted to changing the definition of thievery...just as the big media have attempted to do? How much more of your freedom do you wish to give away simply by allowing others to redefine your "old school" rights for you? You seem desperate to justify all this by vaguely equating it to blatant copyright infringement, a comparison that simply isn't valid.
They don't take any of my rights. I don't watch TV. I decide to get riled up about music, the PVR folks are wrong. So are people who trade music without paying a dime. If people continue to do wrong, they will have their "rights" taken away. I didn't realize that people had a right to strip adverts out of a show though. I didn't admit to changing the definition, I merely commented that to the rest of the world depriving someone of something, even if it's tertiary financial damage, but taking a non-tangible digital copy of something, is theft. Sorry, but most people agree. Most people say, "Copying mp3s over the internet without buying the CD is theft." Definitions are what the masses say they are, not what you think to satisfy your agenda or your opinions on what is and is not ethical.
No, what they are doing was always perfectly legal using the old technology (editing out or skipping over commercials), so doing it with newer, more efficient technology isn't any less legal, no matter how much the advertisers yammer about it. You seem to think that improvements in technology that collide with certain business perogatives ought to be illegal and that laws ought to be reinterpreted to give advertisers rights they never had to begin with. You're entitled to your personal beliefs, but regardless of how strongly you feel them they aren't equivalent to law.
It's not a question of editing it out. Previously you did it by hand, or with rough time estimates. Now it is automated and ensures you never have to see a commercial as long as you have your PVR on. That is wrong. No matter how you try to justify it, it's wrong.
Beliefs create laws, in case you missed that. As I said before, soon you will have to enter a special code in, or pay per show, and everyone will complain because they were too fucking stupid to just get up and take a piss instead of cutting out all the commercials.
It's legal now, but soon it probably won't be. At least not civilly. Wait for agreements before you watch a show, or at the bottom of every show.
Notice that what you're quoting is about copyright
Copyright dealing [incorrectly] with patent royalties. He was saying that if SCO submitted patented code to a GPLd project than SCO loses the rights to enforce that patent. That is wrong. In his words, he seems to be under the impression that SCO is trying to exert copyright infringement claims. In which case it's also wrong. So no matter what his point was, he was wrong.
Ad hominem attacks aren't really very productive, and in this case you again missed (ignored?) the point. The United States sets precident for most of the world's treaties on international patent and trademark law. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to attack the US when speaking of the utter mess that such treaties have created. China is, in fact, making rather grand (if, as yet, unsuccesful) efforts to move toward compliance with those treaties in order to gain an equal footing with the west in international trade.
His point was absolutely ludicrious, and was hard to respond with any degree of respect towards him. What a lot of people fail to understand is that the US is not the center of the patent treaties. The patent system in the US needs reformed, but in a lot of countries it's improved upon. The treaties are trying to unify global commerce by allowing patents in one country to be valid (enforcable) in another. This has nothing to do with the United States at all.
What mess has the treaties caused? It's bringing a global standard together. Why is that a bad thing? It means that the US will have access to the patents of other countries for research and ideas. It's as if you people think that if something is patented it's some big secret that you can't even talk about. You can view and discuss, and educate yourself on existing patents. In order for China to fully be recognized in the various pacts, they will have to fix their copyright issues first.
Attacking the United States for working with treaties for working towards global unification of the patent system is pointless, irrelevant, and misguided. The United States is not alone, and when dealing with the other countries carries no more weight than any of them. The difference is the US has more experience than the other countries. The US has more patents, and typically a longer running history of a patent office.
Again, the reason why the US leads with precedents is because of experience, not because we have a gun to every other countries head saying "Conform to our standards or we shoot you." That's all there is, people who find a conspiracy for the favor of big business in international patent and trademark treaties have no understanding of business or patent law at all.
OK, so from your comments I assume that you've done an economics or maybe business ethics course. Nice. Well done. Now go and look at the real world.
Never, I'm self taught. Programmer by career, businessman by turn of events. So be it. I study business and economics more than software development at this point in my life.
You can hide your head in the sand as much as you want but this is how the system works. As the original poster put it; little kids in the playground screaming 'but I thought of that first, you can't use it'.
That is the idiots approach to patents. It's not about lack of sharing. Patents are designed to continue shared knowledge. Patents are documented fully, design documents are also publicly available. You can get licenses, often times royalty free, to work with patents. Look at the vast armada of IBM patents that they allow people ot use for free. But no, patents are bad because you fail to understand how the real world works.
News flash: Without patents, the big companies will fuck you. End of story. Nothing you can do about it, you don't have the money to stop them.
Any larger company will be able to find a ton of patents that the smaller guy has infringed, and will offer to 'waive' them in exchange for free licensing rights to the little guys invention.
This is a bit wrong. A big company that wants the little guys invention will often times not find patent infringement. If there is, there is a precedent setup for those patents being royalty free. What happens is the big companies try to buy exclusive rights to market and use that patent, there by allowing the little guy to make money and the big company still makes money.
This is far more common than the little guy getting screwed, you really need to start paying attention in the world of business. The only little guys who get squashed are those trying to take too big of a bite out of the big companies. When you sleep with a bear, don't kick it in the nuts.
Yeah, because as we all know, absolutely nothing at all, no sirree, was ever invented before we had patents....... The very word "innovation" cannot have existed before then, since it had no meaning.
The difference is you know what wasn't around before the patent system? Huge corporations bent on greed and stock price. This is why patents are necessary.
I've seen this asserted many times, but never heard any evidence. Why do you think patents are a good thing?
Have you ever filed a patent, or been involved in patents in anyway? My guess is no, because if you had, you would understand and appreciate their merits.
I have a good idea, lets call it Flubberglitzen. It's something revolutionary and consists of 15 microsystems that will work together and be a complete networking solution, operating system, and extends computing to a whole new level. I patent all 15 pieces of it, and I grant royalty-free development for open projects that follow my guidelines.
Patent Good.
Lets say I'm more commercially minded, and I make developers pay $100 for the right to develop addonds to Flubberglitzen. I sell Flubberglitzen, and get paid developer royalties.
Patent still Good.
Lets say I'm just your typical Information Wants to Be Free zealot, and I don't patent it but I then release it to a news group. Then, a big corporation takes the concept (not the source or anything) and files their own patents slightly different to show their innovation that's piggy backed and now Flubberglitzen becomes corporate controlled and I would have to hire my own patent lawyer to not only prove prior art, but prove that my system was the inspiration for theirs. Since everything is free in my life, I can't afford a good lawyer and I get crushed by said corporation.
Patent bad.
Patents are a necessary part to prevent human greed from overpowering ethics. Given the chance,
people will screw over other people. Patents make it a little bit more difficult.
This wins the ass-backward award for today. Did you read the story about what SCO are trying to do WITH patents? Don't you think that creating a $100+ Linux tax because they filed some obvious software tricks first is 'bullying smaller inventors' and keeping them 'out of the market' WITH patents?
Apparently you failed to see what I was saying with "Abuse". Say it with me here, Patents that are abused are bad. Patents that are not abused are good. It's not a hard concept here.
There is a good reason why the patent system is in existence. Obliterating the patent system will not have a positive result. Go take some economics and business ethics courses and you will understand. Little guys need protection, and the patent office gives them that.
Please have a good old cogitate on the points in the original post, it deserves +5 insightful, you should re-examine your thoughts on the
matter.
The original post should be locked away, never to see the light of day. It was absolutely stupid, assinine, and paranoid.
At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again.
again
adv.
1. Once more; anew:
If people bought it to start with, I don't think we'd have this problem.
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines ... it innoculates against entities such as SCO submarining code into the OS and then making copyright claims down the road.
Sorry to inform you, but if any developer writes code that violates SCOs patents it doesn't matter if it is GPLd or not. The patent encumbrance clause of the GPL states that if there is a patent dispute than distribution is forbidden.
This doesn't matter who wrote the code, or who put it in. Welcome to Patent Law 101: If you violate a patent, the patent holder can selectively enforce it.
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony,
Ooook, it's time to go back on the meds and take off the tinfoil hat. There is no American Hegemony. In case you have failed to notice, a lot of Chinese are making a fortune on the internet. They don't care about the US. The US (and Americans) like to think they are much more important and far reaching than they are.
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last.
Sorry, you last all bits of sanity when you were writing this one out. First off, SCO is not a "knowledge squatter" -- they hold patents. Big deal, so does IBM. IBM strongly suggested SCO shouldn't do this, and my guess is that if SCO tries it IBM will fuck SCO. It's called checks and balances, and most markets have it. If there were no patents in place, than innovation would be halted. The bigger companies in existence would bully the small inventors and entrepeneurs out of the market and then who would keep the information open? No one. Patents are a good thing because not only do they expire, but they also force disclosure and public knowledge.
So.. again, relax man. The world isn't as bad as you see it. Patents are a good thing, when they aren't abused or issued improperly.
The viewer who declines to view the advertising is not a thief as there is no commitment by the viewer to watch the commercial, just as there is no requirement that your read your junk mail--even though junk mail may subsidize our mail system
It's an implied commitment. If you don't like commercials, fine, don't watch them. But then you are going to bitch when they cancel all the shows you like because advert dollars don't work. Or they'll make you enter in a special code that gets displayed through the adverts and you will bitch about that.
Not thinking you are screwing over the networks by deliberately circumventing all adverts with PVRs is like trying to say smoking is healthy. You are try to excuse your own bad behavior. You will lose. Maybe it's not the old school definition of thievery, but that's the ironic thing about the "Give Me Everything I want for Free" geeks. They use new technology, and when someone says it's wrong with old words, they say, "Nope, because it's digital it can't be theft!"
Well, you know what, words evolve too. Advert skippers are cheating the networks out of money, whether it's now or 6 months down the road. They're stealing free programming, by not following through with what was an implied contract with the networks. That's like saying, "He told me I could take his car", when he meant "You can borrow it for a day" and saying it's not theft. And yes, you are depriving them of money, so there is a tangible loss.
I hope that they do implement a really annoying method of having to enter in a special code during the commercials in order to watch the show. Then every one of the PVR owning commercial skipping assholes will be bitching their heads off about their choices being taken away and they did it all to themselves.
Wether or not someone skips commercials has no effect on the money that was paid for the commercial.
Wow... ok, lets break it down like this. PVRs are becoming very widespread. The more people that buy them, the more people that will skip adverts. Eventually, the price for television adverts will drop and your favorite shows will go away. I suppose it would be an implied contractual breach. Maybe they just need to put a little warning before the show saying, "By watching this show you agree to not circumvent the commercials"
I don't really care, I don't watch TV. But the way I see it, everybody who does skip the commercials using PVRs are in fact depriving the networks of something that they are supposed to get, the users attention.
Thievery is when someone deprives someone else of something that belongs to them.
You are depriving them of something that belongs to them. Advertising dollars. I don't buy into the music piracy shit, but you are stealing free programming when you strip out all the adverts from every show you watch.
If you try to justify getting something for nothing, by subverting the required payment, than I feel bad for you and your neighbors. You obviously fail to understand communal ethics.
I didn't say he did, did I.
...Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves
Uhm, you did say that he said that.
Jeez. If you're going to come up with some ludicrously over the top attack on someone, at least try to figure out what they said.
You attempted to label Kellner as an anti-freedom enemy-of-slashdot because he said that if you deliberately skip all adverts than you are a thief, and you turned it around and said, and I quote verbatim:
So, exactly which part of this am I not understanding that you said? The part where you lie about him, or the part where you say you never said it?
If you're going to use "FUD" to describe something that has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft's strategies to undermine competitors by making potential customers believe there are risks associated with purchasing those competitor's products, you could at least do me the favour of adding the usual Usenet insults to boot.
Sorry, but lying about something falls under that category. You are trying to undermine him by spreading things that aren't true. So... again, what am I doing here that is wrong?
Damned Slashbot.
Yes, I'm the Slashbot because I'm defending the CEO of TW. Sure... I didn't actually think you would discredit yourselv further, thanks.
My kanji vocabulary is probably about 2nd grader or so myself... I know most of the 1st grade kanji, and then a smattering of other stuff. (the flip side is that my vocabulary as a whole is about the same)
If you have a good grasp of the dynamics of the language it should be pretty easy. With the exception of certain "shared" sounds (like ka, ego ka nihongo, or wakarimasuka) you can pick out the subjects in Japanese based upon the binding words.
That's how I read, works easy for me.
You know, if you actually read my comment rather than just stopping at the link, you'll see that that's implied. The comment was that he said that "PVR owners are thieves because they skip the adverts". /. story, back to the original 2600 story, which has the full quote.
...it's more irritating that way.
No, he never said that. Go back to the original 2400 article. Follow the link from the original
Again, if we're talking of "over-the-top reaction" I'm pretty sure that saying that someone says something that they did not say is much worse than someone correcting you. But that's fine, you're just a slashbot. If the company is in this month/years badlist, than anything that someone says must be taken out of context, summarized incorrectly, and show that person is an enemy of free speech and they kick small puppies.
So is saying things that aren't true. Then saying they are true.
PVRs are bad for the industry in the current business model. Why? Because they allow people to skip advertisements. Why is this bad? Because the commercials are funded by advertisements. What is it when someone receives something without coming through with the payment of that? Thievery.
Now, the point comes to show that if you just watch a show you didn't agree to watch the commercials, that's fine. It's a valid point. But, it is implied that you agree to watch the commercials in exchange for free programming. What he said was absolutely valid.
Now, you were going to say something else to discredit yourself?
Time Warner is the part of AOLTW that includes Jamie Kellner, who famously declared that PVR owners are thieves [slashdot.org] because they skip the commercials. Ironically, this person is head of the remains of what was Ted Turner's empire before it was swallowed up.
/. metaphor: Oil funds terrorism, so all people who own cars are terrorists.
Wrong, and FUD. Granted, Kellner isn't exactly up on the current evolving digital market but he did not say PVR owners are thiefs. He said PVRs allow Advert skipping, and people who skip adverts are thiefs. He explains this in detail saying, "The programming is ad supported, when you skip those ads you are stealing programming."
What you (and Slashdot) are saying as a typical
http://xerithane.nerdfarm.org/watercool_psu.html
Or:
Here
If she were treated harshly in regards to grading, that's easily provable. Then would be the time to take the issue to the department head, principal, school board, whatever. My point is that simply getting pissed off and being bitter about the situation doesn't accomplish anything besides making one feel sorry for herself.
Exactly. I've had teachers that grade me down for BS reasons, and it's easily provable. There is also those wonderful people called "Superiorors". If you are truly good, than stand up for what you believe in, because it is really easy.
I run into this way too often:
Female: You don't think I belong in IT because I'm a woman!
Me: No, I don't think you belong in IT because you are an idiot.
Tons of the IT women that I know think they get extra points purely because they have a vagina. I'm sorry, but when someone who is supposed to be a "Web Developer" doesn't know how to write a quick javascript function to determine what the value of a checkbox is, they do not belong in IT. Whether they are a girl or a guy.
Most of the people who bitch about unfair treatment are the ones who say they know more than most the class, and are absolute idiots that don't know a damn "real" thing about IT. Those who get unfair treatment and know what they are doing, resolve it. Usually.
that's exactly why i hate Microsoft Natural keyboards... and why i love IBM/Lexmark keyboards.
For someone with long hands, the Natural style keyboards a are a godsend. I can hit about 130WPM on a natural or about 70 on a normal keyboard. Model Ms I can push the 100WPM mark because their key spacing is a bit easier, but nothing beats the comfort of the Natural wave style for me.
For coding, it's even easier, but I've been thinking that I'd like to design a keyboard with the most used functional buttons (* & ^ % # !) in a row down below the space bar that the thumbs can easily hit. The thumbs are the most underworked part of typing, hitting the space bar and nothing else... make em work!
Ok, it looks like two G4 towers that ran into each other at high speeds. Without handles. So what's the point? Yay, it has a folding down chasis design, but how the hell are you going to find the room in the back of the computer to do this? The reason why the Apple towers were so great, is they folded outward, not backward.
It seems to me to be another "We're trying to clone Apple and not get sued by mimicing their design so we're just making it stupid" case.
Because of this I can now take another approach - that of being modest - in interviews, because I let my cv talk for me.
Exactly, I used to have to talk and talk to get a job, after a few years I hand in my resume and wait for the phone call. I sit down, and 99% of the people that see my CV think it's bullshit. I think proceed to detail out all the technology, in the most modest way, and get the call for the job.
I think my longest period from interview to asking to take the contract was about 5 hours.
Modesty works when you have a CV to back it. Until then, be a sales person. Pitch yourself, but never say you can do something you can't do.
Well they're both motor vehicles which take you from A to B, powered by an internal combustion engine, travelling on the non-internet super-highway.
No, Seymore's 1977 accord will take you approximately 3/4(B-A) then it breaks down and you get laughed at.
The title of the article is "More Info on the October 2002 DNS Attacks". Personally I think a comment about another large-scale internet attack, carried out in the same way, is pretty on-topic.
Well, except one in a mission critical DNS based attack and the other is an attack on a bunch of fat guys sitting in their mothers basement jacking off to kitty porn.
The Dalnet IRC network has been crippled for months due to continuing DDOS attacks. Now Dalnet is based on a small number of central IRC servers (20-30 I believe) so it isn't too far removed from the core DNS infrastructure (i.e. the root DNS servers).
That is like saying Seymore's geek-mobile 1977 Honda Accord isn't too far removed from a TVR Tuscan 6.
Here's why no one in the FBI cares about DalNET or their DDoS attacks: No one outside of DalNET gives a shit.
How did this get modded up? It's pretty damn offtopic. Yes, it deal with DDoS attacks but in no way is it remotely relevant to DNS root servers.
The P2P options continue to be more and more diluted. Finding a specific song that I am interested in is now not nearly as straight forward. If they continue to make rubble out of boulders, it will only get worse.
I'm not understanding why you aren't using a client that can connect to multiple networks then. It really isn't that hard actually, gtk-gnutella does it just fine. The more they shutdown, the more get created, and as long as they are open the pirates win! Now let me grab my eyepatch and parrot...