Not getting interest sucks, but on the other hand the user doesn't have to pay credit card access fees, so for me it comes out about even. This is as opposed to the state of Illinois, which will let you pay your taxes by credit card but charges you for the privilege.
How is it squatting if he wasn't planning to sell it to this team? It's only squatting if you're planning to sell it to the real trademark holder for a profit, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Content isn't really an issue either; I can buy a piece of land in the city but not develop it, and that's completely legal. It would help if the original owner of the site had a trademark, but since the soccer team didn't have a trademark either I think that issue is irrelevant.
The judge isn't going to be impressed with any evidence regarding whether DeCSS is used for piracy or not, because (as he discussed in the denial of the recusal motion) he views the issue of copyright infringement as irrelevant to the case. The only issue for this judge is whether DeCSS is a circumvention tool that is prohibited by the DMCA.
Just hang in there, get it all into the record, and go for the appeal on constitutional grounds, Mr. Garbus. We're all rooting for you!
...I wouldn't cover this at all. If Apple wants to play hard ball and bring court orders against its fans, then maybe they should return the favor and not give this product any hype.
Of course, maybe that sounds like a good idea to me because I'm not an Apple fan but I have a vindictive streak.
Sure, if you want to look like the rest of the drones. At least they're not Old Navy - if I see one more cheesy American flag t-shirt I swear I'll run amuck.
It's amazing how so many young, seemingly independent-minded people can stand to dress so much alike.
Re:Misguided anti-Aqua sentiment
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
Apple has finally been able to break away from X, and I am thankful.
Huh? Apple has never used X. Their latest release + this new X server will be the closest they've every gotten to X.
If Ebay doesnt want spiders scanning them, aren't they in their right to take legal action?
If Ebay doesn't want to send traffic to a particular client, they are welcome to blackhole that client. robots.txt is a good convention and I would be unhappy if someone didn't follow it on my site, but still the ultimate responsibility for providing the content lies with the server. I don't see how you can call it copyright infringement if your server provides the information to anyone who asks for it. You were giving it away; they didn't steal it.
Republishing that information might be a little iffier; it depends on whether the collection of information as republished is significantly different. You can't copyright a collection of facts (IIRC) but you can copyright the organization/presentation of those facts.
Obeying robots.txt is certainly the polite thing to do, and enforcing it may sound like a good legal/political solution, but it isn't a practical solution. You have authorized viewing of any work on your web site if when my client requests a page from your site, your web server provides it. If you don't want my client to receive such-and-such a page, then don't serve it. If you don't want to exchange any packets with my client, then drop them on the floor as you receive them.
Sure, this is more complicated than robots.txt, but you will never effectively be able to police the entire world for the authorized use of deep linking and/or indexing. Ultimately, the power to prevent this problem rests on the server, not on the client or the search engine.
If you're going to do unpopular activities, don't flaunt them in front of the authorities. This applies in the United States too, by the way.
The difference is that unpopular but not illegal activities don't get you killed or imprisoned in the U.S. Sure, at some times the record has been better than others, but if you espouse an unpopular view point you can still remain a free citizen in the U.S.
Inalienable rights? You don't have nearly as many as you think you have. You've got exactly as many rights as you can get for yourself.
I couldn't agree more, actually. But the government of the U.S. is constructed to recognize the rights of citizens and to guarantee them as far as possible through the courts and the executive branch. The government of China doesn't seem to recognize any rights for its citizens other than the right to be a cog in the machine.
I'm glad to see the citizens of China fighting for their rights, and I wish them the best of luck. If you're happy living under a totalitarian regime, at least try not to get in the way of a real people's revolution.
In China, nobody anti-government gets heard because (a) most of them don't care, and (b) the government doesn't like that sort of thing (who does?). In the States, nobody anti-American gets heard because EVERYBODY doesn't care. There's no question about where I'd rather be.
I hear plenty of anti-American sentiment on this forum every day. Sure, maybe most people don't want to hear it, but the government does not stop the speakers from saying it. Whether anyone is listening or not is really an orthogonal issue; if your viewpoints make sense to people, in a free society you will gain listeners. How much anti-Chinese sentiment would a China-based/. be allowed to post? It wouldn't stay up for even a week, I imagine.
Oh, yeah, there's an entire PSB division monitoring my Internet activity, and I have to wear a fucking tinfoil hat all the time to keep the mind control beams out. Give it a break, alright?
Oh, really? How lofty is a society where everybody acts like it's a police state because they damn well don't care whether it is or not?
What part of the U.S. are you from? I don't recall there being any police state around these parts. I've never had a problem complaining about the government, contacting my representatives to complain, getting letters published in the newspaper, etc. Sure, things aren't perfect and there are constant threats from groups that don't believe in civil liberties, but on the whole people over here worship whatever they want to, speak their minds whenever they feel like it, and complain about the government like it's going out of style. Doesn't sound much like China of late, does it?
No wait - don't agree with me, you wouldn't want to be "subverting the state" on the Internet, now would you?
I've lived in China for several years now, and I think I've seen enough to say that I can really see the benefits of taking a stronger stand towards the criminal element than we do here in the States. The destructive ("hacker") proportion of the Chinese computer-using population is far lower than in the States, not even mentioning the drug-dealing and drug-using populations, and the violent criminals, and all the rest.
"all the rest" includes religious movements which are "enemies of the state", or students that peacefully demonstrate for democracy and their inalienable rights as human beings, or anyone that dares to think for themselves and say what they really think. We don't want any of those people running around in our country, do we? It's patently ridiculous to hold China up as any sort of example of the right way to govern. Of course, I can't really fault you for saying what you do, since we both know what would happen to you if you didn't hew to the party line...
If you have this choice, you have one simple decision to make: your lofty goals which won't win anyone anything except another five minutes to cause mayhem and destroy others' lives and livelihoods, or the simple duty of building society, which carries its own rewards.
Wow, just like in the Cultural Revolution, huh? I bet that will be a "great leap forward" indeed! I hate to tell you, but those "lofty goals" as envisioned by the founding fathers have built a great society, and continue to do so.
That's great, except that businesses are not citizens and have no rights to free association, enterprise, or anything else. Business is allowed to do exactly what the citizens of the nation allow them to do, and the usual instrument of the people's will is the government.
That being said, if there was a way for individuals to be civilly disobedient (see.sig) I would be all for it.
This is a Good Thing for the Olympic committee to do in order to bolster their image after the beating they've taken recently.
I don't get the impression that this is really giving them a lot of good press.
2004OlympicButtWipe.com is just stealing the thunder from a strong, established organization.
If they're so strong and established, what do they have to fear from Olympic Pizza? I think the IOC is lashing out in fear, because for the first time their image has been seriously tarnished (by the bribes). And when you attack out of fear rather than out of strength, you pull dumb stunts like this.
According to the article, Microsoft hasn't met the standards but is still moving ahead with the extra features. If they had met all of the standards first, nobody (well, far fewer people) would be complaining.
That was without a doubt the best post about trolling I have ever read. The default threshold is now +1? I didn't know that. That sounds like something el commandante should add to the moderation guidelines.
Personally, I enjoy arguing much more than the next person, so I don't mind the trolls too much.
Have a look at the multiple incarnations of the "inchfan" hidden forums for instance. The trolls here have mounted a deliberate, organised, campaign of attack and disruption against slashdot. These aren't your standard usenet idiots, these are a much more insidious form of troll.
It hasn't been that organized; browsing at +1 I've never seen anything like that. At +1 you only see the funny trolls - it's a little like beer goggles.
Didn't they already have Gtk+ from the Gimp? I'm unsure of the exact timing of Gimp/Gtk+/Gnome, but I'm sure it didn't hurt to have a full-fledged app stress-testing the toolkit at the same time.
So why hasn't this made it into my Ars Technica slashbox? It seems like the list of articles in that box stays the same for a month, and then all of the sudden there are 5 new ones in a day. Does/. not update the/boxes very often, or is the problem at the Ars end?
Is that why/. has started displaying the user number in the link to User Info? I have seen people with identical nicks except for some unprintable characters, so that would explain it.
Someone who makes jokes about black people being "shiftless" in emails is unfit for public office, and as a citizen, I have the right to know that I'm being asked to vote for a Kloset Klansman.
So you've never done or said anything in your life that wasn't politically correct? Even back before there was a concept of politically correct? Never told or laughed at a blonde joke? I hope you never plan to run for office, then - I guess you wouldn't get your vote.
The public will just have to continue to evaluate candidates on the same basis that we evaluate each other - based on what they say and what they do in public. You have no right to anyone's private communications, and without a court order neither does the government.
...and the fact that someone reviewed something that they *could not have legally had, in any way* means their copyrights *were* violated.
Sure they could have had it legally. If an Adobe employee left an alpha copy in a bus terminal (or wherever) and somebody from MacNN picked it up, they are under no legal or contractual obligation not to review it. They can't make 50 copies and sell them down on the street corner, but though Fair Use they could post screen shots, samples, quotes, and so forth from the software.
The Adobe employee/NDAee may be in some hot water, of course. Even in the worst case, if the NDA'd party was in fact MacNN (which is highly unlikely) then they would be in breach of contract, but that wouldn't prevent me from passing on information that I learned from their review. Trade secrets are the responsibility of the company to enforce through contracts; they are not the province of government.
I couldn't agree more about the apps using common system libraries. That's one of the things that makes X so configurable. But that sort of hacking is just the kind of thing that Apple is going to discourage, because it breaks the consistency of the user interface. Not for you (all of your widgets have the "click, there it is" hack and you are expecting it) but the next person to sit down at your machine is going to be confused by it. Apple really isn't interested in any reconfiguration of the GUI; their look-n-feel is supposed to be sacred.
Hopefully Mac OS X can help Apple get away from this, by storing each user's configuration separately. This doesn't help if someone else needs to use your machine while you are still logged in, but it might be a fair compromise.
Re:No fear of getting locked in to the lockin list
on
Web Site "Lock-In"
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Not getting interest sucks, but on the other hand the user doesn't have to pay credit card access fees, so for me it comes out about even. This is as opposed to the state of Illinois, which will let you pay your taxes by credit card but charges you for the privilege.
How is it squatting if he wasn't planning to sell it to this team? It's only squatting if you're planning to sell it to the real trademark holder for a profit, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Content isn't really an issue either; I can buy a piece of land in the city but not develop it, and that's completely legal. It would help if the original owner of the site had a trademark, but since the soccer team didn't have a trademark either I think that issue is irrelevant.
The judge isn't going to be impressed with any evidence regarding whether DeCSS is used for piracy or not, because (as he discussed in the denial of the recusal motion) he views the issue of copyright infringement as irrelevant to the case. The only issue for this judge is whether DeCSS is a circumvention tool that is prohibited by the DMCA.
Just hang in there, get it all into the record, and go for the appeal on constitutional grounds, Mr. Garbus. We're all rooting for you!
...I wouldn't cover this at all. If Apple wants to play hard ball and bring court orders against its fans, then maybe they should return the favor and not give this product any hype.
Of course, maybe that sounds like a good idea to me because I'm not an Apple fan but I have a vindictive streak.
Sure, if you want to look like the rest of the drones. At least they're not Old Navy - if I see one more cheesy American flag t-shirt I swear I'll run amuck.
It's amazing how so many young, seemingly independent-minded people can stand to dress so much alike.
Huh? Apple has never used X. Their latest release + this new X server will be the closest they've every gotten to X.
If Ebay doesn't want to send traffic to a particular client, they are welcome to blackhole that client. robots.txt is a good convention and I would be unhappy if someone didn't follow it on my site, but still the ultimate responsibility for providing the content lies with the server. I don't see how you can call it copyright infringement if your server provides the information to anyone who asks for it. You were giving it away; they didn't steal it.
Republishing that information might be a little iffier; it depends on whether the collection of information as republished is significantly different. You can't copyright a collection of facts (IIRC) but you can copyright the organization/presentation of those facts.
Obeying robots.txt is certainly the polite thing to do, and enforcing it may sound like a good legal/political solution, but it isn't a practical solution. You have authorized viewing of any work on your web site if when my client requests a page from your site, your web server provides it. If you don't want my client to receive such-and-such a page, then don't serve it. If you don't want to exchange any packets with my client, then drop them on the floor as you receive them.
Sure, this is more complicated than robots.txt, but you will never effectively be able to police the entire world for the authorized use of deep linking and/or indexing. Ultimately, the power to prevent this problem rests on the server, not on the client or the search engine.
The difference is that unpopular but not illegal activities don't get you killed or imprisoned in the U.S. Sure, at some times the record has been better than others, but if you espouse an unpopular view point you can still remain a free citizen in the U.S.
I couldn't agree more, actually. But the government of the U.S. is constructed to recognize the rights of citizens and to guarantee them as far as possible through the courts and the executive branch. The government of China doesn't seem to recognize any rights for its citizens other than the right to be a cog in the machine.
I'm glad to see the citizens of China fighting for their rights, and I wish them the best of luck. If you're happy living under a totalitarian regime, at least try not to get in the way of a real people's revolution.
I hear plenty of anti-American sentiment on this forum every day. Sure, maybe most people don't want to hear it, but the government does not stop the speakers from saying it. Whether anyone is listening or not is really an orthogonal issue; if your viewpoints make sense to people, in a free society you will gain listeners. How much anti-Chinese sentiment would a China-based /. be allowed to post? It wouldn't stay up for even a week, I imagine.
Here's a sample:
What part of the U.S. are you from? I don't recall there being any police state around these parts. I've never had a problem complaining about the government, contacting my representatives to complain, getting letters published in the newspaper, etc. Sure, things aren't perfect and there are constant threats from groups that don't believe in civil liberties, but on the whole people over here worship whatever they want to, speak their minds whenever they feel like it, and complain about the government like it's going out of style. Doesn't sound much like China of late, does it?
No wait - don't agree with me, you wouldn't want to be "subverting the state" on the Internet, now would you?
"all the rest" includes religious movements which are "enemies of the state", or students that peacefully demonstrate for democracy and their inalienable rights as human beings, or anyone that dares to think for themselves and say what they really think. We don't want any of those people running around in our country, do we? It's patently ridiculous to hold China up as any sort of example of the right way to govern. Of course, I can't really fault you for saying what you do, since we both know what would happen to you if you didn't hew to the party line...
Wow, just like in the Cultural Revolution, huh? I bet that will be a "great leap forward" indeed! I hate to tell you, but those "lofty goals" as envisioned by the founding fathers have built a great society, and continue to do so.
That's great, except that businesses are not citizens and have no rights to free association, enterprise, or anything else. Business is allowed to do exactly what the citizens of the nation allow them to do, and the usual instrument of the people's will is the government.
That being said, if there was a way for individuals to be civilly disobedient (see .sig) I would be all for it.
I don't get the impression that this is really giving them a lot of good press.
If they're so strong and established, what do they have to fear from Olympic Pizza? I think the IOC is lashing out in fear, because for the first time their image has been seriously tarnished (by the bribes). And when you attack out of fear rather than out of strength, you pull dumb stunts like this.
It took maybe 2 and a half weeks; you should have it soon.
According to the article, Microsoft hasn't met the standards but is still moving ahead with the extra features. If they had met all of the standards first, nobody (well, far fewer people) would be complaining.
That was without a doubt the best post about trolling I have ever read. The default threshold is now +1? I didn't know that. That sounds like something el commandante should add to the moderation guidelines.
Personally, I enjoy arguing much more than the next person, so I don't mind the trolls too much.
It hasn't been that organized; browsing at +1 I've never seen anything like that. At +1 you only see the funny trolls - it's a little like beer goggles.
Didn't they already have Gtk+ from the Gimp? I'm unsure of the exact timing of Gimp/Gtk+/Gnome, but I'm sure it didn't hurt to have a full-fledged app stress-testing the toolkit at the same time.
[5 pack/day voice] Come on, Jub-Jub, and I'll microwave you a nice flat rock.[/Selma]
So why hasn't this made it into my Ars Technica slashbox? It seems like the list of articles in that box stays the same for a month, and then all of the sudden there are 5 new ones in a day. Does /. not update the /boxes very often, or is the problem at the Ars end?
Is that why /. has started displaying the user number in the link to User Info? I have seen people with identical nicks except for some unprintable characters, so that would explain it.
So you've never done or said anything in your life that wasn't politically correct? Even back before there was a concept of politically correct? Never told or laughed at a blonde joke? I hope you never plan to run for office, then - I guess you wouldn't get your vote.
The public will just have to continue to evaluate candidates on the same basis that we evaluate each other - based on what they say and what they do in public. You have no right to anyone's private communications, and without a court order neither does the government.
Sure they could have had it legally. If an Adobe employee left an alpha copy in a bus terminal (or wherever) and somebody from MacNN picked it up, they are under no legal or contractual obligation not to review it. They can't make 50 copies and sell them down on the street corner, but though Fair Use they could post screen shots, samples, quotes, and so forth from the software.
The Adobe employee/NDAee may be in some hot water, of course. Even in the worst case, if the NDA'd party was in fact MacNN (which is highly unlikely) then they would be in breach of contract, but that wouldn't prevent me from passing on information that I learned from their review. Trade secrets are the responsibility of the company to enforce through contracts; they are not the province of government.
I'm going to guess it was by exhaustively permuting 3-character domain names and querying for each of them.
I couldn't agree more about the apps using common system libraries. That's one of the things that makes X so configurable. But that sort of hacking is just the kind of thing that Apple is going to discourage, because it breaks the consistency of the user interface. Not for you (all of your widgets have the "click, there it is" hack and you are expecting it) but the next person to sit down at your machine is going to be confused by it. Apple really isn't interested in any reconfiguration of the GUI; their look-n-feel is supposed to be sacred.
Hopefully Mac OS X can help Apple get away from this, by storing each user's configuration separately. This doesn't help if someone else needs to use your machine while you are still logged in, but it might be a fair compromise.
It just seems like that sometimes < grin >