The problem is not that YOU can choose to use a different OS. That has always, and will continue to be, the case.
The problem is that a PUBLISHER cannot control what browser connects to his website.
If a particular browser EDITS your document before it is seen by the user... well that's editorial control removed from the publisher, isn't it?
In any other context, that would be regarded as libelous. How so? Because you are attributing certain words and 'links' to the author that he didn't authorise. Actually, its closer in nature to plaigarism, but Microsoft wouldn't be assuming ownership of the page.
Except that the car has to be sold repeatedly, delays in selling that means less sales in the future... and the isn't like changing an ISP. These are web hosting companies. In other words, considerable work need to go into retreiving ALL data from the old service, changing the DNS mapping to the new service, putting the data on the new computer, setting up the services on the new computers because without a doubt, they don't use the same equipment, rewrite a number of scripts to look at the new servers, testing to make sure they get it right, then taking down the delay of service message and putting up the proper site... all of which takes time and money. Its not uncommon for sites do go down for months while get things straight. So the assertion that you can just pick up and go somewhere else is just bull.
I can understand going after the chop shops, closing them down, seizing the stolen cars and all of their records, putting them out of business. Fine. But the ISP isn't doing anything illegal. Current law doesn't make hosting a spammer illegal. Furthermore, MAPS are not the police. They are rent-a-cops with the authority to patrol where they are let in. Furthermore the holding of HUNDREDS of websites HOSTAGE meerly because they had once been serviced LEGITIMATELY smacks of totalitarian behavior.
I could only support MAPS if they didn't hurt innocent customers. It is the INTENTIONAL injury of non-spammers just to get to the spammers that irks me.
What does confuse me is why MAPS would do this in the first place. Blocking hundreds of websites does nothing to stop spam. In fact MAPS depends on spam being out there for people to buy its service. Going after a toolmaker via an ISP in order to shutdown spam is just buying them a lot of hassle with no reduction in actual spam on the net.
For those of you who are so intent on defending MAPS, consider this. Trying to deny access to the spammers tools website by putting it on their list did exactly 2 things:
1) Jack
2) Shit
That's right. Nothing. And why? Because Spammers, who need these tools, DON'T USE MAPS! Blocking this site did nothing to prevent spam at all.
So why did MAPS do this? Well they didn't just do that. They blocked everyone on that Class C subnet. Everyone. They realised that they can't attack the tools company so they attack everyone in an effort to BLACKMAIL the ISP into dropping the tools company. So what we have here is one company trying to put another company out of business by issuing DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS against the hosting ISP. Were this a spotty teenager doing this, the media, the police, and the FBI would be all over it in a hunt for this kid. But since its a corporation committing what should ammount to a criminal act, it is forgiven by most, and treated as a civil matter by the rest.
Oh, and for those of you who think that MAPS is paid to do just that. That is incorrect. They are paid to prevent spam. As stated before, this action doesn't prevent spam. It is an attempt to prevent spammers from getting these tools. In which case, the spammers... would just use other tools.
Words have their place. Unfortunately, words can very easilly be ignored. Had he sent a letter to the editor, it would not have been read.
Let me put it bluntly. Stunts are are a good thing.
Not getting up when a white man demands your seat.
Setting yourself on fire in the town square.
Standing in front of a line of tanks.
All of those are stunts. Certainly bigger and for more important causes, but stunts nevertheless.
What annoys me more than anything is that you place the value of a petty contest above your child's rightto say what he likes. This kid isn't shallow. Value it.
I myself am a network Administrator at a bank, and this article got me thinking about what would happen if something got installed on our NT network that we didn't authorise. I'm afraid that we'd HAVE to remove it for two reasons.
1) This is a bank. It has a secure network. Any and all computer equipment, programs and operationg systems are provided by IT in order to ensure this. If we don't know everything about a computer, we cannot define it as secure. So all equipment needs to come from us.
2) If we were to let linux or bsd or Mac onto the network, we would have to support it. Why? Simple. Our job is to ensure that everyone else can do theirs. And we just don't have the skill set for running linux in a business critical environment. If we can't fix their PC, we can't do our job and they can't do theirs. So we give them the same tools. And it works.
Now firing someone for installing something on the network would be wrong. All I would do is tell them to remove it and explain why they should.
This one is completely non-obvious and potentially groundbreaking! Using a computer to computer transaction ACROSS AN INTERNATIONAL BORDER, utilise cookies to facilitate an international trade agreement resulting in the shipment of goods across the same international border. This patent has the merit of stimulating international trade and foreign currency exchange. The reason that this patent is non-obvious is because no one currently purchases goods from another country. Certainly no one purchases DVDs from another region in order to legally play them on chipped players. I think I can get the RIAA to back me up on this.
Okay, if we aren't playing the game that 'wins', then lets start learning from those that do. Over the last few elections, the (Ugh) Christian Coalition has handed out voting guides detailing the issues that are important to them and how their senator/representative voted. I propose that we do something similar here. Find out how your congressman voted on DMCA and other such legislation. Make it one of those Slashboxes. Make it so you can put in your Zip code and it'll even provide names and addresses. It'll take a little work, but I don't see why it can't be done.
Answer: It probably is a direct response to the Gnome Alliance. THey saw that the issue was holding back acceptance of QT, and decided to bite the bullet. At the same time, they are unwilling to entirely give up their old way of doing business. This is perfectly understandable and reasonable for a company changing its business model.
To put it simply, TrollTech has realised that it needs to learn to swim. But instead of diving in the deep end, they've gone in the shallow end in case they flounder. They probably won't, but at this stage no one can really tell.
Think of this for what it is: A very brave first step.
Yeah. Just where do citizens get the idea that they actually have a say in their own government? Its not like 200 years ago we threw out an oppressive regime that did not represent us JUST so we could vote and have elections and have LIMITS on police powers.
I'm really surprised that no one has thought of this before. Then again, maybe they have, and we just don't know about it. For every single item up on E-bay... write a letter claiming that it infringes on copyright. If what this article says is correct, E-bay will be forced to bring the item off, and if enough of this were done, either E-bay would change its policy, or it would garner headlines. And that would give us a real chance to get the law changed. Legal hacking.
Document, Document, Document. The key to a good defense is to be able to prove HOW you did something. Keep a daily diary with the steps you've taken and plan to take. Document all results, and all versions of the code you are using. If you can prove that this was reverse engineered 'cleanly', then your legal problems will be much less than they would be. I'd also hire a good lawyer NOW. And not one that handles wills and property transactions. I mean one that understands copyright law. Good luck to you.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not that YOU can choose to use a different OS. That has always, and will continue to be, the case. The problem is that a PUBLISHER cannot control what browser connects to his website. If a particular browser EDITS your document before it is seen by the user... well that's editorial control removed from the publisher, isn't it? In any other context, that would be regarded as libelous. How so? Because you are attributing certain words and 'links' to the author that he didn't authorise. Actually, its closer in nature to plaigarism, but Microsoft wouldn't be assuming ownership of the page.
Except that the car has to be sold repeatedly, delays in selling that means less sales in the future... and the isn't like changing an ISP. These are web hosting companies. In other words, considerable work need to go into retreiving ALL data from the old service, changing the DNS mapping to the new service, putting the data on the new computer, setting up the services on the new computers because without a doubt, they don't use the same equipment, rewrite a number of scripts to look at the new servers, testing to make sure they get it right, then taking down the delay of service message and putting up the proper site... all of which takes time and money. Its not uncommon for sites do go down for months while get things straight. So the assertion that you can just pick up and go somewhere else is just bull.
It would be if they took your car while they were at it.
I can understand going after the chop shops, closing them down, seizing the stolen cars and all of their records, putting them out of business. Fine. But the ISP isn't doing anything illegal. Current law doesn't make hosting a spammer illegal. Furthermore, MAPS are not the police. They are rent-a-cops with the authority to patrol where they are let in. Furthermore the holding of HUNDREDS of websites HOSTAGE meerly because they had once been serviced LEGITIMATELY smacks of totalitarian behavior. I could only support MAPS if they didn't hurt innocent customers. It is the INTENTIONAL injury of non-spammers just to get to the spammers that irks me. What does confuse me is why MAPS would do this in the first place. Blocking hundreds of websites does nothing to stop spam. In fact MAPS depends on spam being out there for people to buy its service. Going after a toolmaker via an ISP in order to shutdown spam is just buying them a lot of hassle with no reduction in actual spam on the net.
For those of you who are so intent on defending MAPS, consider this. Trying to deny access to the spammers tools website by putting it on their list did exactly 2 things: 1) Jack 2) Shit That's right. Nothing. And why? Because Spammers, who need these tools, DON'T USE MAPS! Blocking this site did nothing to prevent spam at all. So why did MAPS do this? Well they didn't just do that. They blocked everyone on that Class C subnet. Everyone. They realised that they can't attack the tools company so they attack everyone in an effort to BLACKMAIL the ISP into dropping the tools company. So what we have here is one company trying to put another company out of business by issuing DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS against the hosting ISP. Were this a spotty teenager doing this, the media, the police, and the FBI would be all over it in a hunt for this kid. But since its a corporation committing what should ammount to a criminal act, it is forgiven by most, and treated as a civil matter by the rest. Oh, and for those of you who think that MAPS is paid to do just that. That is incorrect. They are paid to prevent spam. As stated before, this action doesn't prevent spam. It is an attempt to prevent spammers from getting these tools. In which case, the spammers... would just use other tools.
Words have their place. Unfortunately, words can very easilly be ignored. Had he sent a letter to the editor, it would not have been read. Let me put it bluntly. Stunts are are a good thing. Not getting up when a white man demands your seat. Setting yourself on fire in the town square. Standing in front of a line of tanks. All of those are stunts. Certainly bigger and for more important causes, but stunts nevertheless. What annoys me more than anything is that you place the value of a petty contest above your child's rightto say what he likes. This kid isn't shallow. Value it.
I myself am a network Administrator at a bank, and this article got me thinking about what would happen if something got installed on our NT network that we didn't authorise. I'm afraid that we'd HAVE to remove it for two reasons. 1) This is a bank. It has a secure network. Any and all computer equipment, programs and operationg systems are provided by IT in order to ensure this. If we don't know everything about a computer, we cannot define it as secure. So all equipment needs to come from us. 2) If we were to let linux or bsd or Mac onto the network, we would have to support it. Why? Simple. Our job is to ensure that everyone else can do theirs. And we just don't have the skill set for running linux in a business critical environment. If we can't fix their PC, we can't do our job and they can't do theirs. So we give them the same tools. And it works. Now firing someone for installing something on the network would be wrong. All I would do is tell them to remove it and explain why they should.
This one is completely non-obvious and potentially groundbreaking! Using a computer to computer transaction ACROSS AN INTERNATIONAL BORDER, utilise cookies to facilitate an international trade agreement resulting in the shipment of goods across the same international border. This patent has the merit of stimulating international trade and foreign currency exchange. The reason that this patent is non-obvious is because no one currently purchases goods from another country. Certainly no one purchases DVDs from another region in order to legally play them on chipped players. I think I can get the RIAA to back me up on this.
Okay, if we aren't playing the game that 'wins', then lets start learning from those that do. Over the last few elections, the (Ugh) Christian Coalition has handed out voting guides detailing the issues that are important to them and how their senator/representative voted. I propose that we do something similar here. Find out how your congressman voted on DMCA and other such legislation. Make it one of those Slashboxes. Make it so you can put in your Zip code and it'll even provide names and addresses. It'll take a little work, but I don't see why it can't be done.
Answer: It probably is a direct response to the Gnome Alliance. THey saw that the issue was holding back acceptance of QT, and decided to bite the bullet. At the same time, they are unwilling to entirely give up their old way of doing business. This is perfectly understandable and reasonable for a company changing its business model. To put it simply, TrollTech has realised that it needs to learn to swim. But instead of diving in the deep end, they've gone in the shallow end in case they flounder. They probably won't, but at this stage no one can really tell. Think of this for what it is: A very brave first step.
A dime is about the size of a 5 pence coin, but thinner.
Yeah. Just where do citizens get the idea that they actually have a say in their own government? Its not like 200 years ago we threw out an oppressive regime that did not represent us JUST so we could vote and have elections and have LIMITS on police powers.
I'm really surprised that no one has thought of this before. Then again, maybe they have, and we just don't know about it. For every single item up on E-bay... write a letter claiming that it infringes on copyright. If what this article says is correct, E-bay will be forced to bring the item off, and if enough of this were done, either E-bay would change its policy, or it would garner headlines. And that would give us a real chance to get the law changed. Legal hacking.
Document, Document, Document. The key to a good defense is to be able to prove HOW you did something. Keep a daily diary with the steps you've taken and plan to take. Document all results, and all versions of the code you are using. If you can prove that this was reverse engineered 'cleanly', then your legal problems will be much less than they would be. I'd also hire a good lawyer NOW. And not one that handles wills and property transactions. I mean one that understands copyright law. Good luck to you.