But if the article had not been sensationalized would you have read it?
The title wasn't exactly sensationalistic, just pretty much not based in reality. The article itself was full of wild-ass guesses and sensationalism. I think the headlines and articles can be accurate but still interesting. Remember, Slashdot isn't aimed at the sheepy masses. We shouldn't need exciting headlines to grab out attention.
The article, as posted:
Slime-dogg writes "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law to ban posting of erotica on-line." The law, COPA, isn't really news. What's news is that the ACLU is arguing that censorware is "less restrictive" than simply criminalizing sexual content. Essentially they are telling the court "you should not allow COPA because, instead of banning sex, the government could install censorware and that would be better." Legal arguments by definition must be practical, so I see where the ACLU is coming from, but many will interpret this as green-lighting government-mandated censorware.
I might title it "Congress trying to illegalize net porn", which I think would be accurate and no more sensationalistic than the facts themselves.
The article might read "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law, the COPA, to ban posting of erotica on-line. The ACLU is arguing that the law is unnecessary because censorware is effective yet 'less restrictive' than simply criminalizing sexual content." Slip some links in there, and you've got news.
Bare in mind that I only skimmed the source articles, so even I, in my bitchy holy-than-thou state, might have let some wild speculation slip in.
(No, I'm not trying to decide whether to finally get cable)
DnD has never been completely accepted by the mainstreamers. Plently of "worried mother" types have panic attacks at the mention of the name. I'm a bit surprised Fox would risk pissing off such righteous citizens.
That said, it's nice to see a classic brought back, drivel though it may be.
I propose that articles be posted with minimal information other than links to news sources. The sensationalism is getting worse and worse. The extra text often seems to get the discussions started in some god-awful direction, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps the person who submits the story could get his comments added as a regular post, or gets bonus points to his posts' score. This would require code change though, I suppose.
I won't be offended when/if this post gets moderated down as off-topic, because it is off-topic, but I'm tired of waiting for a "Ask Slashdot: What's Wrong with Slashdot?"
No, the ACLU is not "green lighting" filterware, at least not in any horrible manner. The ACLU has always said that parents and individuals should be able to use the stuff, but that it should be optional.
Come on. You market a game that looks just like Pac-Man, plays just like Pac-Man, and call it "Mac-Man". The original game is not only copyrighted, but Hasbro is still making money off it.
If not for legal reasons, then for common sense reasons, they deserved to be taken to court.
This isn't a matter of a game being inspired by a classic. Mac-Man and the like are games with no creative process to them.
Besides, there is no legal precedent when the case is settled. The outcome might encourage companys to sue though. If a software company wants to sue when they are being so blatantly hosed, more power to 'em.
If MS had done this, all you Linux zealots would be strutting around, stroking yourselves and saying, "See, MS is evil!!!!"
Well, yeah. Let's see; MS has a long, well-documented history of virtual theft (pardon the pun). Remember Java and J++? MS has gone out of its way to squash competition by using their competitors' own stuff against them. And, of course, MS has been declared a monopoly by the Department of Justice (IIRC).
Of course we'd be saying "MS is evil!!!!" Even the department of Justice says so.
Then there's Be, which has yet to be declared a monopoly by even a single Department. Apparently they made a simple, easy to make, honest mistake which they are fixing.
While I'm ranting, maybe everyone who rushes to put up "Don't jump down their throats" posts should read the friggin article! Gasp, a good idea? Heaven forbid.
This will be a small help for the military. Keep the soldiers alive an extra day or two. But the average soldier has a fair amount of body mass, and expends a lot of energy, and a patch just can't provide enough stuff for body upkeep.
So I propose that this technology is better suited for use by skinny geeks. Small body mass means lower requirements for maintenance. Better yet, we expend virtually no energy (except, ironically, when we get up for snacks).
As King of the Twig Geeks, and the only man ever to have negative body mass, I propose that we storm the nearest Army Place and demand these patches. We can make up some hacker-sounding words that will intimidate them. And if they try to shoot us, at least we're small targets.
This kind of alarmist crap is unbecoming, Slashfolk. Try to keep things in perspective and not blow things out of proportion, please. IANAL, but I have some common sense...
1: The ruling has limited effect, since it's just a circuit court.
2: Source code is protected as speech, but binaries may not be (though I for one would not necessarily complain if binaries were protected as well).
3: Possessing source code and using it are two different things. It may be legal to have the code or maybe even binaries for that WWW-killing virus, but actually using it is still a crime.
4: Constitutional protection or not, speech can be and often is criminalized. See hate speech laws, libel and fraud laws, etc., all of which can apply to the internet and to software.
5: Whatever Joe Evil Hacker has, trust me, the NSA has something better.
So maybe virus code is treated the same as bad poetry. So what. If you use the poetry to destroy property, it's a crime. Damn, I was sounding sane for a while there
Text is free speech, source code is text. Why was this even brought to court?
Because judges are middle-aged to just-plain-old folk who went to law school before computers were mainstream.
Judges (and lawmakers) generally aren't programmers, or techs, or network gurus, or even necessarily "computer literate". They don't understand all the big words, so they make mistakes that seem obvious to us.
This is (potentially) the US military we're talking about. If a grunt gets his head blown off, the government has effectively lost the several thousand dollars spent to train that grunt. The government rounds dollar amounts to the nearest million, which is zero in this case.
By contrast, even an unimpressive artificial soldier would cost at least a million bucks. The US government would never put that much money on the line when a cheap, expendible soldier would do. Yeah, remote control people might exist, but not as a replacement for the everyday grunt.
At least, not until machines start having babies and women realize that sperm causes wrinkles.
Yes, Spam is a form of expression. It is entitled to some protection as free speech. However, Spam is somewhat intrusive. We have to deal with it rather we want to or not, even if just to hit 'delete'. This means it loses a lot of protection. The FCC (originally) used the same line of thought to regulate TV and Radio broadcasts, and there are some things you just can't say on TV.
As for piracy, when was the last time the "Slashdot Community" advocated piracy? We seem to not like it when piracy protections infringe on other rights, and advocate behaviors that border on piracy (copying DVDs for home use, allowing software like Napster which could easily be used for piracy) but not piracy itself.
There should be a linux-based console. They could call it the X-Box; if MS complains, then "prior use" would give them a good fight. Everything runs faster under linux, and it wouldn't be so strongly tied to cheesy PC architecture.
Quick, somebody write a good API!
Even better, maybe Apple will produce a console. Stick in a G4 chip, they should be cheap in two years. Supercomputer console.
Oh, and a 8gb hard drive? It doesn't count as a console if you have to install/uninstall the games! Maybe all that space is just so Win 2001 will fit.
Why, no, I don't like Microsoft very much...is it so obvious?
1: The government doesn't register DNS names (yet;^), private organizations do. Imposing the government's will in this matter would have major constitutional problems. I don't want the gov to have that authority, and I doubt I'm alone.
2: I may be wrong, but I assume that not all of those DNS-registerers are within the US. They are probably scattered all over. Who would pass such a law? The UN? Maybe the WTO would pull something out of its arse.
3: Even regardless of where they registered, sites are hosted all over the world...Your plan might end up filtering out only American sites. The entire American porn industry could be crippled...tax revenues would drop...civilization would cease to exist!
I'm not a big Intel fan (I laughed my ass off when I first saw Athlon benchmarks) but at least Intel seems to be doing something very new. That fast a bus will be a big deal.
All Athlon contributed was a supposed 200MHz bus, but using ordinary (100MHz) SDRAM. Even Sledgehammer sounds like more of the same.
Though I'm all for bringing Echelon to public attention (see my oh-so-witty sig), I'm opposed to this French lawsuit. If it works out, then the French will have done something right, and the universe will unmake itself.
(I apologize to all the French folk out there, but some of us Americans found that funny)
According the Valenti, the law states it is illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
Note "a right of a copyright owner." Copyright owners do not have the right to keep you from making backups/copies for personal use. So the new law does not protect that nonexistent right.
This law doesn't give copyright holders any new rights, it just stop people from violating existing rights.
Is the popular media giving the other side fair time, presenting their/our arguments too? Other than calling the developers "linux hackers," I mean.
So yes I'm all for taking hate away. I'm also for taking away all kinds of other internet pollution. Like kiddie porn, vulgar pictures, and just plain gore. People who need to show their individuality this way can find a better place other than OUR internet.
OUR internet? The internet should belong to everyone, not just the tech-savy or the moderately intelligent. Kiddie porn and (arguably) expressions of bigotry directly harm people, but vulgarity and gore? It is a bit self centered to cast them out just because some of us don't like them.
When I first read your post, I genuinely thought you were kidding.
Slashdot Mirror
But if the article had not been sensationalized would you have read it?
The title wasn't exactly sensationalistic, just pretty much not based in reality. The article itself was full of wild-ass guesses and sensationalism. I think the headlines and articles can be accurate but still interesting. Remember, Slashdot isn't aimed at the sheepy masses. We shouldn't need exciting headlines to grab out attention.
The article, as posted:
Slime-dogg writes "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law to ban posting of erotica on-line." The law, COPA, isn't really news. What's news is that the ACLU is arguing that censorware is "less restrictive" than simply criminalizing sexual content. Essentially they are telling the court "you should not allow COPA because, instead of banning sex, the government could install censorware and that would be better." Legal arguments by definition must be practical, so I see where the ACLU is coming from, but many will interpret this as green-lighting government-mandated censorware.
I might title it "Congress trying to illegalize net porn", which I think would be accurate and no more sensationalistic than the facts themselves.
The article might read "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law, the COPA, to ban posting of erotica on-line. The ACLU is arguing that the law is unnecessary because censorware is effective yet 'less restrictive' than simply criminalizing sexual content." Slip some links in there, and you've got news.
Bare in mind that I only skimmed the source articles, so even I, in my bitchy holy-than-thou state, might have let some wild speculation slip in.
Wow I'm long-winded.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
(No, I'm not trying to decide whether to finally get cable)
DnD has never been completely accepted by the mainstreamers. Plently of "worried mother" types have panic attacks at the mention of the name. I'm a bit surprised Fox would risk pissing off such righteous citizens.
That said, it's nice to see a classic brought back, drivel though it may be.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
I propose that articles be posted with minimal information other than links to news sources. The sensationalism is getting worse and worse. The extra text often seems to get the discussions started in some god-awful direction, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps the person who submits the story could get his comments added as a regular post, or gets bonus points to his posts' score. This would require code change though, I suppose.
I won't be offended when/if this post gets moderated down as off-topic, because it is off-topic, but I'm tired of waiting for a "Ask Slashdot: What's Wrong with Slashdot?"
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Congratulations. You said something intelligent, observant, and relevant.
Your punishment has not yet been decided. An article will be posted when it has, but it will contain inaccurate information.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Yes, obviously COPA is worse than filterware.
No, the ACLU is not "green lighting" filterware, at least not in any horrible manner. The ACLU has always said that parents and individuals should be able to use the stuff, but that it should be optional.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Come on. You market a game that looks just like Pac-Man, plays just like Pac-Man, and call it "Mac-Man". The original game is not only copyrighted, but Hasbro is still making money off it.
If not for legal reasons, then for common sense reasons, they deserved to be taken to court.
This isn't a matter of a game being inspired by a classic. Mac-Man and the like are games with no creative process to them.
Besides, there is no legal precedent when the case is settled. The outcome might encourage companys to sue though. If a software company wants to sue when they are being so blatantly hosed, more power to 'em.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Well, yeah. Let's see; MS has a long, well-documented history of virtual theft (pardon the pun). Remember Java and J++? MS has gone out of its way to squash competition by using their competitors' own stuff against them. And, of course, MS has been declared a monopoly by the Department of Justice (IIRC).
Of course we'd be saying "MS is evil!!!!" Even the department of Justice says so.
Then there's Be, which has yet to be declared a monopoly by even a single Department. Apparently they made a simple, easy to make, honest mistake which they are fixing.
While I'm ranting, maybe everyone who rushes to put up "Don't jump down their throats" posts should read the friggin article! Gasp, a good idea? Heaven forbid.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
This is really, really funny.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
So I propose that this technology is better suited for use by skinny geeks. Small body mass means lower requirements for maintenance. Better yet, we expend virtually no energy (except, ironically, when we get up for snacks).
As King of the Twig Geeks, and the only man ever to have negative body mass, I propose that we storm the nearest Army Place and demand these patches. We can make up some hacker-sounding words that will intimidate them. And if they try to shoot us, at least we're small targets.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
I'd like to suggest a small revision to that.
Good: You can keep things secret.
Bad: They can keep things secret.
---
This kind of alarmist crap is unbecoming, Slashfolk. Try to keep things in perspective and not blow things out of proportion, please. IANAL, but I have some common sense...
1: The ruling has limited effect, since it's just a circuit court.
2: Source code is protected as speech, but binaries may not be (though I for one would not necessarily complain if binaries were protected as well).
3: Possessing source code and using it are two different things. It may be legal to have the code or maybe even binaries for that WWW-killing virus, but actually using it is still a crime.
4: Constitutional protection or not, speech can be and often is criminalized. See hate speech laws, libel and fraud laws, etc., all of which can apply to the internet and to software.
5: Whatever Joe Evil Hacker has, trust me, the NSA has something better.
So maybe virus code is treated the same as bad poetry. So what. If you use the poetry to destroy property, it's a crime. Damn, I was sounding sane for a while there
Thank you, and calm down.
---
Text is free speech, source code is text. Why was this even brought to court?
Because judges are middle-aged to just-plain-old folk who went to law school before computers were mainstream.
Judges (and lawmakers) generally aren't programmers, or techs, or network gurus, or even necessarily "computer literate". They don't understand all the big words, so they make mistakes that seem obvious to us.
(Plus politics, duh)
---
This is (potentially) the US military we're talking about. If a grunt gets his head blown off, the government has effectively lost the several thousand dollars spent to train that grunt. The government rounds dollar amounts to the nearest million, which is zero in this case.
By contrast, even an unimpressive artificial soldier would cost at least a million bucks. The US government would never put that much money on the line when a cheap, expendible soldier would do. Yeah, remote control people might exist, but not as a replacement for the everyday grunt.
At least, not until machines start having babies and women realize that sperm causes wrinkles.
---
Yes, Spam is a form of expression. It is entitled to some protection as free speech. However, Spam is somewhat intrusive. We have to deal with it rather we want to or not, even if just to hit 'delete'. This means it loses a lot of protection. The FCC (originally) used the same line of thought to regulate TV and Radio broadcasts, and there are some things you just can't say on TV.
As for piracy, when was the last time the "Slashdot Community" advocated piracy? We seem to not like it when piracy protections infringe on other rights, and advocate behaviors that border on piracy (copying DVDs for home use, allowing software like Napster which could easily be used for piracy) but not piracy itself.
-sig-
There should be a linux-based console. They could call it the X-Box; if MS complains, then "prior use" would give them a good fight. Everything runs faster under linux, and it wouldn't be so strongly tied to cheesy PC architecture.
Quick, somebody write a good API!
Even better, maybe Apple will produce a console. Stick in a G4 chip, they should be cheap in two years. Supercomputer console.
Oh, and a 8gb hard drive? It doesn't count as a console if you have to install/uninstall the games! Maybe all that space is just so Win 2001 will fit.
Why, no, I don't like Microsoft very much...is it so obvious?
-sig-
Everything comes with warning labels these days. We've all seen funny ones and sad ones (anything that says "For external use only" is both).
Save paper and time! Label everything with this:
If you are going to hurt yourself with this product, don't use it. Stay at least five feet away from it.
-sig-
Three big problems with this idea....
1: The government doesn't register DNS names (yet ;^), private organizations do. Imposing the government's will in this matter would have major constitutional problems. I don't want the gov to have that authority, and I doubt I'm alone.
2: I may be wrong, but I assume that not all of those DNS-registerers are within the US. They are probably scattered all over. Who would pass such a law? The UN? Maybe the WTO would pull something out of its arse.
3: Even regardless of where they registered, sites are hosted all over the world...Your plan might end up filtering out only American sites. The entire American porn industry could be crippled...tax revenues would drop...civilization would cease to exist!
-sig-
I'm not a big Intel fan (I laughed my ass off when I first saw Athlon benchmarks) but at least Intel seems to be doing something very new. That fast a bus will be a big deal.
All Athlon contributed was a supposed 200MHz bus, but using ordinary (100MHz) SDRAM. Even Sledgehammer sounds like more of the same.
-sig-
Finally, proof that mine is the One True Faith.
-sig-
Though I'm all for bringing Echelon to public attention (see my oh-so-witty sig), I'm opposed to this French lawsuit. If it works out, then the French will have done something right, and the universe will unmake itself.
(I apologize to all the French folk out there, but some of us Americans found that funny)
-sig-
It may seem be illegal for me to get instructions on how to read this here DVD I bought...
This depresses me. Maybe I'll go download the (legally available) instructions for making a bomb...
-sig-
In the Open Source spirit, have documentation available free, but you could have bound, printed, and illustrated versions available at a profit.
-sig-
The Mountain Dew / Bohemian Rhapsody commercial was best, simply because it received more hype than the actual game did.
Disclaimer: The concentration of Mt. Dew in my bloodstream is so high that it has attained sentience and controls my actions.
-sig-
According the Valenti, the law states it is illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
Note "a right of a copyright owner." Copyright owners do not have the right to keep you from making backups/copies for personal use. So the new law does not protect that nonexistent right.
This law doesn't give copyright holders any new rights, it just stop people from violating existing rights.
Is the popular media giving the other side fair time, presenting their/our arguments too? Other than calling the developers "linux hackers," I mean.
-sig-
So yes I'm all for taking hate away. I'm also for taking away all kinds of other internet pollution. Like kiddie porn, vulgar pictures, and just plain gore. People who need to show their individuality this way can find a better place other than OUR internet.
OUR internet? The internet should belong to everyone, not just the tech-savy or the moderately intelligent. Kiddie porn and (arguably) expressions of bigotry directly harm people, but vulgarity and gore? It is a bit self centered to cast them out just because some of us don't like them.
When I first read your post, I genuinely thought you were kidding.
-sig-