IANAL, but it seems that had this been the potential to be a whistleblower situation, and there was not even notification to permit one to move to quash, YAHOO could be in deep maneur. Did not Congress move to specifically protect those types of actions. Irregardless of current suit, it makes one wonder to what extent YAHOO goes in researching a complaint, of if they summarily discose upon receipt of any request. It seems to protect YAHOO itself the best response would be notification and time for response of the party involved.
The phone number comparison is not applicable for several reasons. In fact, I am surprised the NSI lawyer used the analogy that you don't own a domain name just like you don't own a telephone number. First, as mentioned elsewhere, the 'phone number', if used in an analogy, is the ip address, not the domain name. The local telco CAN change numbers under certain circumstances, though not as freely as in the past. They cannot, however, decide to arbitrarily change your name as listed in a directory at their whim nor can they claim ownership of your name as listed. The name of the listing is a more appropriate comparison than the telephone number. Secondly, local number portability, IMHO, somewhat invalidates that comparison as well. The FCC dictates one CAN take their phone number with them when changing local carriers. This somewhat invalidates the lawyers analogy. Lastely, the case mentioned and the contract indicated virgina for the state of any legal actions. But it seems that any arbitrary decision on the part of NSI, in a business, could have significant impact on a business' ability to engage in interstate commerce. IANAL, but does the federal goverment retain all jurisdiction in that area, and require that states cannot interfere in interstate commerce? Could a case be therefore filed in federal court which if successful, would invalidate any VA court ruling? (Of course you'd have to win. But after VA passed the UTICA, or whatever the hell it's called, I'm not sure that's a state where I'd want to be involved in any legal action.) I'll definitely be transfering my domain before renewal date, though from reading posts, that isn't the easist thing to accomplish. But as long as they claim ownership and can revoke simply on their whim, it's not a place I want any domain registered. I will make the same suggesstion to all clients as well. This simply is not a reasonable situation. (Granted, I have no use for squatters, but this is NOT the way to go about resolving that situation.)
I'm all for protecting copyrights and state that up front. But I agree the motivation is money, but there's something above that they fear (as with the MPAA). The record companies fear the loss of control. When a record company signs a band, they essentialy own them, from what they do, produce, hell, probably decide for them the boxer/briefs question. the REASON they can do that is the record companies have the CONTROL, and the distribution. Any group NEEDS them if they seek that 'fame and fortune'. While one may not hit the levels of a band under contract, the new medium, ie, the web, napstar, or anything else that proliferates allowing distribution they do not/can not control, will allow the name recognition, 'fame' if you will, before they've ever signed on the line. They may sign with a label at some point, but now they have a MUCH better bargaining position with the record labels, as they'll be sought after by many, not crawling in saying 'sign me, and take my firstborn'. This is all about control, just like the MPAA. The copyright issue is their justification for their actions. Just an opinion.
If the manual is a reference containing commands, codes, error messages, etc, then online documentation is fine. If it's detailed product information, installation/configuration, then I still want something on paper I can take the time to read. Trying to read a few hundred pages on a terminal is NOT the way to go, IMHO.
I agree with you on supplying a 'hack kit'. Someone mentioned adding a drive, ethernet adapter, etc. Besides those costs, it just added production costs - both in adding the devices and quality control/testing functions. Let us buy the box, options simply be adding a boxed drive, memory, net adapter - and let buyer install them. It's NOT that hard. And keeps the price down. Hell, I'd buy a couple and it'd make things easier here (having been buying cases, motherboards, etc, for years so I didn't have to pay the MS tax when I was using OS/2 or Linux)
Agreed, Linux may not be replacing os/390 anytime soon, but I believe the combination of BOTH is a viable solution and one I'm planning on suggesting. LPAR the machine with OS/390 and Linux. Linux wouldn't need huge partition, but be perfect for interface to the outside world. Communicating with the OS/390 for data/legacy. The OS/390 partition runs along with all the other legacy aps and SNA for those of us still having to go that route or TCP/IP internally. One ends up with a distinct barrier between internal/external functions.
One doesn't need a web site to make use of a domain name. I've had one registered for 4 years, and no web site. It's based on a name/nickname I've had for MANY years. The domain has been active for my mail since I've had it, but that's all.
First, I doubt the framers were thinking much about the constitution 274 years ago, as they'd be toddlers, if yet born. >>Instead of treating the Constitution as a fundemental set of rights, we should start to look at it more like a "wish list" or "position statement" - not to be followed to the letter, but judged more on a case-by-case basis as is done in British common law. And with that statement, I must repectfully disagree. I don't think for a minute the framers wished that to be the case. I feel the intent was a standard to be equally applied to all with equal weight irregardless of any case basis. They wisely left the constitution the ability to change, yet not so easily to be done on a whim. While the legal system is widely based on British common law, I don't feel for a minute they wished constitutional questions to be resolved using that system. Had they done so, they would have simply followed the British and not written the thing in the first place.
>>Let say Sony's key's get compromised, they are gonna make a couple of million displays around the worlds piles of junk? Or have millions of people being told to bring them in for "repair". Its simply not an option IMO. That's absolutely the case. Though the consortium that wants their own standard would have something of a smart card configuration (much like dbs), the sony et al version is on a chip. And they may be winning. They've already included their encryption in some of their new model sets, and you can guess which version the MPAA and company want. (The sony scheme, IIRC, shuts down the whole set, not the invidual stream. The option promoted by Thomson (RCA), and others with the smart card, is more selective, I believe, and if the key is compromised or hacked, they can replace your card vs. ending up with something like of a 5000-1000 dollar end table.
The 'reasonable' stream of messages really isn't relevant to this conversation. The cost of software (be if free, $10 or $1000) being discussed is for production of content. The intent of the encryption to the video is for the dissemination of content. And that's ALL visual content, not your PC. As noted in the article, this is meant for pc's and hdtv's which will be replacing our sets in the future. There's a big difference.
Why do they want to encrypt the video signal? It's the next step in the process of access control. (Or if you believe the MPAA, to prevent copying.) It's true intent, IMHO, is that it's further progress in the MPAA and other organizations to circumvent the fair use as interpreted by the Supreme Court. They simply wish TOTAL control, no matter if you paid for a product of not. Fair use, as we know it, would go out the window. The intent, more toward HDTV than PC's, but they'll merge in some respects, is to control access not just to your cable box or HDTV, but all the way to the video. The intent is to encrypt so that today's 'vcr time shifting' becomes moot, they will NOT premit taping (or digitizing) for later viewing. This is an area that's been getting attention in the HDTV area. As it stands now, there's a conflict in the consumer electronics area on encryption means, the most pervasive being the one promoted by Sony and others which also has the abililty to remotely 'revoke' access. But in any case, they mean to encrypt not just to your door step, but between your cable box and hdtv, or any 'vcr' type device which may also be available once this stuff comes out. (Sony has already included their encryption scheme in some of their new models.) The particularly gruesome aspect is that 'it can be revoked by satellite'. (And that also means through your cable box of over the air broadcast.) This is big brother to the extreme, making the uproar over the cipher chip for few years ago a folly. In this case, there's no key repository, no requirement for a court order to match a key to shut you off, they simply do it. If you combine the impact of the UCITA, DMCA, and now this, is an attempt, that so far seems to be suceeding, to tell the supreme court where they can go. (This should also make the courts stand up and take notice, however. With the ability to control content..and folks, this isn't just cable or dbs, they mean to include it in free over the air digital tv, it causes one to think carefully of the ability to control news and the freedom of the press. What happens the first time the gov't decides to prevent distribution of a story. Today, we generally lean about it anyway. In the future, the government wouldn't have to attempt to coerce the press, protected by the 1st amendment, to supress information. They could simply go to the neighborhood repository of 'commercial access' keys with a court order and say 'shut 'em all down'. They wouldn't be the 'press'. So what do you think they're going to do?) We are treading in VERY dangerous territory. (off soapbox mode)
>Why is it inconceivable to you? Because your blind linux zealtry doesnt allow you to believe anything else? Nope. but my 20+ years in this business tells me to be VERY suspicious and read the fine print, not the press release.
>Thanx;) Ain't it nice to have the source code Ain't it the truth! Much better than some released systems with thousands of bugs (and this isnt' released yet), where your only option is to wait months for the first service. I'm convinced!
I agree with you there. the old rural electricification put lights on in the stick. And as one with a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, I'm all for wiring it up, or even the wireless! (Uh, and no, the REA didn't get that far there, as there's no electricity there either, but at least THAT I can take care of, good old sun, wind, and new fangled fuel cells.) I'll build soon as I can take the computers along, so I can still pay the bills!
You'll find a good portion of that road doesn't even exist anymore. As for net access, you might check the Ameritech and SBC (southwestern bell) web sites. I'm not sure how far along their merger is, but if they've got some roaming that's reasonably priced, they'll have the coverage for the entire trip excepting places where US West serves. (where it's available. Though 66 probably follows a good portion of the interstate system, you might find some dead spots.) There might be a rental program. Also, if you're renting a car, see if they can provide rental cell service, which is available through some. (Just don't spend a lot of time, it's not cheap.) AOL, also previously mentioned, probably has the largest list of dial-up pops, but you'll find a lot of places along the way that probably do NOT have service. (Again, check ameritech and sbc to see if they provide ISP service. They own the switches and more likely to have access at some of the smaller CO's, I'd guess.) Lastely, enjoy the trip, forget the net for good part of the time. There's some good scenery along the way... and we don't want to see the/. article of you falling in the grand canyon because you were looking at your email instead of the road As for phones in hotels, that probably depends. Some along THAT route probably don't even have in-room phones. If it's a chain, check in advance. A lot of the digital systems, unless they got replaced for Y2K, aren't too new, and won't have analog rj11 jacks for plugging in a modem.
Also a US citizen type, so know my comment doesn't apply to UK which doesn't have a Constitution with 4th and 5th amendments. And also a non-lawyer, so take that comment as you will.
The UK proposal seems so totally screwed. What happens if someone sends a person (like an MP?) encrypted mail that he's NEVER had a key to decrypt. Does that mean unless he can PROVE he never had a key to decrypt email, he can go to jail if he fails to turn over something he never had and has no way of proving? How in hell is one suppossed to prove THAT?
>>I've always thought Yahoo! to be one of the great net companies - they had a great idea, and won through with it, while not getting all corporate big wig suit wearing. You're right, there isn't any real value in attacking it.
You may be correct. Or, instead of all the consipracy theories, this could simply be a case of greed and an attempt at extortion. 'Pay or we'll shut you down' type situation, a little like the person(s) who stole the credit card data from the CD place and attempted to extort money or he'd release the credit card numbers. they didnt' pay..and the numbers were out there. We may learn someone didn't pay or this was the 'show me' that they could do it. I agree with you - Yahoo! pretty damn good company. But they have in common with the others a pretty rich cash flow they need to protect.
I'll bite, and giving the benefit of the doubt, take the prior posting from Mr. Bottoms to be a serious one. In doing so, I'll toss in a few free suggesstions: (1) To start, no matter what others state on here, your represent your company. Your language is certainly inappropriate. (2) In reading the 'email' your attorney sent to someone to 'cease and desist'; it reads anything but 'lawyerly'. (I get faxes/send 'em to the attorneys many times a week. I know of no one who would write something like that.) (3) I've noticed that the entire management has turned over. Yet in all the releases on your web page, there is neither a press release to that effect nor is there any bio on the new officers. Stating in-dept experience of your 'management team', its absence is certainly glaring. (4) If your company has 'screwed up', to paraphrase as I do not wish to sink to your vocabulary, the wisest choice your firm could make would be to pull the IPO until you have concluded. Get a reputation, be involved in the community, find come VC's willing to invest... THEN worry about doing the IPO.
I'm just wondering if their Underwriters have good lawyers. There's been enough said, and I do recall seeing a letter and response someone sent to them questioning the company. I have absolutely no idea what type of due diligence is expected of an underwriter, but if any of these comments are even partially accurate, I have a feeling anyone subscribing to the IPO is gonna end up looking for bucks. (Don't underwriters usually eat underscribed issues? With that possibility, couldn't that get just a tad expensive in itself?)
You're correct, 'Happy Birthday to you' was written by the Hill sisters and under copyright. But it is still sung in gatherings, large and small, without payment. The heirs have obviously been reasonable, seeing only that the song is protected and royalties/permission only required in commercial ventures (ie, sung in a movie, etc). Can you imagine if it'd been written today? Hmm. We'd have likely never seen Marilyn singing it in Madison Sq to JFK. If it'd been written today, you probably couldn't sing it at your own birthday party unless you made sure it was in your own home, doors/windows locked and barred. You likely couldn't have a birthday cake from the corner bakery saying 'happy birthday to you' without paying a royality. As the distribution mediums increase, the holders of copyrights wring every dime, and work to tighten control more. I wonder when we'll have to develop a new language because the Jack Valenti's of the world will work to copyright every word in the dictionary, and have it protected by Congress like the word 'olym****' (since I don't think I can even write that without the USOC's permission). (I think I'll start by copyrighting the words 'a', 'and', and 'the' to start. An ammusing little project... computer generate every three or four word combination, and copyright them all as titles. True, it'd be millions (and I'll be the first contributor to the non-profit set up to do this). It'd be about impossible for Valenti's crowd to come up with ANY movie title, without paying for permission. (I'd LOVE seeing every movie made from 2000 on having to carry in credits 'title used by permission of the Internet Freedom Protection Foundation'. Everyone would be rolling in their graves 100 yrs from now, from Valenti to Eisner to Mickey Mouse. (And yes, I'm a right wing conservative, not some flaming liberal if you DCA types out there watching. I'm all for capitalism. But there IS a limit, and one of those of a conservative is protecting individual freedom. When it goes from capitalism to arrogance and stifling individual freedoms, you've greatly crossed the line of anything the founding fathers ever envisioned. You, meaning DCA and MPAA, do realize if you lose your suits, which I believe you will just like Sony v. Universal Pictures, you'll be opening floodgates of which you cannot imagine, from starting with fair use, meaining I can see whatever I want wherever I want on what equipment I want, as long as I legally obtained your movies. Region coding will probably be next to go, becuase if you lose, that's probably finished as well. Have you really looked at the downside here?
you can moderate down... as sorry i got a little off topic here going back to MPAA/DCA
Having followed this (or attempted to) for a couple months and being very skeptical, IMHO, there are several possibilities for a 'flame competiion': (1) provides 'cover' for the real flames to anyone outside Linux community, 'yeah, it's a joke, we have a contest to see who flames us best, doesn't mean anything. so popular, it's on all the web sites now'; (2) provides potential 'out' should people investing end up suing 'see, even on our own site we had opinions showing what people really thought of us, you should have read it. we certainly provided full disclosure' (shareholder suits are infamous. could be simply the old CYA gimmick); (3) provide fodder for their attorney if IPO fails, suing the flamers saying 'see, they ruined our marvelous technological great superb company (or should say future superb... everything on their site is in 'will be' or 'could be'. at least they finally started putting the safe harbour statements in there.)'. I wouldn't trust that flame competition. or them. period. Someone noted the names of all the officers, etc, changed (though the 'owner' isn't prominent on the site, I'd say he still owns the stock/runs the show). I WOULD,knowing we have some journalists in/., like to see if anyone could follow up on a couple things: (a) can anyone find the people who's names WERE the officers and maybe interview them. If they were summarily dumped by linuxone, might have some real interesting insights and willing to provide them. (b) officers/boards are generally, I would guess, part of disclosure requirements in an S-1 just as in K filings or the proverbial annual report. Anyone know if they've submitted some type of addendum of their S-1 to reflect the total change in upper management? (Wouldn't that make an investor somewhat skeptical?)
a bowl? hell, i'll pour a whole gatorade barrel of that code down my pants. I admit, been a little leary? naw..maybe just cautious about IBM's entry into linux area, but with this, GPL'd JFS, (and damn amazing one), I'm speechless. at least impressed! I think it's time to LPAR the machine runnin' MVS and be ready for Linux/390. It'd be nice to just have a couple big boxes running the two and dump the little toys we have runnin' NT here and NT there.
Yes, I've spilled drinks on myself, have spilled coffee. I still have a scar from burning myself on a lightbulb (at the time, I thought 'damn, that was stupid of me). And I remember being burned by spattering grease too. But would you have coffee served cold, sue a lightbulb company if they couldn't produce an incandescent bulb that didn't get hot, or pass a law that bacon can't be cooked because grease might splatter (or if one cooks it, the producer is responsible because it CAN be cooked.) I agree, lawyers can be good and useful. But many have slid the slippery slope and made it a lottery for people, taking their percentage of course. The trial lawyers are some of the largest lobbiest and campaign contributers to make sure there's no reform. People do dumb things. And in the past, they took responsibility for their own stupidity. Today they do something stupid that's their own fault, and sue instead.
You make a good point in the comment. Also, considering the Fool not mainstream media may be correct, but they have MANY followers, in the investment community, and very well known outside the Linux community and public knowledge on this one is GOOD! Oh, and the article very nicely has a link to 'article b' which contains the published CSSScramble code.
... speaking of mainstream media, The NY Times also has an article dated 1/7. I'd say THEY are mainstream media, and it likes to/. Now a link to a link (times->slashdot->decss code) makes it interesting. Will DCA attempt to squelch the Fool or Times for linking? hmmm.. for the legal types on here...is the genie out of the bottle yet?
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but it seems that had this been the potential to be a whistleblower situation, and there was not even notification to permit one to move to quash, YAHOO could be in deep maneur. Did not Congress move to specifically protect those types of actions. Irregardless of current suit, it makes one wonder to what extent YAHOO goes in researching a complaint, of if they summarily discose upon receipt of any request. It seems to protect YAHOO itself the best response would be notification and time for response of the party involved.
The phone number comparison is not applicable for several reasons. In fact, I am surprised the NSI lawyer used the analogy that you don't own a domain name just like you don't own a telephone number. First, as mentioned elsewhere, the 'phone number', if used in an analogy, is the ip address, not the domain name. The local telco CAN change numbers under certain circumstances, though not as freely as in the past. They cannot, however, decide to arbitrarily change your name as listed in a directory at their whim nor can they claim ownership of your name as listed. The name of the listing is a more appropriate comparison than the telephone number. Secondly, local number portability, IMHO, somewhat invalidates that comparison as well. The FCC dictates one CAN take their phone number with them when changing local carriers. This somewhat invalidates the lawyers analogy. Lastely, the case mentioned and the contract indicated virgina for the state of any legal actions. But it seems that any arbitrary decision on the part of NSI, in a business, could have significant impact on a business' ability to engage in interstate commerce. IANAL, but does the federal goverment retain all jurisdiction in that area, and require that states cannot interfere in interstate commerce? Could a case be therefore filed in federal court which if successful, would invalidate any VA court ruling? (Of course you'd have to win. But after VA passed the UTICA, or whatever the hell it's called, I'm not sure that's a state where I'd want to be involved in any legal action.) I'll definitely be transfering my domain before renewal date, though from reading posts, that isn't the easist thing to accomplish. But as long as they claim ownership and can revoke simply on their whim, it's not a place I want any domain registered. I will make the same suggesstion to all clients as well. This simply is not a reasonable situation. (Granted, I have no use for squatters, but this is NOT the way to go about resolving that situation.)
I'm all for protecting copyrights and state that up front. But I agree the motivation is money, but there's something above that they fear (as with the MPAA). The record companies fear the loss of control. When a record company signs a band, they essentialy own them, from what they do, produce, hell, probably decide for them the boxer/briefs question. the REASON they can do that is the record companies have the CONTROL, and the distribution. Any group NEEDS them if they seek that 'fame and fortune'. While one may not hit the levels of a band under contract, the new medium, ie, the web, napstar, or anything else that proliferates allowing distribution they do not/can not control, will allow the name recognition, 'fame' if you will, before they've ever signed on the line. They may sign with a label at some point, but now they have a MUCH better bargaining position with the record labels, as they'll be sought after by many, not crawling in saying 'sign me, and take my firstborn'. This is all about control, just like the MPAA. The copyright issue is their justification for their actions. Just an opinion.
If the manual is a reference containing commands, codes, error messages, etc, then online documentation is fine. If it's detailed product information, installation/configuration, then I still want something on paper I can take the time to read. Trying to read a few hundred pages on a terminal is NOT the way to go, IMHO.
I agree with you on supplying a 'hack kit'. Someone mentioned adding a drive, ethernet adapter, etc. Besides those costs, it just added production costs - both in adding the devices and quality control/testing functions. Let us buy the box, options simply be adding a boxed drive, memory, net adapter - and let buyer install them. It's NOT that hard. And keeps the price down. Hell, I'd buy a couple and it'd make things easier here (having been buying cases, motherboards, etc, for years so I didn't have to pay the MS tax when I was using OS/2 or Linux)
Agreed, Linux may not be replacing os/390 anytime soon, but I believe the combination of BOTH is a viable solution and one I'm planning on suggesting. LPAR the machine with OS/390 and Linux. Linux wouldn't need huge partition, but be perfect for interface to the outside world. Communicating with the OS/390 for data/legacy. The OS/390 partition runs along with all the other legacy aps and SNA for those of us still having to go that route or TCP/IP internally. One ends up with a distinct barrier between internal/external functions.
One doesn't need a web site to make use of a domain name. I've had one registered for 4 years, and no web site. It's based on a name/nickname I've had for MANY years. The domain has been active for my mail since I've had it, but that's all.
First, I doubt the framers were thinking much about the constitution 274 years ago, as they'd be toddlers, if yet born. >>Instead of treating the Constitution as a fundemental set of rights, we should start to look at it more like a "wish list" or "position statement" - not to be followed to the letter, but judged more on a case-by-case basis as is done in British common law. And with that statement, I must repectfully disagree. I don't think for a minute the framers wished that to be the case. I feel the intent was a standard to be equally applied to all with equal weight irregardless of any case basis. They wisely left the constitution the ability to change, yet not so easily to be done on a whim. While the legal system is widely based on British common law, I don't feel for a minute they wished constitutional questions to be resolved using that system. Had they done so, they would have simply followed the British and not written the thing in the first place.
>>Let say Sony's key's get compromised, they are gonna make a couple of million displays around the worlds piles of junk? Or have millions of people being told to bring them in for "repair". Its simply not an option IMO. That's absolutely the case. Though the consortium that wants their own standard would have something of a smart card configuration (much like dbs), the sony et al version is on a chip. And they may be winning. They've already included their encryption in some of their new model sets, and you can guess which version the MPAA and company want. (The sony scheme, IIRC, shuts down the whole set, not the invidual stream. The option promoted by Thomson (RCA), and others with the smart card, is more selective, I believe, and if the key is compromised or hacked, they can replace your card vs. ending up with something like of a 5000-1000 dollar end table.
The 'reasonable' stream of messages really isn't relevant to this conversation. The cost of software (be if free, $10 or $1000) being discussed is for production of content. The intent of the encryption to the video is for the dissemination of content. And that's ALL visual content, not your PC. As noted in the article, this is meant for pc's and hdtv's which will be replacing our sets in the future. There's a big difference.
Why do they want to encrypt the video signal? It's the next step in the process of access control. (Or if you believe the MPAA, to prevent copying.) It's true intent, IMHO, is that it's further progress in the MPAA and other organizations to circumvent the fair use as interpreted by the Supreme Court. They simply wish TOTAL control, no matter if you paid for a product of not. Fair use, as we know it, would go out the window. The intent, more toward HDTV than PC's, but they'll merge in some respects, is to control access not just to your cable box or HDTV, but all the way to the video. The intent is to encrypt so that today's 'vcr time shifting' becomes moot, they will NOT premit taping (or digitizing) for later viewing. This is an area that's been getting attention in the HDTV area. As it stands now, there's a conflict in the consumer electronics area on encryption means, the most pervasive being the one promoted by Sony and others which also has the abililty to remotely 'revoke' access. But in any case, they mean to encrypt not just to your door step, but between your cable box and hdtv, or any 'vcr' type device which may also be available once this stuff comes out. (Sony has already included their encryption scheme in some of their new models.) The particularly gruesome aspect is that 'it can be revoked by satellite'. (And that also means through your cable box of over the air broadcast.) This is big brother to the extreme, making the uproar over the cipher chip for few years ago a folly. In this case, there's no key repository, no requirement for a court order to match a key to shut you off, they simply do it. If you combine the impact of the UCITA, DMCA, and now this, is an attempt, that so far seems to be suceeding, to tell the supreme court where they can go. (This should also make the courts stand up and take notice, however. With the ability to control content..and folks, this isn't just cable or dbs, they mean to include it in free over the air digital tv, it causes one to think carefully of the ability to control news and the freedom of the press. What happens the first time the gov't decides to prevent distribution of a story. Today, we generally lean about it anyway. In the future, the government wouldn't have to attempt to coerce the press, protected by the 1st amendment, to supress information. They could simply go to the neighborhood repository of 'commercial access' keys with a court order and say 'shut 'em all down'. They wouldn't be the 'press'. So what do you think they're going to do?) We are treading in VERY dangerous territory.
(off soapbox mode)
>Why is it inconceivable to you? Because your blind linux zealtry doesnt allow you to believe anything else? Nope. but my 20+ years in this business tells me to be VERY suspicious and read the fine print, not the press release.
>Thanx ;) Ain't it nice to have the source code Ain't it the truth! Much better than some released systems with thousands of bugs (and this isnt' released yet), where your only option is to wait months for the first service. I'm convinced!
I agree with you there. the old rural electricification put lights on in the stick. And as one with a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, I'm all for wiring it up, or even the wireless! (Uh, and no, the REA didn't get that far there, as there's no electricity there either, but at least THAT I can take care of, good old sun, wind, and new fangled fuel cells.) I'll build soon as I can take the computers along, so I can still pay the bills!
You'll find a good portion of that road doesn't even exist anymore. /. article of you falling in the grand canyon because you were looking at your email instead of the road
As for net access, you might check the Ameritech and SBC (southwestern bell) web sites. I'm not sure how far along their merger is, but if they've got some roaming that's reasonably priced, they'll have the coverage for the entire trip excepting places where US West serves. (where it's available. Though 66 probably follows a good portion of the interstate system, you might find some dead spots.) There might be a rental program. Also, if you're renting a car, see if they can provide rental cell service, which is available through some. (Just don't spend a lot of time, it's not cheap.) AOL, also previously mentioned, probably has the largest list of dial-up pops, but you'll find a lot of places along the way that probably do NOT have service. (Again, check ameritech and sbc to see if they provide ISP service. They own the switches and more likely to have access at some of the smaller CO's, I'd guess.)
Lastely, enjoy the trip, forget the net for good part of the time. There's some good scenery along the way... and we don't want to see the
As for phones in hotels, that probably depends. Some along THAT route probably don't even have in-room phones. If it's a chain, check in advance. A lot of the digital systems, unless they got replaced for Y2K, aren't too new, and won't have analog rj11 jacks for plugging in a modem.
Also a US citizen type, so know my comment doesn't apply to UK which doesn't have a Constitution with 4th and 5th amendments. And also a non-lawyer, so take that comment as you will.
The UK proposal seems so totally screwed. What happens if someone sends a person (like an MP?) encrypted mail that he's NEVER had a key to decrypt. Does that mean unless he can PROVE he never had a key to decrypt email, he can go to jail if he fails to turn over something he never had and has no way of proving? How in hell is one suppossed to prove THAT?
I still remember building a Tesla coil as a kid, probably 40 years ago. It was amazing to an 8 year old kid!
It's nice to see the guys name getting some recognition and credit.
>>I've always thought Yahoo! to be one of the great net companies - they had a great idea, and won through with it, while not getting all corporate big wig suit wearing. You're right, there isn't any real value in attacking it.
You may be correct. Or, instead of all the consipracy theories, this could simply be a case of greed and an attempt at extortion. 'Pay or we'll shut you down' type situation, a little like the person(s) who stole the credit card data from the CD place and attempted to extort money or he'd release the credit card numbers. they didnt' pay..and the numbers were out there. We may learn someone didn't pay or this was the 'show me' that they could do it. I agree with you - Yahoo! pretty damn good company. But they have in common with the others a pretty rich cash flow they need to protect.
I'll bite, and giving the benefit of the doubt, take the prior posting from Mr. Bottoms to be a serious one. In doing so, I'll toss in a few free suggesstions: (1) To start, no matter what others state on here, your represent your company. Your language is certainly inappropriate. (2) In reading the 'email' your attorney sent to someone to 'cease and desist'; it reads anything but 'lawyerly'. (I get faxes/send 'em to the attorneys many times a week. I know of no one who would write something like that.) (3) I've noticed that the entire management has turned over. Yet in all the releases on your web page, there is neither a press release to that effect nor is there any bio on the new officers. Stating in-dept experience of your 'management team', its absence is certainly glaring. (4) If your company has 'screwed up', to paraphrase as I do not wish to sink to your vocabulary, the wisest choice your firm could make would be to pull the IPO until you have concluded. Get a reputation, be involved in the community, find come VC's willing to invest... THEN worry about doing the IPO.
I'm just wondering if their Underwriters have good lawyers. There's been enough said, and I do recall seeing a letter and response someone sent to them questioning the company. I have absolutely no idea what type of due diligence is expected of an underwriter, but if any of these comments are even partially accurate, I have a feeling anyone subscribing to the IPO is gonna end up looking for bucks. (Don't underwriters usually eat underscribed issues? With that possibility, couldn't that get just a tad expensive in itself?)
You're correct, 'Happy Birthday to you' was written by the Hill sisters and under copyright.
But it is still sung in gatherings, large and small, without payment. The heirs have obviously been reasonable, seeing only that the song is protected and royalties/permission only required in commercial ventures (ie, sung in a movie, etc).
Can you imagine if it'd been written today? Hmm. We'd have likely never seen Marilyn singing it in Madison Sq to JFK.
If it'd been written today, you probably couldn't sing it at your own birthday party unless you made sure it was in your own home, doors/windows locked and barred. You likely couldn't have a birthday cake from the corner bakery saying 'happy birthday to you' without paying a royality. As the distribution mediums increase, the holders of copyrights wring every dime, and work to tighten control more.
I wonder when we'll have to develop a new language because the Jack Valenti's of the world will work to copyright every word in the dictionary, and have it protected by Congress like the word 'olym****' (since I don't think I can even write that without the USOC's permission). (I think I'll start by copyrighting the words 'a', 'and', and 'the' to start.
An ammusing little project... computer generate every three or four word combination, and copyright them all as titles. True, it'd be millions (and I'll be the first contributor to the non-profit set up to do this). It'd be about impossible for Valenti's crowd to come up with ANY movie title, without paying for permission. (I'd LOVE seeing every movie made from 2000 on having to carry in credits 'title used by permission of the Internet Freedom Protection Foundation'. Everyone would be rolling in their graves 100 yrs from now, from Valenti to Eisner to Mickey Mouse.
(And yes, I'm a right wing conservative, not some flaming liberal if you DCA types out there watching. I'm all for capitalism. But there IS a limit, and one of those of a conservative is protecting individual freedom. When it goes from capitalism to arrogance and stifling individual freedoms, you've greatly crossed the line of anything the founding fathers ever envisioned. You, meaning DCA and MPAA, do realize if you lose your suits, which I believe you will just like Sony v. Universal Pictures, you'll be opening floodgates of which you cannot imagine, from starting with fair use, meaining I can see whatever I want wherever I want on what equipment I want, as long as I legally obtained your movies. Region coding will probably be next to go, becuase if you lose, that's probably finished as well. Have you really looked at the downside here?
you can moderate down... as sorry i got a little off topic here going back to MPAA/DCA
Having followed this (or attempted to) for a couple months and being very skeptical, IMHO, there are several possibilities for a 'flame competiion': ,knowing we have some journalists in /., like to see if anyone could follow up on a couple things: (a) can anyone find the people who's names WERE the officers and maybe interview them. If they were summarily dumped by linuxone, might have some real interesting insights and willing to provide them. (b) officers/boards are generally, I would guess, part of disclosure requirements in an S-1 just as in K filings or the proverbial annual report. Anyone know if they've submitted some type of addendum of their S-1 to reflect the total change in upper management? (Wouldn't that make an investor somewhat skeptical?)
(1) provides 'cover' for the real flames to anyone outside Linux community, 'yeah, it's a joke, we have a contest to see who flames us best, doesn't mean anything. so popular, it's on all the web sites now';
(2) provides potential 'out' should people investing end up suing 'see, even on our own site we had opinions showing what people really thought of us, you should have read it. we certainly provided full disclosure' (shareholder suits are infamous. could be simply the old CYA gimmick);
(3) provide fodder for their attorney if IPO fails, suing the flamers saying 'see, they ruined our marvelous technological great superb company (or should say future superb... everything on their site is in 'will be' or 'could be'. at least they finally started putting the safe harbour statements in there.)'.
I wouldn't trust that flame competition. or them. period.
Someone noted the names of all the officers, etc, changed (though the 'owner' isn't prominent on the site, I'd say he still owns the stock/runs the show).
I WOULD
a bowl? hell, i'll pour a whole gatorade barrel of that code down my pants. I admit, been a little leary? naw..maybe just cautious about IBM's entry into linux area, but with this, GPL'd JFS, (and damn amazing one), I'm speechless. at least impressed!
I think it's time to LPAR the machine runnin' MVS and be ready for Linux/390. It'd be nice to just have a couple big boxes running the two and dump the little toys we have runnin' NT here and NT there.
Yes, I've spilled drinks on myself, have spilled coffee. I still have a scar from burning myself on a lightbulb (at the time, I thought 'damn, that was stupid of me). And I remember being burned by spattering grease too. But would you have coffee served cold, sue a lightbulb company if they couldn't produce an incandescent bulb that didn't get hot, or pass a law that bacon can't be cooked because grease might splatter (or if one cooks it, the producer is responsible because it CAN be cooked.)
I agree, lawyers can be good and useful. But many have slid the slippery slope and made it a lottery for people, taking their percentage of course. The trial lawyers are some of the largest lobbiest and campaign contributers to make sure there's no reform.
People do dumb things. And in the past, they took responsibility for their own stupidity. Today they do something stupid that's their own fault, and sue instead.
You make a good point in the comment. Also, considering the Fool not mainstream media may be correct, but they have MANY followers, in the investment community, and very well known outside the Linux community and public knowledge on this one is GOOD! Oh, and the article very nicely has a link to 'article b' which contains the published CSSScramble code.
/. Now a link to a link (times->slashdot->decss code) makes it interesting. Will DCA attempt to squelch the Fool or Times for linking? hmmm.. for the legal types on here...is the genie out of the bottle yet?
... speaking of mainstream media, The NY Times also has an article dated 1/7. I'd say THEY are mainstream media, and it likes to