But it's still a big step from being a nasty neigbour or complete bastard to being a criminal.
View my "nasty neighbor" comment as being reverse hyperbole. When you don't know your neighbors, even minor acts that violate your privacy reduce your security. On the Internet, everyone are neighbors to one another and most everyone are strangers to one another. University AUPs should promote good neighborliness on the net.
How could anyone count on you? You're using a university connection? How long is that going to last? It must be against the AUP of the University to use it for commercial purposes.
The guy who asked the question should spend a few bucks.
The purpose of Copyright is stated in the Constitution -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Out of print titles do little to further this aim.
If a book is out of print, it increases the liklihood that your use can be found a "fair use" since the infringing act does not have an effect on the market for the book -- there is none. If it's done non-commercially instead of for-profit; if it's done for educational purposes; these things just come down on the side of "fair use".
The definition of circumvention reveals that to circumvent, one must be acting without the authority of the copyright holder. Any statement that a buyer does not have the authority to decrypt, because the DMCA prohibits decryption without authority, is a circular argument and thus invalid.
The participants on the Openlaw discussion list have spect a lot of time examining the meaning of the word "authority" in the context of the DCMA. In summary, the MPAA's authority model (player must be licensed) is fundamentally defective for several reasons. It dosn't operate with the authority of the copyright holder. The right is not limited in time as is copyright itself.
Authority to view the work *must* pass with first sale.
RMS was originally very adamant about linking resulting in 'derivative works', however this theory has changed in recent times. This was a very volatile question in the early days of Linux, and Torvalds took the opinion that linking did not result in a derivative work (he was talking specifically about the kernel at the time), and this prompted RMS to draft the LGPL (as I understand history).
I don't think that RMS has changed his position at all. I expect that he would defend FSF copyrights and his interpretation of the GPL with great vigor.
But the FSF does not hold the copyright to Linux and RMS's opinions don't carry as much weight there. Linus sets the policy for the Linux kernel. Linus did not adopt RMS's LGPL for the Linux kernel.
Generally, it is accepted today that linking does not mean that your program must be GPLed, but you should not (cannot?) distribute the libraries with your app on CD or other media.
It's my understanding that the filesystem resides primarially on the CD which is not removable during normal operations. I expect that you could NFS mount your filesystem from a server and free up the CD, but a standalone system couldn't run without the system CD in place.
The conventional interpretation of the GPL considers all code linked to it, either statically or dynamically, to be a derivative work and consequently that code must be GPLed. The LGPL (Lesser GPL, not Library GPL since it ain't just for libraries anymore) is intended to address code that gets linked without this restriction.
I think that this paritcular claim is not tenable in the case of dynamic linking.
The GPL relies on copyright law to get it's punch. It subverts copyright by granting a different bundle of rights to the user of the code than do conventional copyright implementations. Consequently, wherever copyright does not reserve a right to the author, the GPL can not restrict that right.
An API qualifies (IMHO, IANAL) as a "method of operation" as defined in the Copyright code. Methods of operation are uncopyrightable. I can't design a new stick shift pattern and restrict others from being able to use it with copyright law. Libraries provide a method of operation through a defined interface and expose that interface. The particular expression of how that API is implemented is not of interest to the code that calls the library.
If it were otherwise, then Microsoft (or any other OS verndor, for that matter) could restrict anyone who calls their DLLs and claim a royalties on code that they didn't write but runs on their OS under a "derivative work" claim.
This would be a bigger blow to Free Software then anything I could imagine short of the GPL being found to be unenforcable in a court of law.
rm -rf/bin won't crash a running Unix system. Some functioanlity may be gone (not a whole lot, there still stuff in/sbin and/usr) but it won't destabilize the kernel. The filesystem will not release disk blocks that have been opened by an application. The application wicontinue to have access to its code.
It seems a totally illegitimate effort by Microsoft to allow other OSes to share the machine. It's just another anti-competitive step by a company with a history full of them.
If "Creation Science" is to be taught at all it should be taught as an example of pseudo-science. But that would probably put too many noses out of joint. To set it up as a reasonable alternative to Evolution gives it more respect than it deserves.
Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.
Science is not "proved". Science can only be disproved. However there comes a point when the weight of evidence for a theory becomes so great that it must be considered factual.
One could also argue that there in no proof for the existance of sub-atomic particles because we can't directly observe them. So, should it be wrong to teach nuclear physics to students if someone has a religios belief that everything is fundamentally made of Stilton cheese?
Creationism is not a science because it is not falsifiable. There are no observations which could be made that would disprove Creationism. Creationism specifically ignores certain observations that don't fit into the theory. It does an injustice to students to teach them this drek because it gives them a false view of Science.
Evolution is a science. We can conceive of a set of observations which would disprove it. However, no one expects that those observations would ever be seen.
Furthermore, Evolution has become a fundamental organizing principle of Biology in that it had touched and influenced every field of Biology. Cladistics, the classification of living things into genera, families, genus and species, is now usderstood as defining the evolutionary relationships between the organisms. Genetics is understood as the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Cellular strustures such as the centromeres and mitochondria are understood as symbiotes that joined with a primordial cell in the very first stages of life. If one attempts to teach Biology without evolution, one has suceeded in teaching something which is not Biology as it is done by Scientists.
(personal disclaimer: I am a practicing Christian. However, I do not share the view of some that the Bible has anything to teach us about Science.)
Can you imagine... a beowulf cluster of virtual machines all running on the same machine *grin* (just think about the loss from overhead... it's a joke people).
Actually, it's probably not really a joke. Someone planning to implement a Beowulf cluster or studying how to implement a Beowulf for an application might want to do it on one of these just to get the hands-on experience without purchasing a whole bunch of hardware.
I see one flaw in this argument, not all expression is protected by the first amendment! I can not say certain words and broadcast them over the television. Granted, posted to a web site is not the same as broadcasting, but it's getting awfully close (esp. with the ongoing convergence)
The web is different from broadcast media in one important way. Broadcast media is limited by the number of available channels. As a result, channels are allocated and licensed to serve the public good (that's the actual wording of the statute). The FCC will yank a license for repeated obscenity.
The web does not have the same limitations. As the Supreme Court recognized in upholding the unconstitutionality of the CDA. The web allows anyone to step up and publish their opinion. It is like a streetcorner where you can set up your own soapbox to express your opinions.
Judge Kaplan appears to be struggling with the speech aspects of DeCSS. In the transcripts, he admits that he dosn't have a category of speech that has been dealt with before. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, burning draft cards, burning flags, the Pentagon Papers are all speech issues where the courts have attempted to balance the First Amendment with public interests. The result of those cases is the "compelling government interest" test. If the government has a "compelling interest" in the speech, it can regulate it but only if it does so in the least intrusive means possible. By those standards, it is impossible for the DCMA to be constitutional if it means what the MPAA claim it means.
Doing a bit of search I found a good article abour rgis at buffer overflow it details how no exec stacks can be used to allow data to stay where it belongs and the actual stuff to be execed to always be kept in memory.
Why don't you do some more research and discover why the poster to whom you replied said that unexecutable stack dosn't prevent buffer overflows from being possible.
Learn what a trampoline is (and why the poster mentioned it) and why the bandaid you propose dosn't stop the patient from bleeding.
The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of nodes. If you double the number of nodes in network, the number of possible connections (and hence the value) quadruples.
Of course they did it for "competitive advantage." Everything every company does is for competitive advantage. That's what's perverse about antitrust law-- things that are perfectly legal and even encouraged for a small company are discouraged for a big one. And it's impossible to be sure which "competitive advantages" will be declared illegal by a future judge.
Call it perverse if you want and lobby to get the law changed if you want, but this is longstanding law in this country. The precedents that have been cited in the legal opinions are up to 100 years old. There's no new law here.
It's very clear what acts are potentially illegal. IBM managed to determine this sucessfully for many years. (aside: Their decline was not due to antitrust law, but rather their intent to protect their mainframe business at the expense of their PC business. They lost their dominant position in the PC business because of errors in judgement, not because of antitrust law.)
In brief, a claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly is belied by their own email where they knew that they had the ability to garner market share for their browser due to the ubiquiteness and a claim that they didn't know that there was a seperate browser market is belied by the same emails.
In brief, it was an open and shut case. Microsoft should have known this and they should anticipate that the Supreme Court will uphold the punishment.
Are you seriously saying that no reasonable person could disagree with you?
When the case is as open and shut as this one is, then YES.
Bundling by a monopolist of one monopoly product with another product in a second separate market is CLEARLY illegal. Microsoft should have known that the DoJ considered them a monopoly because they signed a consent decree (which can not waive and does not provide a defence against violations of antitrust law). Microsoft should have known that the bundle was illegal.
IBM used to have an office in the legal department which measured compliance with Anritrust law. My own (insurance) company has an office in the legal department to measure compliance with applicable state (insurance) laws. Miscrosoft does not have an office in their legal department to measure compliance with Antitrust law even though they signed a consent decree with the Justice Departnment. Any ignorance of clear antitrust law on their part is no excuse. There's probably a shareholder suit in there somewhere.
No, it's a network of people who don't believe Microsoft is a "monopolistic bully," and that even if it is, government interference in the marketplace is a far greater threat than Microsoft ever was.
A network of delusional people, perhaps? It's a matter of court record that Microsoft is a "monopolistic bully". I'm sure there's also a group of people who think O.J. didin't do it.
I also care a great deal about the rule of law, and I believe antitrust law makes a mockery of the idea that laws should be simple, objective, and apply equally to all. Antitrust law is vague, overreaching, and its meaning changes every time we get a new president. That's not the way the law is supposed to work. If an antitrust law is necessary (and I don't think it is) it needs to be written in a way that can be enforced clearly and unambiguously, and it needs to specify exactly which actions are crimes and which are not.
Like consiracy laws, perhaps? Perhaps the will to enforce the law changes with every President, but not the objective meaning of the law. In brief, it's illegal to use one monopoly to acquire another, different monopoly. What part of that is hard to understand?
It is asked to justify the choice to make IE a part of Windows, based on fuzzy legalistic claptrap.
That's pretty hard to do when their own emails show that they did it for competitive advantage. Perhaps they really did do it! Any guilty defendant has the same burden. Our laws are unfair to the guilty!
In short, antitrust law gives the Federal government the unlimited power to harrass successful companies. There aren't enough lawyers in the country to prosecute every company that is arguably in violation of antitrust law-- every big company tries to keep its rivals from gaining market share.
Such simplistic statements show your ignorance of antitrust law. There are several well-established practices that monopolists use to illegally defend their monopolies. Illegal tying or bundling is one. The case law on that goes back 100 years. There's nothing vague about it. IBM was accused of the same thing. Just because the Reagan Administration folded the antitrust case, dosn't mean the precedents from the 60's are disestablished.
Slashdot Mirror
Er... I really can't comment, other than to say that it's not IBM, Informix, or Sybase ...
Why can't you comment? Is it because of restrictive EULAs that won't let you disclose the results of benchmarks?
Tivo can, and does, remove comercials.
Really? Tell me how I can make my TiVo remove commercials. I'm tired of fast forwarding and overshooting the return of the show.
But it's still a big step from being a nasty neigbour or complete bastard to being a criminal.
View my "nasty neighbor" comment as being reverse hyperbole. When you don't know your neighbors, even minor acts that violate your privacy reduce your security. On the Internet, everyone are neighbors to one another and most everyone are strangers to one another. University AUPs should promote good neighborliness on the net.
Polite, well worded comments are useful. Abusive, ungrammatical or threatening comments actually hurt the cause.
Railing against the WIPO for even considering such changes are off topic. Wail here. Write purposefully there.
The difference is that you can give yourself permission to scan your own box and your friend can give you permission to scan his.
Scanning without permission is being a very poor neighbor.
How could anyone count on you? You're using a university connection? How long is that going to last? It must be against the AUP of the University to use it for commercial purposes.
The guy who asked the question should spend a few bucks.
The purpose of Copyright is stated in the Constitution -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Out of print titles do little to further this aim.
If a book is out of print, it increases the liklihood that your use can be found a "fair use" since the infringing act does not have an effect on the market for the book -- there is none. If it's done non-commercially instead of for-profit; if it's done for educational purposes; these things just come down on the side of "fair use".
The participants on the Openlaw discussion list have spect a lot of time examining the meaning of the word "authority" in the context of the DCMA. In summary, the MPAA's authority model (player must be licensed) is fundamentally defective for several reasons. It dosn't operate with the authority of the copyright holder. The right is not limited in time as is copyright itself.
Authority to view the work *must* pass with first sale.
RMS was originally very adamant about linking resulting in 'derivative works', however this theory has changed in recent times. This was a very volatile question in the early days of Linux, and Torvalds took the opinion that linking did not result in a derivative work (he was talking specifically about the kernel at the time), and this prompted RMS to draft the LGPL (as I understand history).
I don't think that RMS has changed his position at all. I expect that he would defend FSF copyrights and his interpretation of the GPL with great vigor.
But the FSF does not hold the copyright to Linux and RMS's opinions don't carry as much weight there. Linus sets the policy for the Linux kernel. Linus did not adopt RMS's LGPL for the Linux kernel.
Generally, it is accepted today that linking does not mean that your program must be GPLed, but you should not (cannot?) distribute the libraries with your app on CD or other media.
I would also disagree with this statement. There was a discussion on in just the last week about whether Galleon (the Gnome utility that embeds the Mozilla rendering component) can be GPLed since it links with non-GPLed code. The issue is still current.
It's my understanding that the filesystem resides primarially on the CD which is not removable during normal operations. I expect that you could NFS mount your filesystem from a server and free up the CD, but a standalone system couldn't run without the system CD in place.
The conventional interpretation of the GPL considers all code linked to it, either statically or dynamically, to be a derivative work and consequently that code must be GPLed. The LGPL (Lesser GPL, not Library GPL since it ain't just for libraries anymore) is intended to address code that gets linked without this restriction.
I think that this paritcular claim is not tenable in the case of dynamic linking.
The GPL relies on copyright law to get it's punch. It subverts copyright by granting a different bundle of rights to the user of the code than do conventional copyright implementations. Consequently, wherever copyright does not reserve a right to the author, the GPL can not restrict that right.
An API qualifies (IMHO, IANAL) as a "method of operation" as defined in the Copyright code. Methods of operation are uncopyrightable. I can't design a new stick shift pattern and restrict others from being able to use it with copyright law. Libraries provide a method of operation through a defined interface and expose that interface. The particular expression of how that API is implemented is not of interest to the code that calls the library.
If it were otherwise, then Microsoft (or any other OS verndor, for that matter) could restrict anyone who calls their DLLs and claim a royalties on code that they didn't write but runs on their OS under a "derivative work" claim.
This would be a bigger blow to Free Software then anything I could imagine short of the GPL being found to be unenforcable in a court of law.
rm -rf /bin won't crash a running Unix system. Some functioanlity may be gone (not a whole lot, there still stuff in /sbin and /usr) but it won't destabilize the kernel. The filesystem will not release disk blocks that have been opened by an application. The application wicontinue to have access to its code.
It seems a totally illegitimate effort by Microsoft to allow other OSes to share the machine. It's just another anti-competitive step by a company with a history full of them.
So images2.slashdot.org, while not sitting right next to images.slashdot.org, IS under their control, DNS does not point to doubleclick.
I'd like to know how one concludes from an IP number who the administrator *really* is.
If "Creation Science" is to be taught at all it should be taught as an example of pseudo-science. But that would probably put too many noses out of joint. To set it up as a reasonable alternative to Evolution gives it more respect than it deserves.
What about if you could get a free account at the USPS? (Anybody know what server/OS they're planning on using?)
Something called "Carnivore".
Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.
Science is not "proved". Science can only be disproved. However there comes a point when the weight of evidence for a theory becomes so great that it must be considered factual.
One could also argue that there in no proof for the existance of sub-atomic particles because we can't directly observe them. So, should it be wrong to teach nuclear physics to students if someone has a religios belief that everything is fundamentally made of Stilton cheese?
Creationism is not a science because it is not falsifiable. There are no observations which could be made that would disprove Creationism. Creationism specifically ignores certain observations that don't fit into the theory. It does an injustice to students to teach them this drek because it gives them a false view of Science.
Evolution is a science. We can conceive of a set of observations which would disprove it. However, no one expects that those observations would ever be seen.
Furthermore, Evolution has become a fundamental organizing principle of Biology in that it had touched and influenced every field of Biology. Cladistics, the classification of living things into genera, families, genus and species, is now usderstood as defining the evolutionary relationships between the organisms. Genetics is understood as the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Cellular strustures such as the centromeres and mitochondria are understood as symbiotes that joined with a primordial cell in the very first stages of life. If one attempts to teach Biology without evolution, one has suceeded in teaching something which is not Biology as it is done by Scientists.
(personal disclaimer: I am a practicing Christian. However, I do not share the view of some that the Bible has anything to teach us about Science.)
Can you imagine... a beowulf cluster of virtual machines all running on the same machine *grin* (just think about the loss from overhead... it's a joke people).
Actually, it's probably not really a joke. Someone planning to implement a Beowulf cluster or studying how to implement a Beowulf for an application might want to do it on one of these just to get the hands-on experience without purchasing a whole bunch of hardware.
I see one flaw in this argument, not all expression is protected by the first amendment! I can not say certain words and broadcast them over the television. Granted, posted to a web site is not the same as broadcasting, but it's getting awfully close (esp. with the ongoing convergence)
The web is different from broadcast media in one important way. Broadcast media is limited by the number of available channels. As a result, channels are allocated and licensed to serve the public good (that's the actual wording of the statute). The FCC will yank a license for repeated obscenity.
The web does not have the same limitations. As the Supreme Court recognized in upholding the unconstitutionality of the CDA. The web allows anyone to step up and publish their opinion. It is like a streetcorner where you can set up your own soapbox to express your opinions.
Judge Kaplan appears to be struggling with the speech aspects of DeCSS. In the transcripts, he admits that he dosn't have a category of speech that has been dealt with before. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, burning draft cards, burning flags, the Pentagon Papers are all speech issues where the courts have attempted to balance the First Amendment with public interests. The result of those cases is the "compelling government interest" test. If the government has a "compelling interest" in the speech, it can regulate it but only if it does so in the least intrusive means possible. By those standards, it is impossible for the DCMA to be constitutional if it means what the MPAA claim it means.
Doing a bit of search I found a good article abour rgis at buffer overflow it details how no exec stacks can be used to allow data to stay where it belongs and the actual stuff to be execed to always be kept in memory.
Why don't you do some more research and discover why the poster to whom you replied said that unexecutable stack dosn't prevent buffer overflows from being possible.
Learn what a trampoline is (and why the poster mentioned it) and why the bandaid you propose dosn't stop the patient from bleeding.
And, of course, Xpics probably logs the IP from where the account was opened.
As if I'd trust the logs from http://random.pr0n.com
Sheer volume maybe... When we consider value however, I think you meant to say square root.
If you've got a problem with that view of the value of a network, take it up with Metcalf.
The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of nodes. If you double the number of nodes in network, the number of possible connections (and hence the value) quadruples.
Of course they did it for "competitive advantage." Everything every company does is for competitive advantage. That's what's perverse about antitrust law-- things that are perfectly legal and even encouraged for a small company are discouraged for a big one. And it's impossible to be sure which "competitive advantages" will be declared illegal by a future judge.
Call it perverse if you want and lobby to get the law changed if you want, but this is longstanding law in this country. The precedents that have been cited in the legal opinions are up to 100 years old. There's no new law here.
It's very clear what acts are potentially illegal. IBM managed to determine this sucessfully for many years. (aside: Their decline was not due to antitrust law, but rather their intent to protect their mainframe business at the expense of their PC business. They lost their dominant position in the PC business because of errors in judgement, not because of antitrust law.)
In brief, a claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly is belied by their own email where they knew that they had the ability to garner market share for their browser due to the ubiquiteness and a claim that they didn't know that there was a seperate browser market is belied by the same emails.
In brief, it was an open and shut case. Microsoft should have known this and they should anticipate that the Supreme Court will uphold the punishment.
Are you seriously saying that no reasonable person could disagree with you?
When the case is as open and shut as this one is, then YES.
Bundling by a monopolist of one monopoly product with another product in a second separate market is CLEARLY illegal. Microsoft should have known that the DoJ considered them a monopoly because they signed a consent decree (which can not waive and does not provide a defence against violations of antitrust law). Microsoft should have known that the bundle was illegal.
IBM used to have an office in the legal department which measured compliance with Anritrust law. My own (insurance) company has an office in the legal department to measure compliance with applicable state (insurance) laws. Miscrosoft does not have an office in their legal department to measure compliance with Antitrust law even though they signed a consent decree with the Justice Departnment. Any ignorance of clear antitrust law on their part is no excuse. There's probably a shareholder suit in there somewhere.
No, it's a network of people who don't believe Microsoft is a "monopolistic bully," and that even if it is, government interference in the marketplace is a far greater threat than Microsoft ever was.
A network of delusional people, perhaps? It's a matter of court record that Microsoft is a "monopolistic bully". I'm sure there's also a group of people who think O.J. didin't do it.
I also care a great deal about the rule of law, and I believe antitrust law makes a mockery of the idea that laws should be simple, objective, and apply equally to all. Antitrust law is vague, overreaching, and its meaning changes every time we get a new president. That's not the way the law is supposed to work. If an antitrust law is necessary (and I don't think it is) it needs to be written in a way that can be enforced clearly and unambiguously, and it needs to specify exactly which actions are crimes and which are not.
Like consiracy laws, perhaps? Perhaps the will to enforce the law changes with every President, but not the objective meaning of the law. In brief, it's illegal to use one monopoly to acquire another, different monopoly. What part of that is hard to understand?
It is asked to justify the choice to make IE a part of Windows, based on fuzzy legalistic claptrap.
That's pretty hard to do when their own emails show that they did it for competitive advantage. Perhaps they really did do it! Any guilty defendant has the same burden. Our laws are unfair to the guilty!
In short, antitrust law gives the Federal government the unlimited power to harrass successful companies. There aren't enough lawyers in the country to prosecute every company that is arguably in violation of antitrust law-- every big company tries to keep its rivals from gaining market share.
Such simplistic statements show your ignorance of antitrust law. There are several well-established practices that monopolists use to illegally defend their monopolies. Illegal tying or bundling is one. The case law on that goes back 100 years. There's nothing vague about it. IBM was accused of the same thing. Just because the Reagan Administration folded the antitrust case, dosn't mean the precedents from the 60's are disestablished.