They are just using the law to the fullest extent to try to get what they want; something that, although it seems unfair, everyone has a right to do.
Indeed. Which is why every time I get really pissed off at a company that tries something really raw (RIAA, MPAA, pick a villain), I just remember why they are allowed to even attempt it. The law gives them the right to do so. They may have bought the law into existence in the first place, but it's still the legislation that made the situation possible.
So basically, I get to blame a bunch of lawyers, which, deep down, is something everyone wants to do anyway:)
And if that domain name is already taken by an individual it should simply be taken away? Because that's what's going on all the time here. Do you think that in all the world there's only one entity (person, business, team, etc) with a given name? If there's a conflict, why on earth should control be transfered to whomever has the most money?
Personally, I think it's great what Harvey's doing here. I mean, I hate that someone can say "Give me your domain names" and such a demand is even considered by the WIPO, but this at least turns the tables and makes the whole system look really stupid. Which it is.
course this is assuming the corporate thugs at mastercard are mature enough to accept a little bit of parodying of their marketing campaigns
But they're not! When we have Mastercard bitching about jokes, SGI threatening anyone using the words 'Open' or 'gl' in their product title, the head of the MPAA keenly aware that 2600 puts a parody of his ugly face on t-shirts but totally oblivious to everything else, Fox trying to shut down the "Why Files", Time Warner getting frisky with Harry Potter fan sites, Scientologists demanding publicly available information be taken off/., laws being passed that make it illegal for us to figure out how something works, what are we supposed to do about these guys? Between them, they simply want to patent/trademark/copyright every word and witty expression in existence. While we might reach a 'peaceable compromise' now, they'll just come back next week with some other goody their lawyers dug up. And consider what each side's agenda consists of here. RHF: "We want to amuse people with this joke." MC: "We're afraid some stupid people will equate MC with guns, so we want our name taken off of that joke or we will bluster about and threaten to unleash our flesh-eating lawyers whom we pay solely to spend time in courtrooms erasing people like you from the face of the earth."
He does not really suggest any proper solution to the problem of writing your own software
I noticed that too and was most unhappy with his statement: "Do not write other code, not even in your spare time." So I'm supposed to not scratch my itch until I quit? I don't think so. I'll just make sure that my contract says that any code I write in my time on my machines is mine. Any company that refuses to accept that isn't one I'd want to work for anyway.
God did not have to register patents on the human genome. It was protected by trade secret.
Err, trade secrets aren't 'protected' by anything. It's up to the holder to keep it a secret. You'll notice that Coca-Cola hasn't patented its recipe since once it expired they'd have no control over it.
Since it took over 5000 years to for man to access the codes in the genome, access would be deemed as sufficently controlled under the DMCA
Doesn't matter how sufficiently controlled it is. Just look at CSS. Effectively controlled? I think not, yet the MPAA is moving heaven and earth to keep it from being public. And even if that were the case, all Adam had to do was eat an piece of fruit and all was revealed to him.
A note for trial strategy, if the case is appealled sufficiently, it ends up being tried before God
Conflict of interest. He can't be both judge and plaintiff. And where do you think he's gonna get a lawyer from?
Maybe that's a good thing -- the more vague and open to "interpretation" (read: selective enforcement) the rules are, the less likely the regulations (and the underlying laws?) are to stand up to judicial scrutiny
That'd be nice, but it's more likely that the FCC'll just use these nice vague laws to go after anyone they don't like. That's the nasty side of selectively applied legality. Witness the Scientologists demanding/. remove that post when the exact same stuff was available in a million other places. Witness the Schwartz case just recently seen here; they have a law that saws that any unintended use of a computer is illegal, yet it's only been used 3 times in a decade.
Imagine that Congress passes a law that allows feds to arrest anyone for, I dunno, jaywalking and hold them indefinitely. It's a safe bet that they'd never actually use it, but someone comes along that they don't like; whammo! they're found guilty of jaywalking. And it'd even be legal, since what person always crosses the streeet at intersections? Vague laws give governments the freedom to do interpret them however they want and thus do whatever they want.
can you explain why I should be forced actively and explicitly, day in and day out, to keep all manner of filth out of my own home?
Can you explain why I should be forced to watch (ie, I want to watch TV and it's the only thing available) programming that has been censored for other people? I'm 21 years old; I'm not mortally offended when I see tits on TV or watch the Howard Stern show. Why should what you don't want your kids to watch influence what I can see?
It is much like opt-out marketing
Perhaps, but with the slight difference that with government censorship, there's no corresponding opt-in for those channels. Not having censorship gives you more options (ie, you can watch it or not) than giving the FCC free reign over the airwaves (ie, you cannot watch it).
Now you say "Well I can just get some of the premium channels". Fantastic. I have to pay out extra money just to keep government influence out of a few channels.
I don't care who you are, If you breach security you are going to have to pay a price...
Ok. So then when during the trial it became known that an Intel VP did something even naughtier a while back, one would think that this fine Oregon Computer Crimes Law would be immediately applied to him too, right? Hmmm... How odd, it wasn't. Also odd, in ten years, only two other people have been charged with violating that law. Maybe, just maybe, it's being used to target people on the whims of Intel and the like.
Ever seen Pick's D3 database software? By far the most worthless piece of junk I've ever had the displeasure of working with. Didn't do one tenth of what they claimed and failed to do anything on a system, client or server, that was running IE 4.0 or above. What's the connection between a browser and a DB? Beats me, but IE 5.5 came out before they got around to fixing it.
So since the USA is widely accepted to be by far the most litigious society on the face of the globe, it must have the lowest GNP of all ? Moron
Hey Troll, did you know that GNP is also a function of population? Yes, it's an amazing factoid that even someone like you might understand if your head wasn't crammed so far up your ass. Per capita GNP is, perhaps, just a slightly better way of measuring this. Tell me, is ours the highest of the industrialized nations? It isn't? Well that's a surprise...
The only way W2k will never have a Blue Screen of Death is if they change it to a different color. Like, the Cyan Screen of Death. Maybe they'll pull an Apple and have them in lots of different colors. Collect the whole set!
Geeez.... You have to wonder about the mentality of the person that can walk into a fscking thrift store and start spewing litigation. That's like... going to the site of an earthquake and arresting the now homeless survivors for vagrancy.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also have the sneaking suspicion that, proven or not, that 'fact' is indeed true.
Look at it this way. What exactly do (litigation) lawyers contribute to society? They charge you an arm and a leg to protect you from or launch viscious attacks against... other lawyers! It's kind of like the tech industry : the bigger it gets, the more techies per capita you need. The difference is that people can then use their computers and various widgets, while a lawyer, as the joke goes, keeps screwing you after you're dead.
Part of the problem is that there's an awful lot of readers here who would say something along these lines and mean every word of it. Hard to tell the difference between a troll and an idiot, though the correct response is the same for both cases:)
I would tend to think the unprotected sex that led to the pregnancy to be self-destructive
Since when do pregancies occur only through unprotected sex? There is not one single way to have completely safe sex (same-sex relations aside), except for having NO sex. Should a couple that took every precaution be forced to raise or at least bear a child because of a roll of the dice?
What about people who want kids and cannot reasonably care for it? Should we force them to abort? Why not - its the same theorey
No, it's not the same theory at all. Being pro-choice is about not demanding that a woman bear a child. This is rather the exact opposite.
First I'd like to say that you've been remarkably civilized in your posts. There's quite a character further up going on about how abortion doctors are all neo-nazis practicing their witchcraft on teenage slut whores, etc, etc. Your keeping this to a real discussion is very much appreciated.
One question I have is that you've made great mention of a difference between murder and killing. Please elaborate.
Second: At what point does a fertilized human egg become a person? I cannot accept that a single-celled microscopic organism has the same rights as I do.
Third: what's the difference between Hitler and an unborn child, biblically speaking? The bible says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt kill only those who don't deserve to live". Hell, it doesn't even make provisions for self-defense.
Fourth, you have every right to, but please stop trying to make converts here. You seem to enjoy your theology, and that's great. I'm truly happy for you. But until the day my potted plant bursts into flames and starts giving me The Word of God, neither I nor many other people here are going to accept that Jerry Falwell's speeches and some 3000 year old book have any basing in fact nor much bearing on modern topics.
I agree. A friend of mine is a middle school teacher and her biggest complaint is that the parents so often just don't care. It's a major problem and one that needs to be addressed. But laws like these will do nothing to encourage parental inolvement in a child's life.
Got any basis for that cost estimate? I just don't see how it would cost $20. It's basically a radio recveiver and a miniscule amount of electronics. Not exactly high technology here...
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Which is why every time I get really pissed off at a company that tries something really raw (RIAA, MPAA, pick a villain), I just remember why they are allowed to even attempt it. The law gives them the right to do so. They may have bought the law into existence in the first place, but it's still the legislation that made the situation possible.
So basically, I get to blame a bunch of lawyers, which, deep down, is something everyone wants to do anyway :)
--
Personally, I think it's great what Harvey's doing here. I mean, I hate that someone can say "Give me your domain names" and such a demand is even considered by the WIPO, but this at least turns the tables and makes the whole system look really stupid. Which it is.
--
But they're not! When we have Mastercard bitching about jokes, SGI threatening anyone using the words 'Open' or 'gl' in their product title, the head of the MPAA keenly aware that 2600 puts a parody of his ugly face on t-shirts but totally oblivious to everything else, Fox trying to shut down the "Why Files", Time Warner getting frisky with Harry Potter fan sites, Scientologists demanding publicly available information be taken off /., laws being passed that make it illegal for us to figure out how something works, what are we supposed to do about these guys? Between them, they simply want to patent/trademark/copyright every word and witty expression in existence. While we might reach a 'peaceable compromise' now, they'll just come back next week with some other goody their lawyers dug up. And consider what each side's agenda consists of here. RHF: "We want to amuse people with this joke." MC: "We're afraid some stupid people will equate MC with guns, so we want our name taken off of that joke or we will bluster about and threaten to unleash our flesh-eating lawyers whom we pay solely to spend time in courtrooms erasing people like you from the face of the earth."
--
Might get a little ticket tied to your toe, though.
--
I noticed that too and was most unhappy with his statement: "Do not write other code, not even in your spare time." So I'm supposed to not scratch my itch until I quit? I don't think so. I'll just make sure that my contract says that any code I write in my time on my machines is mine. Any company that refuses to accept that isn't one I'd want to work for anyway.
--
Err, trade secrets aren't 'protected' by anything. It's up to the holder to keep it a secret. You'll notice that Coca-Cola hasn't patented its recipe since once it expired they'd have no control over it.
Since it took over 5000 years to for man to access the codes in the genome, access would be deemed as sufficently controlled under the DMCA
Doesn't matter how sufficiently controlled it is. Just look at CSS. Effectively controlled? I think not, yet the MPAA is moving heaven and earth to keep it from being public. And even if that were the case, all Adam had to do was eat an piece of fruit and all was revealed to him.
A note for trial strategy, if the case is appealled sufficiently, it ends up being tried before God
Conflict of interest. He can't be both judge and plaintiff. And where do you think he's gonna get a lawyer from?
--
That'd be nice, but it's more likely that the FCC'll just use these nice vague laws to go after anyone they don't like. That's the nasty side of selectively applied legality. Witness the Scientologists demanding /. remove that post when the exact same stuff was available in a million other places. Witness the Schwartz case just recently seen here; they have a law that saws that any unintended use of a computer is illegal, yet it's only been used 3 times in a decade.
Imagine that Congress passes a law that allows feds to arrest anyone for, I dunno, jaywalking and hold them indefinitely. It's a safe bet that they'd never actually use it, but someone comes along that they don't like; whammo! they're found guilty of jaywalking. And it'd even be legal, since what person always crosses the streeet at intersections? Vague laws give governments the freedom to do interpret them however they want and thus do whatever they want.
--
Can you explain why I should be forced to watch (ie, I want to watch TV and it's the only thing available) programming that has been censored for other people? I'm 21 years old; I'm not mortally offended when I see tits on TV or watch the Howard Stern show. Why should what you don't want your kids to watch influence what I can see?
It is much like opt-out marketing
Perhaps, but with the slight difference that with government censorship, there's no corresponding opt-in for those channels. Not having censorship gives you more options (ie, you can watch it or not) than giving the FCC free reign over the airwaves (ie, you cannot watch it).
Now you say "Well I can just get some of the premium channels". Fantastic. I have to pay out extra money just to keep government influence out of a few channels.
--
Ok. So then when during the trial it became known that an Intel VP did something even naughtier a while back, one would think that this fine Oregon Computer Crimes Law would be immediately applied to him too, right? Hmmm... How odd, it wasn't. Also odd, in ten years, only two other people have been charged with violating that law. Maybe, just maybe, it's being used to target people on the whims of Intel and the like.
--
Ever seen Pick's D3 database software? By far the most worthless piece of junk I've ever had the displeasure of working with. Didn't do one tenth of what they claimed and failed to do anything on a system, client or server, that was running IE 4.0 or above. What's the connection between a browser and a DB? Beats me, but IE 5.5 came out before they got around to fixing it.
--
First they crash, then they crash again!
--
Hey Troll, did you know that GNP is also a function of population? Yes, it's an amazing factoid that even someone like you might understand if your head wasn't crammed so far up your ass. Per capita GNP is, perhaps, just a slightly better way of measuring this. Tell me, is ours the highest of the industrialized nations? It isn't? Well that's a surprise...
--
The only way W2k will never have a Blue Screen of Death is if they change it to a different color. Like, the Cyan Screen of Death. Maybe they'll pull an Apple and have them in lots of different colors. Collect the whole set!
--
Exactly. When we talk about M$ code, it's usually along the lines of "I wish they'd open-source it. I could use a good laugh."
--
Geeez.... You have to wonder about the mentality of the person that can walk into a fscking thrift store and start spewing litigation. That's like ... going to the site of an earthquake and arresting the now homeless survivors for vagrancy.
--
Help your government!
Turn in your family, friends, and coworkers!
Win fabulous prizes!
--
Look at it this way. What exactly do (litigation) lawyers contribute to society? They charge you an arm and a leg to protect you from or launch viscious attacks against ... other lawyers! It's kind of like the tech industry : the bigger it gets, the more techies per capita you need. The difference is that people can then use their computers and various widgets, while a lawyer, as the joke goes, keeps screwing you after you're dead.
--
Part of the problem is that there's an awful lot of readers here who would say something along these lines and mean every word of it. Hard to tell the difference between a troll and an idiot, though the correct response is the same for both cases :)
--
Since when do pregancies occur only through unprotected sex? There is not one single way to have completely safe sex (same-sex relations aside), except for having NO sex. Should a couple that took every precaution be forced to raise or at least bear a child because of a roll of the dice?
What about people who want kids and cannot reasonably care for it? Should we force them to abort? Why not - its the same theorey
No, it's not the same theory at all. Being pro-choice is about not demanding that a woman bear a child. This is rather the exact opposite.
--
One question I have is that you've made great mention of a difference between murder and killing. Please elaborate.
Second: At what point does a fertilized human egg become a person? I cannot accept that a single-celled microscopic organism has the same rights as I do.
Third: what's the difference between Hitler and an unborn child, biblically speaking? The bible says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt kill only those who don't deserve to live". Hell, it doesn't even make provisions for self-defense.
Fourth, you have every right to, but please stop trying to make converts here. You seem to enjoy your theology, and that's great. I'm truly happy for you. But until the day my potted plant bursts into flames and starts giving me The Word of God, neither I nor many other people here are going to accept that Jerry Falwell's speeches and some 3000 year old book have any basing in fact nor much bearing on modern topics.
--
Besides, a lot of people couldn't care less about something like this, so someone has to take up the apathy slack.
--
I agree. A friend of mine is a middle school teacher and her biggest complaint is that the parents so often just don't care. It's a major problem and one that needs to be addressed. But laws like these will do nothing to encourage parental inolvement in a child's life.
--
www.penny-arcade.com
--
My bad. I was thinking of LO2 when I wrote the air part. Still, to get hydrogen you just need water, also much more commonplace than oil.
--
Got any basis for that cost estimate? I just don't see how it would cost $20. It's basically a radio recveiver and a miniscule amount of electronics. Not exactly high technology here...
--