Whatever, buddy! You're a rotten jerk, and you should be in jail for what you do!!!
You see... That's called sarcasm. It's something so ridiculous that no one could possibly believe it. But apparently, everyone thinks I really am the CEO of Turner Broadcasting, and that I equate blocking pop-ups with criminal acts.
You realize that if you block pop-ups, that you're stealing Internet service. In fact, this is even worse than what TIVO users are doing by stealing television. At least in TIVO's case, it can't skip over "live" broadcasting.
You are all just a bunch of sick criminals.
-- Jamie Kellner Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting
That's like saying your phone company can't tell you what phone calls you made (monitor), because they can't record (inspect) your calls.
Monitoring traffic and inspecting traffic are completely different issues. "Inspecting" implies that you are "listening-in", whereas monitoring simply means that you are aware of the usage. I can't imagine any ISP that doesn't do some sort of monitoring.
Every time my Outlook crashes, it just starts itself right back up again! It starts itself up several times each day! All by itself!!!
-- Slashdolt
Dispelling the Myth of Wireless Security
on
Wireless Hacks
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I read this article awhile ago. Given that so many people are setting up wireless networks in their homes/apartments, it really makes me wonder how many of them are being hacked, and allowing their neighbors to get free Internet access.
On the other hand, it could be a good defense if you actually wanted to give your neighbor free access.;-)
Of course you'd still have to get that information OFF the DVD's, presumably, in which case even the fastest DVD drive would be much, much, much, much slower.
So, your "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon load of tapes headed down the hi-way" type of remark fails for practical purposes.
"The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses."
I largely agree with this, but it still does make a difference. The BBB will contact SCO after receiving (hopefully) numerous complaints. Nothing much may become of it, but more people will be aware of the situation as a result. Creating awareness is part of the battle. Look at what Renaissance believed! An intelligent investor would look at the number of complaints against a company received by the BBB and would ask the potential company about those issues.
Be realistic in your expectations. Don't expect the FTC to come out with guns blazing, but at the same time, it does absolutely NO GOOD to post on Slashdot about what @$$holes SCO are, if you don't at least try to work in the consumer channels available.
Worst case, nothing happens, but at least you've tried. It's like complaining about the President when you never voted. IMO, if you didn't vote, you have no right to complain. Cast your vote by filing a complaint, with the FTC first, then with BBB and/or possibly even with your State Attorney General. Find other consumer groups as well. They're attacking US, the consumer, at this point. Do your duty and report them.
If you had actually submitted a complaint, it would have told you that it takes up to 30 days to "process" it.
Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you haven't already complained about SCO's conduct to the Federal Trade Commission and/or Better Business Bureau, you really should do so.
The BBB complaints become a permanent part of a corporation's record. Enough complaints can make a difference.
www.bbb.org www.ftc.gov (Simply click on "File a complaint" in both cases)
I have filed with both. I believe that SCO's conduct is essentially the same as trying to sell licenses to the Brooklyn Bridge and then threatening those that don't buy a license with lawsuits.
Make a real difference by allowing your voice to be heard. File a complaint.
I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at/. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.
SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
The SCO Group 355 South 520 West Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 USA Phone: 801-765-4999 Fax: 801-852-9088
Also, SCO's Linux licenses start at $699 during the promotional period.
I'm not sure how much easier I can make this.
Again, take an active role.
-- Slash
File a complaint with the FTC
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Mention how you feel that they are attempting to extort money from you. The FTC DOES take these matters seriously. If they receive many complaints about a particular company, they will be very inclined to launch an investigation. The mere mention of an FTC investigation is not good news for a company, nor its stock.
I recently received the following letter from my Michigan Senator Carl Levin. It shares his views on this matter. Unfortunately, I was writing to him about the "Public Domain Enhancement Act", which has nothing to do with the RIAA or P2P. Nevertheless, it was at least enlightening to hear a government official respond, so I'm posting it here, even though he is an uncaring dolt.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) recent decision to issue subpoenas to gather evidence for potential lawsuits against Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing software users. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
The P2P exchange, also referred to as swapping, of certain types of files over the internet poses serious questions regarding existing copyrights. Digital media files, such as MP3s, e-books, and digital pictures, often contain copyrighted material. As a result, the free exchange of these files raises concerns among copyright holders. Meanwhile, some consumer rights groups and civil liberties organizations argue that P2P software promotes free expression and is capable of substantial non-infringement uses.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25, 2003, that it will file suit against people who use P2P file-sharing systems to create unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Since then, the RIAA is reported to have won hundreds of subpoenas in order to collect information for civil lawsuits that could be filed against individuals who are alleged to have illegally used file sharing programs.
I believe the recording industry has raised legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and, of course, that they have the right to take appropriate steps to protect their legal rights. However, I also believe that the privacy rights of individuals should not be compromised.
I will continue to carefully review this matter as the Courts and Congress further addresses these issues. Thanks again for writing.
MP3's have been around for several years now, and yet, for the most part, you still can't purchase them anywhere. MP3 is the current defacto standard. To me, it doesn't make sense that we can easily buy a CD and rip it (unless it's a copy-proof CD) and make MP3's, and yet the music industry seems afraid to produce MP3's.
Again, MP3 technology is not that new. I can recall using it at least as far back as 1997. 6 years have gone by. The consumers and the CD/DVD-players all want to have MP3's, and yet there is (for all intent and purpose) no way to buy them.
As John Dvorak said in his PC Magazine column, around 1997, no one would want to buy 10 rock-a-billy CD's for $100, but there might be a market for one MP3 CD with 12 hours of rock-a-billy hits for $10-$20. Why hasn't this happened?
So if you have the Linux sources (which everyone would likely have), then you're still not safe?
I suppose that had to be added, otherwise, they'd be giving you a license to their source, which is much, much more expensive. But what that amounts to is that if you "have" Linux, you could spend $699 would still be at risk for possessing their source, for which you don't have a license.
Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.
In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.
As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.
Is it ok if I scribble out the swear words and remove the sex paragraphs of a book after I purchased it? It's amazing that something like this could even go to trial.
The DVD is mine. You might own the copyrights, but I own the DVD, and what I do with it is my business (DMCA not withstanding, but then it's probably not Constitutional, either.) If I want to run over it with my truck, or scratch it with my pen, or use a program that has the same effect as erasing portions of it, or insert myself as a main character in my own personal version, that's my business. Just as if I wanted to stick several of my own pages into a Steven King novel that I purchased, or rip some pages out.
That should not be a problem unless I'm selling my edited versions. Even if I tell someone else what pages to rip out, that's not copyright infringement anymore than making any other reference.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I would have said I was "Bill Gates" you would have believed me?
--
Bill Gates
Whatever, buddy! You're a rotten jerk, and you should be in jail for what you do!!!
You see... That's called sarcasm. It's something so ridiculous that no one could possibly believe it. But apparently, everyone thinks I really am the CEO of Turner Broadcasting, and that I equate blocking pop-ups with criminal acts.
I still say it was damn funny...
--
Slashdolt
I assumed it was pretty obvious.
:(
There goes my Karma.
Damn, and I was hoping for +5, funny...
--
Slashdolt
You'd think that the moderators would get the joke. Must be they don't hang around here as much as they'd like us to believe.
I was expecting +5 funny. Right now, it's at -1 troll. LOL.
Yes, I really am the chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting, and I post on Slashdot.
I find it funny how sarcasm is beyond the comprehension of so many.
--
Slashdolt
You realize that if you block pop-ups, that you're stealing Internet service. In fact, this is even worse than what TIVO users are doing by stealing television. At least in TIVO's case, it can't skip over "live" broadcasting.
You are all just a bunch of sick criminals.
--
Jamie Kellner
Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting
That's like saying your phone company can't tell you what phone calls you made (monitor), because they can't record (inspect) your calls.
Monitoring traffic and inspecting traffic are completely different issues. "Inspecting" implies that you are "listening-in", whereas monitoring simply means that you are aware of the usage. I can't imagine any ISP that doesn't do some sort of monitoring.
--
Slashdolt
Every time my Outlook crashes, it just starts itself right back up again! It starts itself up several times each day! All by itself!!!
--
Slashdolt
I read this article awhile ago. Given that so many people are setting up wireless networks in their homes/apartments, it really makes me wonder how many of them are being hacked, and allowing their neighbors to get free Internet access.
On the other hand, it could be a good defense if you actually wanted to give your neighbor free access. ;-)
--
Slash
Of course you'd still have to get that information OFF the DVD's, presumably, in which case even the fastest DVD drive would be much, much, much, much slower.
So, your "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon load of tapes headed down the hi-way" type of remark fails for practical purposes.
--
Slash
Yeah, I noticed that too. That would be over 10Mbps, right? I've never heard of any cable modems that fast.
Whenever I've tried to download Linux ISO's, even over a full T-1, I've normally had to wait more than an hour each.
I guess it boils down to "what is broadband?" I guess a T1 must not fit their definition anymore.
--
Slash
It takes up to 30 days to process a complaint.
Don't expect miracles.
--
Slash
"The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses."
I largely agree with this, but it still does make a difference. The BBB will contact SCO after receiving (hopefully) numerous complaints. Nothing much may become of it, but more people will be aware of the situation as a result. Creating awareness is part of the battle. Look at what Renaissance believed! An intelligent investor would look at the number of complaints against a company received by the BBB and would ask the potential company about those issues.
Be realistic in your expectations. Don't expect the FTC to come out with guns blazing, but at the same time, it does absolutely NO GOOD to post on Slashdot about what @$$holes SCO are, if you don't at least try to work in the consumer channels available.
Worst case, nothing happens, but at least you've tried. It's like complaining about the President when you never voted. IMO, if you didn't vote, you have no right to complain. Cast your vote by filing a complaint, with the FTC first, then with BBB and/or possibly even with your State Attorney General. Find other consumer groups as well. They're attacking US, the consumer, at this point. Do your duty and report them.
--
Slash
If you had actually submitted a complaint, it would have told you that it takes up to 30 days to "process" it.
If you haven't already complained about SCO's conduct to the Federal Trade Commission and/or Better Business Bureau, you really should do so.
The BBB complaints become a permanent part of a corporation's record. Enough complaints can make a difference.
www.bbb.org
www.ftc.gov
(Simply click on "File a complaint" in both cases)
I have filed with both. I believe that SCO's conduct is essentially the same as trying to sell licenses to the Brooklyn Bridge and then threatening those that don't buy a license with lawsuits.
Make a real difference by allowing your voice to be heard. File a complaint.
--
Slash
I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.
SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
FTC Consumer Complaint Form
Take a stand and make a real difference.
--
Slash
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
Phone: 801-765-4999
Fax: 801-852-9088
Also, SCO's Linux licenses start at $699 during the promotional period.
I'm not sure how much easier I can make this.
Again, take an active role.
--
Slash
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Mention how you feel that they are attempting to extort money from you. The FTC DOES take these matters seriously. If they receive many complaints about a particular company, they will be very inclined to launch an investigation. The mere mention of an FTC investigation is not good news for a company, nor its stock.
File a complaint online
Take a more active role in this. Don't just vent your frustrations on /. where no one outside our community will hear.
-- Slash
Apparently, it's already /.ed...
I recently received the following letter from my Michigan Senator Carl Levin. It shares his views on this matter. Unfortunately, I was writing to him about the "Public Domain Enhancement Act", which has nothing to do with the RIAA or P2P. Nevertheless, it was at least enlightening to hear a government official respond, so I'm posting it here, even though he is an uncaring dolt.
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) recent decision to issue subpoenas to gather evidence for potential lawsuits against Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing software users. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
The P2P exchange, also referred to as swapping, of certain types of files over the internet poses serious questions regarding existing copyrights. Digital media files, such as MP3s, e-books, and digital pictures, often contain copyrighted material. As a result, the free exchange of these files raises concerns among copyright holders. Meanwhile, some consumer rights groups and civil liberties organizations argue that P2P software promotes free expression and is capable of substantial non-infringement uses.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25, 2003, that it will file suit against people who use P2P file-sharing systems to create unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Since then, the RIAA is reported to have won hundreds of subpoenas in order to collect information for civil lawsuits that could be filed against individuals who are alleged to have illegally used file sharing programs.
I believe the recording industry has raised legitimate concerns about copyright infringement and, of course, that they have the right to take appropriate steps to protect their legal rights. However, I also believe that the privacy rights of individuals should not be compromised.
I will continue to carefully review this matter as the Courts and Congress further addresses these issues. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
MP3's have been around for several years now, and yet, for the most part, you still can't purchase them anywhere. MP3 is the current defacto standard. To me, it doesn't make sense that we can easily buy a CD and rip it (unless it's a copy-proof CD) and make MP3's, and yet the music industry seems afraid to produce MP3's.
Again, MP3 technology is not that new. I can recall using it at least as far back as 1997. 6 years have gone by. The consumers and the CD/DVD-players all want to have MP3's, and yet there is (for all intent and purpose) no way to buy them.
As John Dvorak said in his PC Magazine column, around 1997, no one would want to buy 10 rock-a-billy CD's for $100, but there might be a market for one MP3 CD with 12 hours of rock-a-billy hits for $10-$20. Why hasn't this happened?
So if you have the Linux sources (which everyone would likely have), then you're still not safe?
I suppose that had to be added, otherwise, they'd be giving you a license to their source, which is much, much more expensive. But what that amounts to is that if you "have" Linux, you could spend $699 would still be at risk for possessing their source, for which you don't have a license.
--
Slashdolt
...And the SCO execs are selling their stock as fast as they can, though trying to make it appear that they are simply "getting a good deal".
C OX &tag=1
http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=S
Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.
In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.
As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.
--
Slashdolt
Is it ok if I scribble out the swear words and remove the sex paragraphs of a book after I purchased it? It's amazing that something like this could even go to trial.
The DVD is mine. You might own the copyrights, but I own the DVD, and what I do with it is my business (DMCA not withstanding, but then it's probably not Constitutional, either.) If I want to run over it with my truck, or scratch it with my pen, or use a program that has the same effect as erasing portions of it, or insert myself as a main character in my own personal version, that's my business. Just as if I wanted to stick several of my own pages into a Steven King novel that I purchased, or rip some pages out.
That should not be a problem unless I'm selling my edited versions. Even if I tell someone else what pages to rip out, that's not copyright infringement anymore than making any other reference.
Oh... And it should be "heretofore", not "hereafter". LOL!
Ok, perhaps this whole MENSA disclaimer was completely dry humor and you were actually already aware of the two grammitcal mistakes...?
If that's the case, it IS funny. =D
Yeah, it's bad to comment on sigs, but I had to laugh...
"DISCLAIMER: The views expressed hereafter are not necessarily those of MENSA, which I am only a member of."
How about "of which I am only a member"?
LOL!