That's a bit harsh - the ostensible aims of DMCA and Carnivore are far from nefarious.
DMCA "aims" (completely unsuccessfully) to ensure copyright can still function profitably (a noble aim, not everybody is motivated to create without an incentive), and Carnivore aims (with more success, but with many more undesirable side effects) to negate the effects of terrorism, the activities of child pornographers, etc etc. There are valid motives behind these things, but somewhere along the line, they got hijacked by combinations of big bizness(TM), stupid senators, and fascistic neo-mccarthyists.
And as for the US setting an example for freedom, well. I don't think we (non-USians) need to be taught, actually. Freedom is one of those rather instinctive things, and I'm not going to enhance my knowledge of it by reading USA Today (yes, slightly trollish, but I'm pissy about that comment).
Methinks I know not of what you speak. I have a bucket of 4k demos (of which my favourite is Animate! by... ok, so I forgot, and I don't want to boot M$ just now...) and it runs perfectly on my 333mhz 98 box (ok, not cutting edge, but a little above the 486 DOS machine the demo expected).
I think you'll find that a greater proportion of 4k demos work these days, than so-called megademos, because megademos load up huge sound and graphics systems which are very kludgey, whereas 4ks just poke the same old addresses that have been around since the dawn of time.
For those of you still suffering on a modem connection, you can buy large collections of these demos (ostensibly legally, because they say they asked all demo writers' permissions first) from any reseller of old Walnut Creek stuff (am I right that Walnut Creek went down?). Look for Hornet Underground vols 1 and 2, which feature the best (and not so best) of Hornet.org.
I still have a shrine to Second Reality. My 486DX2, with 4mb, and a 1mb Cirrus Logic graphics card. Ahh, the old days....
Not to be too rude... but "Wayne State University" is hardly Ivy League, now, is it?
Currently, UK schools teach: the basic curriculum (for those of you who missed school, this is stuff like PHYSICS, or GEOLOGY... these are known as "academic subjects"). What is *NOT* taught is stuff like "what Microsoft wants me to know" or "how I can help ICI achieve their profit forecast for Q4 of 2002".</SARCASM>
Seriously folks - the only thing which isn't directly related to the curriculum being taught, is a) sex education and b) drug education. These are taught because some students could be directly harmed if they don't get to know the facts. When it comes to IP teaching, it's just a farce. Silly story, silly headline
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK, which requires companies to have your permission before they pass on any data at all about you to third parties (including other branches of the same company). It seemed rather draconian, until I read this, and suddenly began to understand:-)
In this case, I imagine the lawyer is doing it pro bono (for free). It is typical in American pro bono cases, for the lawyer's percentage to be as high as 40%. Thus. 40% of 5 billion dollars - a hefty 2 billion. That should cover his costs rather nicely, with a few pennies left over.
Plus, the publicity generated ensures him cases into eternity, even if he does lose.
For a start, I'd take issue with your statement that the British police are "notoriously corrupt". That just doesn't wash, especially in contrast to the American police. But leaving that aside...
I don't think stalkers are a real force to worry about. That's a poor example. Stalkers just turn up and stare; they don't try and bribe police for CCTV footage.
As for organized crime: why would they be interested in me walking to the movies, or being sick behind a dumpster on a Saturday night (poor example, but hey:-). The only reason organized crime would find it interesting, would be to examine police movements. And who owns the footage again? Oh yeah.
And so the great Scientology monolith smashes another dissenter.
Am I surprised?
Of course not. It seems that they use a vast proportion of their earnings (read: money ripped off from gullible/vulnerable people) to sue those who speak out against them.
Dave Touretzky (of the DeCSS descrambler gallery) has a lot of information available on these guys - somewhat more valuable, considering it's not in Swedish (what's with the link above, Michael? Please reply to this message, and tell me what percentage of the daily hits are from.se).
And I'd recommend reading Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller. Unfortunately, I can't find any online retailer still willing to sell this book - the link is to used copies of early, expensive editions.
...is ridiculous. Look at the requirements. It has to have tiles arranged just *so*, the windows must have just a certain amount of trim, etc etc.
I ask you:
Who the hell thinks it is worth TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to bust this copyright? If it wasn't posted on a site which has actually paid out hard cash, I'd think it was a scam.
On the other hand, the pissed off American Public that you mention, could be anaesthetized very very quickly by the appearance of a low priced, easy to use, high quality industry alternative. Not that I'm advocating this in the slightest, and not that I'm particularly expecting it to happen.
But.
Given the choice between a legitimate, massively publicised system, and a shady or just downright illegal system, which your mate down the pub recommended, most new users will opt for the one they understand and feel comfortable with. And understanding is built by advertising, in today's sickly consumer environment (no, don't say it isn't true, because it is).
I think it's easy to see a future where the RIAA and pals would own the predominant music distribution network, despite "free" alternatives. Thankfully, however, I don't think they have enough brains between them to realise this future, so I think we'll have "free" music for quite a while yet.
The usual slashdot blurb, hyping things up. This is only a proposal, and there is, ostensibly, time to comment on it and change it.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with these proposals. It's only big business which should do, because they need a.com domain to present themselves as a "respectable" and "mainstream" organization. For the rest of us plebs, we can do pretty damn well with the plethora of two letter TLDs around the world (try the NICs of.cx and.fm for example).
And it's not as if Verisign is a bloodsucking corporation anyway. Imagine if they'd sold.com rights to one of slashdot's favourite bugbears (pick one, there's enough around).
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I had this strange idea that lasers require a direct line of sight. Any bouncing, and they lose their coherency.
So.
How the hell is this going to solve the "last mile" problem? For consumers in fairly large metropolises (any other takes on the plural?) there are too many bloody buildings in the way. Plus, the problem has already been solved with DSL, cable, etc. For consumers not in the last mile - well, the laser's going to max out at 5 kilometers, right? So those farmers still plodding along on a 28k are going to stay plodding.
Over time, the W3 Consortium's mandate has expanded massively - but I think they've gone way overboard in terms of trying to define usability. IMHO, it's very much the browser designers' choice whether to highlight links, report errors in a certain way, etc. The whole of section 1.x is entirely beyond their "jurisdiction" (let's remember that they're self appointed here, folks).
No idea how you manage to call roaming cheap on Vodafone.
Oh, and the world doesn't QUITE have a unified system. There's GSM 900mhz, which is the most common. But there are large chunks of the world where 1800mhz is the standard. Most phones sold in Europe support both these frequencies, and are thus called "dual band". America's GSM network is done mostly by Voicestream, and uses 1900mhz. I don't know the reason for this - perhaps it's to do with FCC allocation or something.
Anyway, I have a nice little Ericsson T28 World, which is dual band in that it work on 900mhz and 1900mhz. And thus serves me very nicely in America, for 52 pence (~75 cents) per minute local calls, 130 pence (~$1.80) per minute back to the UK, on Voicestream New Mexico.
I always thought that large disclaimers would do the trick.
If I ran a site (Xsucks.com) and put a large disclaimer at the top, saying something on the lines of "This site is not affiliated with X, please visit X.com if you wish to see the real site", then any argument that the site would be confused with the real thing would surely fall over, as long as your disclaimer wouldn't be missed (after all, "read this before installing" type agreements have been enforced before, so a "read this before viewing the webpage" would certainly hold water).
Likewise, I've always thought that companies with like names, but totally different businesses, should offer links to each other's sites. If you remember Prince vs Prince, where a British computer consultancy was sued by the American sportswear manufacturer for Prince.com (and you can see who won by visiting). The current prince.com would not lose any business by pointing visitors to the site they might really be wanting.
I have no clue - could someone explain what happens when I do a lookup on that hostname and get 200.132.73.102 (on my horrid little IPv4 DNS server...)
And I just don't think hex sextuplets look as good - though they sound better:-)
They mention that the perpetrators could go to jail. But how? What law prohibits this kind of thing? (I'm sure the authorities will find a suitable charge if they want - something like Obstructing a Public Highway, or Causing Undue Disturbance, or some blanket law that lets them prosecute this kind of undefined crime).
Fair comment. Dvorak does up speeds considerably, so I hear. All the same, I believe competitions require accuracy penalties to be awarded against people. So she may have made 190, but been hit for 20 words off per error, or something.
200+ on a normal keyboard does seem BS to me too:-)
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit harsh - the ostensible aims of DMCA and Carnivore are far from nefarious.
DMCA "aims" (completely unsuccessfully) to ensure copyright can still function profitably (a noble aim, not everybody is motivated to create without an incentive), and Carnivore aims (with more success, but with many more undesirable side effects) to negate the effects of terrorism, the activities of child pornographers, etc etc. There are valid motives behind these things, but somewhere along the line, they got hijacked by combinations of big bizness(TM), stupid senators, and fascistic neo-mccarthyists.
And as for the US setting an example for freedom, well. I don't think we (non-USians) need to be taught, actually. Freedom is one of those rather instinctive things, and I'm not going to enhance my knowledge of it by reading USA Today (yes, slightly trollish, but I'm pissy about that comment).
Methinks I know not of what you speak. I have a bucket of 4k demos (of which my favourite is Animate! by... ok, so I forgot, and I don't want to boot M$ just now...) and it runs perfectly on my 333mhz 98 box (ok, not cutting edge, but a little above the 486 DOS machine the demo expected).
:-)
I think you'll find that a greater proportion of 4k demos work these days, than so-called megademos, because megademos load up huge sound and graphics systems which are very kludgey, whereas 4ks just poke the same old addresses that have been around since the dawn of time.
If that was what you were referring to...
For those of you still suffering on a modem connection, you can buy large collections of these demos (ostensibly legally, because they say they asked all demo writers' permissions first) from any reseller of old Walnut Creek stuff (am I right that Walnut Creek went down?). Look for Hornet Underground vols 1 and 2, which feature the best (and not so best) of Hornet.org.
I still have a shrine to Second Reality. My 486DX2, with 4mb, and a 1mb Cirrus Logic graphics card. Ahh, the old days....
a) too slow
:-)
b) too open to corruption by dodgy clients
c) not well suited to distributed solving
IMHO
Not to be too rude... but "Wayne State University" is hardly Ivy League, now, is it?
Currently, UK schools teach: the basic curriculum (for those of you who missed school, this is stuff like PHYSICS, or GEOLOGY... these are known as "academic subjects"). What is *NOT* taught is stuff like "what Microsoft wants me to know" or "how I can help ICI achieve their profit forecast for Q4 of 2002".</SARCASM>
Seriously folks - the only thing which isn't directly related to the curriculum being taught, is a) sex education and b) drug education. These are taught because some students could be directly harmed if they don't get to know the facts. When it comes to IP teaching, it's just a farce. Silly story, silly headline
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK, which requires companies to have your permission before they pass on any data at all about you to third parties (including other branches of the same company). It seemed rather draconian, until I read this, and suddenly began to understand :-)
In this case, I imagine the lawyer is doing it pro bono (for free). It is typical in American pro bono cases, for the lawyer's percentage to be as high as 40%. Thus. 40% of 5 billion dollars - a hefty 2 billion. That should cover his costs rather nicely, with a few pennies left over.
Plus, the publicity generated ensures him cases into eternity, even if he does lose.
He knows what he's doing.
And perhaps they should sue all major publishing houses for allowing books describing graphic violence to fall into the hands of children.
Oh no - wait - that's called education, right?
Homicide rate by firearms in the United States in 1997: 4.61 deaths per 100k citizens.
Homicide rate in the UK: 0.11 per 100k citizens.
So you suck.
That's not a very considered attitude.
:-). The only reason organized crime would find it interesting, would be to examine police movements. And who owns the footage again? Oh yeah.
For a start, I'd take issue with your statement that the British police are "notoriously corrupt". That just doesn't wash, especially in contrast to the American police. But leaving that aside...
I don't think stalkers are a real force to worry about. That's a poor example. Stalkers just turn up and stare; they don't try and bribe police for CCTV footage.
As for organized crime: why would they be interested in me walking to the movies, or being sick behind a dumpster on a Saturday night (poor example, but hey
I'm not bothered at all by these cameras.
This is me.
This is me looking humble.
Thanks for the correction! I should have paid more attention.
And so the great Scientology monolith smashes another dissenter.
.se).
Am I surprised?
Of course not. It seems that they use a vast proportion of their earnings (read: money ripped off from gullible/vulnerable people) to sue those who speak out against them.
Dave Touretzky (of the DeCSS descrambler gallery) has a lot of information available on these guys - somewhat more valuable, considering it's not in Swedish (what's with the link above, Michael? Please reply to this message, and tell me what percentage of the daily hits are from
And I'd recommend reading Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller. Unfortunately, I can't find any online retailer still willing to sell this book - the link is to used copies of early, expensive editions.
...is ridiculous. Look at the requirements. It has to have tiles arranged just *so*, the windows must have just a certain amount of trim, etc etc.
I ask you:
Who the hell thinks it is worth TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to bust this copyright? If it wasn't posted on a site which has actually paid out hard cash, I'd think it was a scam.
On the other hand, the pissed off American Public that you mention, could be anaesthetized very very quickly by the appearance of a low priced, easy to use, high quality industry alternative. Not that I'm advocating this in the slightest, and not that I'm particularly expecting it to happen.
But.
Given the choice between a legitimate, massively publicised system, and a shady or just downright illegal system, which your mate down the pub recommended, most new users will opt for the one they understand and feel comfortable with. And understanding is built by advertising, in today's sickly consumer environment (no, don't say it isn't true, because it is).
I think it's easy to see a future where the RIAA and pals would own the predominant music distribution network, despite "free" alternatives. Thankfully, however, I don't think they have enough brains between them to realise this future, so I think we'll have "free" music for quite a while yet.
Woohoo.
For a slightly more cynical take (and in my view, more realistic), take a peek at the Register's coverage of this story
The usual slashdot blurb, hyping things up. This is only a proposal, and there is, ostensibly, time to comment on it and change it.
.com domain to present themselves as a "respectable" and "mainstream" organization. For the rest of us plebs, we can do pretty damn well with the plethora of two letter TLDs around the world (try the NICs of .cx and .fm for example).
.com rights to one of slashdot's favourite bugbears (pick one, there's enough around).
To be honest, I don't have a problem with these proposals. It's only big business which should do, because they need a
And it's not as if Verisign is a bloodsucking corporation anyway. Imagine if they'd sold
Overall - this is so not a big deal.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I had this strange idea that lasers require a direct line of sight. Any bouncing, and they lose their coherency.
So.
How the hell is this going to solve the "last mile" problem? For consumers in fairly large metropolises (any other takes on the plural?) there are too many bloody buildings in the way. Plus, the problem has already been solved with DSL, cable, etc. For consumers not in the last mile - well, the laser's going to max out at 5 kilometers, right? So those farmers still plodding along on a 28k are going to stay plodding.
I fail to see how this can be of any use at all.
A work around? Sure.
t entServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZ5EVNA GJC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=tru e&showsummary=0"
:-)
% lynx "http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTCon
Enjoy
It renders messed up in my Nutscrape, also, by the way. But lynx shows it up a treat
2001-03-16 13:12:01 be my guess, oh yes
Over time, the W3 Consortium's mandate has expanded massively - but I think they've gone way overboard in terms of trying to define usability. IMHO, it's very much the browser designers' choice whether to highlight links, report errors in a certain way, etc. The whole of section 1.x is entirely beyond their "jurisdiction" (let's remember that they're self appointed here, folks).
Though I'm sure Jakob Nielson is delighted.
No idea how you manage to call roaming cheap on Vodafone.
:-)
Oh, and the world doesn't QUITE have a unified system. There's GSM 900mhz, which is the most common. But there are large chunks of the world where 1800mhz is the standard. Most phones sold in Europe support both these frequencies, and are thus called "dual band". America's GSM network is done mostly by Voicestream, and uses 1900mhz. I don't know the reason for this - perhaps it's to do with FCC allocation or something.
Anyway, I have a nice little Ericsson T28 World, which is dual band in that it work on 900mhz and 1900mhz. And thus serves me very nicely in America, for 52 pence (~75 cents) per minute local calls, 130 pence (~$1.80) per minute back to the UK, on Voicestream New Mexico.
Um.
That's all
I always thought that large disclaimers would do the trick.
If I ran a site (Xsucks.com) and put a large disclaimer at the top, saying something on the lines of "This site is not affiliated with X, please visit X.com if you wish to see the real site", then any argument that the site would be confused with the real thing would surely fall over, as long as your disclaimer wouldn't be missed (after all, "read this before installing" type agreements have been enforced before, so a "read this before viewing the webpage" would certainly hold water).
Likewise, I've always thought that companies with like names, but totally different businesses, should offer links to each other's sites. If you remember Prince vs Prince, where a British computer consultancy was sued by the American sportswear manufacturer for Prince.com (and you can see who won by visiting). The current prince.com would not lose any business by pointing visitors to the site they might really be wanting.
I think I'm just saying, "be nice".
One of the addresses quoted is:
:-)
3ffe:2b00:100:107::1 (quake6.prav.unisinos.br)
I have no clue - could someone explain what happens when I do a lookup on that hostname and get 200.132.73.102 (on my horrid little IPv4 DNS server...)
And I just don't think hex sextuplets look as good - though they sound better
They mention that the perpetrators could go to jail. But how? What law prohibits this kind of thing? (I'm sure the authorities will find a suitable charge if they want - something like Obstructing a Public Highway, or Causing Undue Disturbance, or some blanket law that lets them prosecute this kind of undefined crime).
Any ideas folks?
Fair comment. Dvorak does up speeds considerably, so I hear. All the same, I believe competitions require accuracy penalties to be awarded against people. So she may have made 190, but been hit for 20 words off per error, or something.
:-)
200+ on a normal keyboard does seem BS to me too