That the white house is led by incompetents is hardly a government secret.
True, but many in the White House believe it is. This is just one of many instances where they holler about "national security" but what they are really protecting is their own asses from embarrassment. John Dean's book Worse than Watergate documented this a couple years before the current crisis; this is just one more incident in a long string of attacks on openness in government. I
This isn't like spamming at all. It's about a server explicitly configured to serve pages, and instead of configuring it otherwise (or taking down the pages), the owner of the server is taking someone to court for pointing at something on the page. It's not about figuring out "technical tricks to block such practices" -- if you don't want your page linked, don't put it out on http! The whole point of HTTP is allowing hypertext to be transported from one place to another.
One can argue that the patent and copyright systems are all about the government securing profit for businesses and individuals.
In the US Constitution, the purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of more work. It has nothing to do with profit, and the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed this point in Feist v. Rural Telephone Services (a case where the Court unanimously held that copyright does not protect a company's right to profit from the work they did in compiling a telephone directory). So, no, it's not about securing profit, at least according to U.S. law (obviously it has been used that way by unscrupulous cartels, but that is a different point).
since in your analogy the viewer is in your store using invasive technology to view something in another store. A link to content is an actual visit to the complaining site. A better analogy is if I read a good article in a magazine and told you what page of the magazine to find the article on. This would allow you to pick up the magazine and (horror of horrors!) read the article directly without flipping through the advertisements. The person reading it has to actually pick up the magazine, but they are being linked directly to the content rather than having to find it using the publisher's navigational system. I can't see any reason why this should be illegal other than that the party who should have won the case made a crappy argument in their defense.
* I don't watch 24, but I've heard some rather amusing takes on their entire "hacker" philosophy. In particular, they seem to be able to do the impossible without blinking an eye, just by wrapping it up in some techno-babble that's intended to sound good to the average joe.What I love about shows like that is that when they actually get a terrorist or perp on the freakin telephone, they still have to keep them on the line for five minutes before they can get a trace. The rest of their tech is from far in the future, but when it comes to an actual phone call, we're back in the early 1970s...
Well, you certainly can't go wrong with the Lagavulin... The Portswood is aged in casks that held port which I find gives it a complex flavor. Try it neat with just a drop of water:)
Here is the link to the information he provided. If you have a source that disputes Amnesty International, why not present it in the discussion rather than arrogantly asserting that the claim is "bullshit"?
Actually, the ruling was pretty clear that the reason for child porn laws is to protect the children that are used as models. Read Kennedy's majority opinion, which specifically cites as the reason for the child porn laws "the State's interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process." There's an intrinsic relation between real child porn and the exploitation of children. There is no such relation with "virtual" child porn. Such statutes would effectively criminalize themes that have been a part of popular culture for centuries.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such provisions as unconstitutional; see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here's an article about the decision). I'm fairly sure the provisions you highlighted would fall under this decision and thus could not be enforced.
yeah, how can you people sit here enjoying someone else's misfortune!! some poor blind guy just wants to fire off a few slugs into the brains of unarmed creatures smaller and less intelligent than himself, sending the miserable creature to a violent and bloody death; how can you sit there and be amused by such a tragedy? Thank god the great state of texas is taking this important stance for civil rights....
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a problem with someone's business model, not a copyright issue or a problem for the law to intervene in. That was my point.
This isn't like spamming at all. It's about a server explicitly configured to serve pages, and instead of configuring it otherwise (or taking down the pages), the owner of the server is taking someone to court for pointing at something on the page. It's not about figuring out "technical tricks to block such practices" -- if you don't want your page linked, don't put it out on http! The whole point of HTTP is allowing hypertext to be transported from one place to another.
since in your analogy the viewer is in your store using invasive technology to view something in another store. A link to content is an actual visit to the complaining site. A better analogy is if I read a good article in a magazine and told you what page of the magazine to find the article on. This would allow you to pick up the magazine and (horror of horrors!) read the article directly without flipping through the advertisements. The person reading it has to actually pick up the magazine, but they are being linked directly to the content rather than having to find it using the publisher's navigational system. I can't see any reason why this should be illegal other than that the party who should have won the case made a crappy argument in their defense.
* I don't watch 24, but I've heard some rather amusing takes on their entire "hacker" philosophy. In particular, they seem to be able to do the impossible without blinking an eye, just by wrapping it up in some techno-babble that's intended to sound good to the average joe.What I love about shows like that is that when they actually get a terrorist or perp on the freakin telephone, they still have to keep them on the line for five minutes before they can get a trace. The rest of their tech is from far in the future, but when it comes to an actual phone call, we're back in the early 1970s...
Slashdot: News for Drunks. Stuff that winds up in the Bladder....
Well, you certainly can't go wrong with the Lagavulin ... The Portswood is aged in casks that held port which I find gives it a complex flavor. Try it neat with just a drop of water :)
the 21 year Portswood from Balvenie. Runs about 75 $US a bottle, and well worth it.
You haven't provided any information whatsoever; all you've done is assert things, and call me names. Grow up.
Safari could not open the page "http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/" because the server stopped responding."
Thanks, slashdot!
Reading something does not violate its copyright. If they distribute copies of robots.txt you might have a case of some sort.
Here is the link to the information he provided. If you have a source that disputes Amnesty International, why not present it in the discussion rather than arrogantly asserting that the claim is "bullshit"?
He already did. China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen.
Actually, the ruling was pretty clear that the reason for child porn laws is to protect the children that are used as models. Read Kennedy's majority opinion, which specifically cites as the reason for the child porn laws "the State's interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process." There's an intrinsic relation between real child porn and the exploitation of children. There is no such relation with "virtual" child porn. Such statutes would effectively criminalize themes that have been a part of popular culture for centuries.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such provisions as unconstitutional; see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here's an article about the decision). I'm fairly sure the provisions you highlighted would fall under this decision and thus could not be enforced.
Let's call it free as in Mitnick.
Is there any program that will do the reverse -- translate midi files into scores?
Hope that your buddy is the Vice President?
yeah, how can you people sit here enjoying someone else's misfortune!! some poor blind guy just wants to fire off a few slugs into the brains of unarmed creatures smaller and less intelligent than himself, sending the miserable creature to a violent and bloody death; how can you sit there and be amused by such a tragedy? Thank god the great state of texas is taking this important stance for civil rights....
blind people. with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
the joystick will only have one button.
Is there oil there?
If there's no difference between Linux and Windows, that is a great reason to switch --- to OS X.