IMHO, harrasment would be more questionable than trespass. It doesn't seeem that the individuals receiving the mail were harassed, but only Intel as a whole. Can corporations legally be harrassed? I know they are legally people, but does it go that far?
If he was told "go away", yet continued showing up on Intel's (virtual) property, that sounds like trespass to me.
So, I assume you don't hang up on telemarketers or close the door on salesmen then?
If you're a meat eater, I assume you don't mind if PETA pickets your front door and lawn (not the street, YOUR property). If they ignored you when you told them to go away, you could taunt them again, and that's it. So, that's ok by you?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Where is this "limited"? When did something last fall out of copyright?
Where is this "Promote the Progress"? Copyrights have been used as much to squash as anything else.
The first one was full of this very interesting exploration of the meaning of reality. The second one didn't do this, becuase they'd already said everything they had to say on that subject
If you didn't think this one was playing with the nature of reality, you weren't paying attention.
SPAM isn't free speach. It costs me in time; effort; angst.
Spam is free speach, it most certainly isn't free speech. However, your argument is completely bogus. There is no right not to be offended. Reading a multivariate calculus textbook is going to cost you time effort and angst. Does that make that book not free speech? The difference is it's not forced on you.
If you don't verify that infringement is actually happening, don't blame them for it.
You're saying the RIAA can't afford 3 or 4 people to verify infringements? Those people are going to be cheaper in the long run than if they make too many mistakes and get sued over those mistakes, or even just the bad publicity from it.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, harrasment would be more questionable than trespass. It doesn't seeem that the individuals receiving the mail were harassed, but only Intel as a whole. Can corporations legally be harrassed? I know they are legally people, but does it go that far?
If he was told "go away", yet continued showing up on Intel's (virtual) property, that sounds like trespass to me.
So, I assume you don't hang up on telemarketers or close the door on salesmen then?
If you're a meat eater, I assume you don't mind if PETA pickets your front door and lawn (not the street, YOUR property). If they ignored you when you told them to go away, you could taunt them again, and that's it. So, that's ok by you?
Some of the earlier Wired articles stated that Intel asked him to stop and attempted to block. He didn't. Why shouldn't they sue for trespass?
OK, there are 25 million (or so) small businesses in the US. Mind if they all send you opt-out e-mails?
You just *GAVE UP* rights with this.
What happened to "My server, my rules"?
Nothing there addressing the DB problem I mentioned in a comment above however.
And Postgre or MySQL (don't remember which offhand). There was a warning on the site for users to use the RPMs and not build from source.
In that case, it wasn't a case of not compiling, but table corruption that didn't occur with ANY other version except 2.96.
Please explain the inclusion of GCC 2.96 in RH then.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Where is this "limited"? When did something last fall out of copyright?
Where is this "Promote the Progress"? Copyrights have been used as much to squash as anything else.
So, where's the suit against Topica?
It's the "Secure Logon sequence" - C-A-D can't be faked since it causes a hardware interrupt.
IIRC, you can turn it off so it's not needed.
I'm a pragmatist in another way.
Give powers to the government and they WILL be abused.
Repeat after me, trying to keep a straight face:
DMCA will only be used against pirates
RICO will only be used against drug dealers
Because it's RPI. Their actions sometimes seem like they actually hate their students, and usually seem like they only tolerate them at best.
They tolerate them now? Wow, it's improved since I graduated a decade ago.
Why should it happen any *later* than the 14 years originally specified?
Why does he feel the need to credit a specific individual with the coining of the phrase "Counter-Strike on steroids"??
Because that individual was the founder of the site.
But he corrected his mistake before it was too late. Rare in politics
Junk Mail != Spam.
If those CDs were shipped to you postage due, then you can call it spam.
DDOS against whoever's name happens to be in the From line of a spam
The first one was full of this very interesting exploration of the meaning of reality. The second one didn't do this, becuase they'd already said everything they had to say on that subject
If you didn't think this one was playing with the nature of reality, you weren't paying attention.
Coffee is hot.
Coffee should not give third degree burns.
Original request of the suit was damages. The jury upped it to "One day of revenue from coffee"
They tied in the game based benchmarks if you RTFA'd. How is that beating the living hell out of ATI?
SPAM isn't free speach. It costs me in time; effort; angst.
Spam is free speach, it most certainly isn't free speech. However, your argument is completely bogus. There is no right not to be offended. Reading a multivariate calculus textbook is going to cost you time effort and angst. Does that make that book not free speech? The difference is it's not forced on you.
The proper use of a blacklist is to deny connection to the SMTP server. The mail doesn't go into oblivion, the sender is notified of the bounce.
With filtering or mistakes in "Just Hit Delete", the sender is never notified. *THAT* is the black hole
Except filtering doesn't solve the problem of spam.
There's still all the network traffic that occurs before it can be filtered.
It was *NOT* an honest mistake.
If you don't verify that infringement is actually happening, don't blame them for it.
You're saying the RIAA can't afford 3 or 4 people to verify infringements? Those people are going to be cheaper in the long run than if they make too many mistakes and get sued over those mistakes, or even just the bad publicity from it.