Re:Works great if you have a clean room available
on
Clear Hard Drive Mods
·
· Score: 2
I wouldn't even attempt such a feat unless I had at my disposal a clean box with the propper atmosphere for the job. Open air is just nuts, after what a tiny bit of humidity did to fog the crystal of my swiss watch over time. (Now I send the watch to someone who changes the cell in a clean, nitrogen atmosphere box, like it's supposed to be done.)
I hope you aren't paying much more than $15 to have your battery changed. What caused your crystal to fog was most likely a leak in the gasket (either behind the back or the crystal) or around the crown. This happens most often when people wear non-water resistant watches in the shower or wear a "water-resistant" watch too deep or in hot water like a bath or hottub. In any case the battery can be changed in room air. As long as you replace the gaskets and pressure test the case when your done you shouldn't have any leakage or fogging.
Anyone who tells you your watch battery needs to be changed in a nitrigen environment is only selling to suckers.
Are you refering to the clip titled "Manual aggressive maneuvers"? This is the only clip I could find that shows the helicopter doing anything remotely aerobatic.
I'm still at the hovering backwards stage, but the guys I fly with put that stuff to shame. Inverted hovering, invertied auto-rotation, inside loops, outside loops, tornados, rolls and flips inches off of the ground. It's almost unbelievable what these guys can do. You should check out one of Curtis Youngblood's videos and them let me know who gets the new heli.
Aileron 's are the little flaps... They are not the FLAPS mind you
Pilots use the term "Control Surfaces" instead of "little flaps" to avoid confusion, unless of course they are talking about the flaps and they happen to be small.
Maybe I'm just dense, but do we really need 30,000 varieties of corn from one continent?
This is a serious question. Is there a measureable differnce between each of the 30,000 variety? Perhaps if the scientists could distill their samples to say 1,200 different varienties of each plant they wouldn't have such a funding problem.
People throw around words like "evironment" and "biodiversity", but is anyone holding these scientists accountable to show some value (doesn't have to be monetary) in exchange for the funding?
When the discussion was about wether software developed with government grants should be open the overwhelming response was "of course, the taxpayers should get the source because we paid for it." I'm just asking what the ROI if for storing 30,000 varieties of the same plant indefinately.
I don't have a Master's Degree in ceramics engineering, but I do have google and according to this site Lodestones are composed of Iron ore which would make them metallic.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Assuming that you are refering to the US postal service you are 100% wrong.
The USPS receives no tax dollars to pay for operations. Not some, not a little, not a few, NONE! The USPS pays for itself. That's why they have to occaionally raise rates. They can't just go ask for more tax dollars. If you don't like the US Mail, don't use it and you won't be paying for it. Don't you wish all government programs were like that?
Bulk mail, presorted stuff, stuff mailed and labeled by machines is actually cheaper for the Post Office to deliver, but the PO doesn't pass ALL of this cost savings on to the Bulk Mailers. You see, those folks sending out junk mail are actually SUBSIDISING YOU! That Valentine's Day card you're about to send to your grandmother costs you less than it should because of all those coupons and solicitations you receive.
If you eliminated junk mail from the US Mail, the Postal Service would cost _more_ per piece to maintain, the price of stamps would go _up_ and it wouldn't save a dime from the Federal Budget.
Real (read: Stateful Inspection) firewalls doctor the headers and the data portions of many different protocols. Right now mine is doing DNS, HTTP, and SMTP. It fixes the addresses and the commands and obscures the banners so you can't see into my network. It also protects against in band attacks to the servers.
The little NAT boxes you get at CompUSA don't do this, but you could put a little PIX on your home network and it will even randomize the TCP sequence numbers for you.
Dude, the only thing that thread proves is that you are a complete fucking asshole. You obviously are just soliciting others to say Windows XP is crap, and when they don't agree with you you whine like a bitch. It's like talking to chicks they want to tell you about their problems, but they don't want them solved. Bitch bitch bitch. If XP doesn't work with your hardware don't use it. It doesn't really matter why or what anyone else thinks.
You wrote:
For all I know I could be older than
windows. [I am]
Since Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 I'm guessing you're a whopping 17 and still in high-school or you think Windows means Windows 95 and you're about 10. Otherwise you would have said somthing intelligent like "Show me some respect, I was in 'Nam dammit!"
For anyone who needs a good laugh, read this guy's usenet thread. ROFLMAO.
They sold to an Australian company, because an Australian company wanted to buy them.
The proper question then is, "Why would an Australian company want to buy KaZaA given the Aussies view toward the Internet?" The answer is quite obviously that they think they can make money.
KaZaA will be turned into a pay service just like Naptster and they will partner with the labels and try not to run afoul of the law. If they accomplish this it doesn't much matter where they are.
Either people are monumentally stupid, cow-like creatures, or you misspoke.
I didn't misspeak, and you do seem to understand the meat of my argument. Let me make it even more clear:
When it comes to computers the majority of people are monumentally stupid, cow-like creatures. Fortunately most of them recognize their stupid cow-likeness and buy things that are easy for themselves to understand and difficult to fuck up.
If Microsoft gave people and easy way to fuck up their computers, many many people would fuck up their computers and then blame MS for letting them.
I'm not saying the majority couldn't figure out how to roll their own kernel, I'm just saying they don't care and they like someone else doing it for them. For the average joe that "feature" is more of a liability.
Imagine if on the back of all TV's there was a little panel that opened up and revealed rows of DIP switches that you could flip and change various internal workings of the set. How many people do you think would be royally pissed when they fucked up their TV and couldn't get it back to normal? How many average people would enjoy the TV more given the ability to flip those switches?
Here's a sobering stat: more people fall off cliffs with fences than cliffs without fences.
You are either going to have to provide a source for that statistic or admit that you concocted it.
Your point is almost a good one except you have forgotten that the majority of consumers (that is people who by things) don't want something they can fuck up. They want fences. They want their OS to ask 3 times if they really want to send that file to the Recycle Bin. Microsoft could put a big button in the middle of the Windows desktop that says "Click here to _permamently_ destroy your computer" and they would get hundreds of tech support calls a day from users asking how to restore their computers after they clicked the button.
The only reason this is even a topic of conversation is because unlike the popular Windows OS's under Linux there is some usefullness in being able to do things like adding and removing kernel components. The reality however is that even if there was a GUI, Aunt Tillie will never recompile her kernel simply because Aunt Tillie will never use an OS where such a thing is possible.
I know ESR et al don't want to believe this, but most users are actually quite happy (at least content) with the OS they have today. They don't need Linux, they don't want Linux, and they certainly don't know why anyone would want to mess around with their kernel. Adding a GUI kernel tool may make it easier for geeks to muck with their distros, but the only way Linux is going to get massive amounts of end-users is by being simple and mindless.
Good argument. I hope you are also opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government program you are paying for and not getting any benefit from.
Some might argue that even though I am not getting a direct benefit from these programs they do benefit society and myself indirectly. Wether or not I am getting my money's worth is certainly debatable, but bureaucracy creates overhead, and I don't really expect to get $1 in value for every $1 in taxes I pay. Taxes are not an investment, they are an *expense*.
Why does the benefit from software development have to the code? What if the developers are allowed to resell that software, but they are required to return a portion of the proceeds to the gov't to be used to fund other research? That would benefit the taxpayers by reducing our burden to pay for reasearch while at the same time making more money available to fund additional research.
This doesn't just apply to software either, losts of research is done with government grants that results in commercial viable IP. Should all of this belong to the Gov't?
Either you believe that the research itself benefits the greater good, even if someone profits from it, or you don't. If research benefits us all, then it is worth public subsidies, and we shuldn't expect to get our "investment" back directly. If it only benefits the people who directly profit they should bear all of the costs as well.
See, what format I send email attachments in is MY choice.
If you want to read them, you'll get the software necessary to do that. Otherwise you won't. Either way, that is YOUR choice.
I don't have any say in what word processor you use, and you don't have any say in what type of attachments I send.
See how we can each make choices for ourselves and we don't have to hold anyone else responsible for making our lives easier (or harder)?
If you choose to do business with me you'll adapt to the way I do business (or if I choose to I'll adapt to you). If you work for me, you'll do what I ask you to do with the tools I give you, or you won't work for me very long.
I don't know what high-school you are about to graduate from, but in the real world if your boss sends out a memo as a.doc and you can't read it (or you send it back asking for a.rtf) so you don't know what's going on, you won't last long.
There is also quite a bit of case law, but I think the statute is clear enough itself. Section 108 applies to libraries, not individual users. It is also established that when determining wether or not a use is infringing it must be considered how the use affects the value of the copyright. A library may make a copy of an old book and circulate the copy to protect an irreplaceable original, but a library may not make copies of a popular book to avoid purchashing additional copies.
this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course.
A library may make 1 copy of a copyrighted work if it has the original in its possestion. A library may make 3 copies of an unpublished work for the purpose of preservation, but any digital copies may not be made available outside of the library. Legality of ripping CD's aside, a *library* could do this if they had someway of "loaning" the stream, and 2 patrons could not have it at once. And it never left the building. It also is not as simple as you not making money off of the use. If the use *deprives* the copyright holder of value (even if it would otherwise be Fair-Use) the use will be deemed infringing.
Backups of software is specifically covered in section 117.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
You are specifically granted the right (or more correctly the copyright holder cannot deny you license) to copy a software program if it is necessary for the use of the program (installing it to your harddrive, copying into RAM, etc.) or to protect angainst damage to the original media. Note that this section *only* applies to computer software, not CDs, DVD, etc.
No. You are wrong. Fair use, backup copies, etc. are all spelled out in the US Code. Most of the/. crowed doesn't want to know about it however, because it kills most of their arguments.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
US Code: TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 107.
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Sec. 108 covers copies made by libraries and archives.
1. Assuming there is a case to be made under the DMCA
2. The only thing Phillips could do is demand that the copyprotected CD's not carry the "CD" label.
3. I doubt that Phillips licensing agreement requires licensees to sell CD's
4. They would be able to sell as much music as they want. They just wouldn't be able to sell copy-protect disks with the CD label. They could still sell non-copyprotected "CDs" or copy-protected "non-CD's".
5. RIAA is an association of music distrubuters et al, they don't sell CDs. They would only cave on the issue if the member companies di, and rest assured they won't.
The problem with all of the arguments here on/. is that these companies are literaly fighting for their existence. If Napster continued in existance and gained a few orders of magnitude in popularity it could quite realistincally put many of these music producers out of business. The irony of that would be that there'd be no new music left to trade since the over produced modern pop crap is always the most popular.
I'm yet to recieve a complaint, or even a comment on this.
The question is, have you received a job offer yet?
If you don't want to use Word, don't. Your choice of word processor formats is so trivial it isn't really worth discussing, but it seems to be a big deal for people like RMS. When and individual thinks something is a big deal and the rest of the world doesn't care that person is called a fanatic.
If you don't want to work for a company that will only accept.doc resumes, then don't bother to apply. Just don't complain that they sent your.rtf file to the trash because they didn't know what it is.
It used to be that when you submitted resumes, you did it in person or by mail on nice paper. Most people didn't use this paper on a daily basis, so they bought it fro this task, or they took their typed resume to a copy shop and had it reproduced. These options are still available. RMS choses to curse the darknes rather that turning on a light.
Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. So far $6.8 billion has been spent researching the site, and construction is estimated to cost $40 billion.
Exactly! Without the implied consent of the copyright owner the disc is completely useless. Therefore, most reasonable people would conclude that in the absence of an explicit licensing agreement, I am free to put the content to it's naive use (viewing) on whatever type of device I choose.
I think that most reasonable people would conclude that if they were giving you a license to view the DVD on whatever type of device you chose they wouldn't use a technology that prevents that exact behavior!
This is the core of the argument. Myself, and many reasonable people believe that your are very wrong, but then, we don't have huge teams of very
skilled lawyers to convince people of our point of view.
It doesn't take lawyers to convice the public. Lawyers convince judges and juries. I personally have never spoke to or read any statements from any lawyers on either side of the issue, and yet I disagree with you. You certainly don't need lawyers to convince those of us on Slashdot who disagree, you just need a rational argument.
For what it's worth, it has NEVER been legally upheld that there is ANY sort of license on a DVD. Saying that there is one is total bullshit.
You do not own the copyright on the work contained on the DVD. Without a some limited license (explicit or implied) you can't really do much at all with it. Assuming you legally obtained the copy it can be implied that you have a certain license to view and make Fair-Use of the material, but you certainly can't copy it in any way. If you don't have any license whatsoever, it makes your argument weaker, not stronger.
Playing a DVD on Linux is 100% non-infringing
Only the copyright holder can make that decision. A judge may someday decide that playing a DVD on Linux falls under one of the exceptions (like Fair-Use) but until that happens what grounds do you have for such a statement?
DeCSS is not required for copying, and can be used for significant non-infringing purposes. PERIOD!
If that were true than using DeCSS would be OK and the MPAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they do. The fact is that DeCSS doesn't have substancial no infringing uses. In fact, I can't think of a single non-infringing use that _requires_ DeCSS. If you can think of any please enlighten me.
Keep in mind that the "Fair Use" right exalted here on/. doesn't protect the activities DeCSS is being used for. Playing a DVD under Linux is not a non-infringing use unless the Copyright holder tells you so. When you buy a DVD you have a license to play back that DVD on a licensed DVD player. PERIOD!
You do not have a license to back it up, copy it to your harddrive, trade it on usenet, make a copy in a different format, play it in public, or play it on your computer witout a licensed player. None of these activities are protected by fair-use, first-purchase, or any other doctrine of US copyright law.
Please explain how a DVD is copied without DeCSS. Are you claiming that I can make a bitwise copy of a DVD with consumer equipment, and that I will be able to play the copy in my DVD player?
I didn't think this was possible using current _consumer_ equipment due to special sectors of the disk, media capacity, etc.
The fact that commercial production houses can copy DVDs with their DVD mastering equipment is not relevant to any discussion of DeCSS since DeCSS makes _widespread_consumer_ copying possible.
However, my feeling is that a country that actually does that is not only centuries behind the times already, but will continue to fall further behind the free nations at a rate exceeding 100 years per century.
How could they fall behind more than 100 years per century? Even if they made no progress at all, they would fall behind exactly 100 years per century. Are the countries without net access regressing, or are the coneected nations making more than 1 year of progress each year?
If I am talking on the phone ordering a hit the FBI would need a wiretap order to intercept the phone call. I do not believe the FBI needs a wiretap order to bug a room, and therefore if I stood in the room practicing what I was going to say before I made the call they could record it.
From a strict legal perspective the fact that the keyboard logger *could* record communications that the warrent didn't cover isn't really a reason no to use the device. If the device did record any such communication, the communication and anything resulting from it's interception would not be admissable as evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you aren't paying much more than $15 to have your battery changed. What caused your crystal to fog was most likely a leak in the gasket (either behind the back or the crystal) or around the crown. This happens most often when people wear non-water resistant watches in the shower or wear a "water-resistant" watch too deep or in hot water like a bath or hottub. In any case the battery can be changed in room air. As long as you replace the gaskets and pressure test the case when your done you shouldn't have any leakage or fogging.
Anyone who tells you your watch battery needs to be changed in a nitrigen environment is only selling to suckers.
Are you refering to the clip titled "Manual aggressive maneuvers"? This is the only clip I could find that shows the helicopter doing anything remotely aerobatic.
I'm still at the hovering backwards stage, but the guys I fly with put that stuff to shame. Inverted hovering, invertied auto-rotation, inside loops, outside loops, tornados, rolls and flips inches off of the ground. It's almost unbelievable what these guys can do. You should check out one of Curtis Youngblood's videos and them let me know who gets the new heli.
Aileron 's are the little flaps... They are not the FLAPS mind you
Pilots use the term "Control Surfaces" instead of "little flaps" to avoid confusion, unless of course they are talking about the flaps and they happen to be small.
Maybe I'm just dense, but do we really need 30,000 varieties of corn from one continent?
This is a serious question. Is there a measureable differnce between each of the 30,000 variety? Perhaps if the scientists could distill their samples to say 1,200 different varienties of each plant they wouldn't have such a funding problem.
People throw around words like "evironment" and "biodiversity", but is anyone holding these scientists accountable to show some value (doesn't have to be monetary) in exchange for the funding?
When the discussion was about wether software developed with government grants should be open the overwhelming response was "of course, the taxpayers should get the source because we paid for it." I'm just asking what the ROI if for storing 30,000 varieties of the same plant indefinately.
I don't have a Master's Degree in ceramics engineering, but I do have google and according to this site Lodestones are composed of Iron ore which would make them metallic.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Assuming that you are refering to the US postal service you are 100% wrong.
The USPS receives no tax dollars to pay for operations. Not some, not a little, not a few, NONE! The USPS pays for itself. That's why they have to occaionally raise rates. They can't just go ask for more tax dollars. If you don't like the US Mail, don't use it and you won't be paying for it. Don't you wish all government programs were like that?
Bulk mail, presorted stuff, stuff mailed and labeled by machines is actually cheaper for the Post Office to deliver, but the PO doesn't pass ALL of this cost savings on to the Bulk Mailers. You see, those folks sending out junk mail are actually SUBSIDISING YOU! That Valentine's Day card you're about to send to your grandmother costs you less than it should because of all those coupons and solicitations you receive.
If you eliminated junk mail from the US Mail, the Postal Service would cost _more_ per piece to maintain, the price of stamps would go _up_ and it wouldn't save a dime from the Federal Budget.
Real (read: Stateful Inspection) firewalls doctor the headers and the data portions of many different protocols. Right now mine is doing DNS, HTTP, and SMTP. It fixes the addresses and the commands and obscures the banners so you can't see into my network. It also protects against in band attacks to the servers.
The little NAT boxes you get at CompUSA don't do this, but you could put a little PIX on your home network and it will even randomize the TCP sequence numbers for you.
In the 2000 election cycle Microsoft gave approximately 56% of their contributions to the Republican party. Guess where the other 44% ($996,792) went.
I'd say that if you believe Microsoft buys politcial influence you have to admit that they bought it from both sides.
Dude, the only thing that thread proves is that you are a complete fucking asshole. You obviously are just soliciting others to say Windows XP is crap, and when they don't agree with you you whine like a bitch. It's like talking to chicks they want to tell you about their problems, but they don't want them solved. Bitch bitch bitch. If XP doesn't work with your hardware don't use it. It doesn't really matter why or what anyone else thinks.
You wrote:
For all I know I could be older than
windows. [I am]
Since Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 I'm guessing you're a whopping 17 and still in high-school or you think Windows means Windows 95 and you're about 10. Otherwise you would have said somthing intelligent like "Show me some respect, I was in 'Nam dammit!"
For anyone who needs a good laugh, read this guy's usenet thread. ROFLMAO.
They sold to an Australian company, because an Australian company wanted to buy them.
The proper question then is, "Why would an Australian company want to buy KaZaA given the Aussies view toward the Internet?" The answer is quite obviously that they think they can make money.
KaZaA will be turned into a pay service just like Naptster and they will partner with the labels and try not to run afoul of the law. If they accomplish this it doesn't much matter where they are.
I didn't misspeak, and you do seem to understand the meat of my argument. Let me make it even more clear:
When it comes to computers the majority of people are monumentally stupid, cow-like creatures. Fortunately most of them recognize their stupid cow-likeness and buy things that are easy for themselves to understand and difficult to fuck up.
If Microsoft gave people and easy way to fuck up their computers, many many people would fuck up their computers and then blame MS for letting them.
I'm not saying the majority couldn't figure out how to roll their own kernel, I'm just saying they don't care and they like someone else doing it for them. For the average joe that "feature" is more of a liability.
Imagine if on the back of all TV's there was a little panel that opened up and revealed rows of DIP switches that you could flip and change various internal workings of the set. How many people do you think would be royally pissed when they fucked up their TV and couldn't get it back to normal? How many average people would enjoy the TV more given the ability to flip those switches?
You are either going to have to provide a source for that statistic or admit that you concocted it.
Your point is almost a good one except you have forgotten that the majority of consumers (that is people who by things) don't want something they can fuck up. They want fences. They want their OS to ask 3 times if they really want to send that file to the Recycle Bin. Microsoft could put a big button in the middle of the Windows desktop that says "Click here to _permamently_ destroy your computer" and they would get hundreds of tech support calls a day from users asking how to restore their computers after they clicked the button.
The only reason this is even a topic of conversation is because unlike the popular Windows OS's under Linux there is some usefullness in being able to do things like adding and removing kernel components. The reality however is that even if there was a GUI, Aunt Tillie will never recompile her kernel simply because Aunt Tillie will never use an OS where such a thing is possible.
I know ESR et al don't want to believe this, but most users are actually quite happy (at least content) with the OS they have today. They don't need Linux, they don't want Linux, and they certainly don't know why anyone would want to mess around with their kernel. Adding a GUI kernel tool may make it easier for geeks to muck with their distros, but the only way Linux is going to get massive amounts of end-users is by being simple and mindless.
Good argument. I hope you are also opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other government program you are paying for and not getting any benefit from.
Some might argue that even though I am not getting a direct benefit from these programs they do benefit society and myself indirectly. Wether or not I am getting my money's worth is certainly debatable, but bureaucracy creates overhead, and I don't really expect to get $1 in value for every $1 in taxes I pay. Taxes are not an investment, they are an *expense*.
Why does the benefit from software development have to the code? What if the developers are allowed to resell that software, but they are required to return a portion of the proceeds to the gov't to be used to fund other research? That would benefit the taxpayers by reducing our burden to pay for reasearch while at the same time making more money available to fund additional research.
This doesn't just apply to software either, losts of research is done with government grants that results in commercial viable IP. Should all of this belong to the Gov't?
Either you believe that the research itself benefits the greater good, even if someone profits from it, or you don't. If research benefits us all, then it is worth public subsidies, and we shuldn't expect to get our "investment" back directly. If it only benefits the people who directly profit they should bear all of the costs as well.
See, what format I send email attachments in is MY choice.
.doc and you can't read it (or you send it back asking for a .rtf) so you don't know what's going on, you won't last long.
If you want to read them, you'll get the software necessary to do that. Otherwise you won't. Either way, that is YOUR choice.
I don't have any say in what word processor you use, and you don't have any say in what type of attachments I send.
See how we can each make choices for ourselves and we don't have to hold anyone else responsible for making our lives easier (or harder)?
If you choose to do business with me you'll adapt to the way I do business (or if I choose to I'll adapt to you). If you work for me, you'll do what I ask you to do with the tools I give you, or you won't work for me very long.
I don't know what high-school you are about to graduate from, but in the real world if your boss sends out a memo as a
this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course.
A library may make 1 copy of a copyrighted work if it has the original in its possestion. A library may make 3 copies of an unpublished work for the purpose of preservation, but any digital copies may not be made available outside of the library. Legality of ripping CD's aside, a *library* could do this if they had someway of "loaning" the stream, and 2 patrons could not have it at once. And it never left the building. It also is not as simple as you not making money off of the use. If the use *deprives* the copyright holder of value (even if it would otherwise be Fair-Use) the use will be deemed infringing.
Backups of software is specifically covered in section 117.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
You are specifically granted the right (or more correctly the copyright holder cannot deny you license) to copy a software program if it is necessary for the use of the program (installing it to your harddrive, copying into RAM, etc.) or to protect angainst damage to the original media. Note that this section *only* applies to computer software, not CDs, DVD, etc.
No. You are wrong. Fair use, backup copies, etc. are all spelled out in the US Code. Most of the /. crowed doesn't want to know about it however, because it kills most of their arguments.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
US Code: TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 107.
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Sec. 108 covers copies made by libraries and archives.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html
2. The only thing Phillips could do is demand that the copyprotected CD's not carry the "CD" label.
3. I doubt that Phillips licensing agreement requires licensees to sell CD's
4. They would be able to sell as much music as they want. They just wouldn't be able to sell copy-protect disks with the CD label. They could still sell non-copyprotected "CDs" or copy-protected "non-CD's".
5. RIAA is an association of music distrubuters et al, they don't sell CDs. They would only cave on the issue if the member companies di, and rest assured they won't.
The problem with all of the arguments here on
The question is, have you received a job offer yet?
If you don't want to use Word, don't. Your choice of word processor formats is so trivial it isn't really worth discussing, but it seems to be a big deal for people like RMS. When and individual thinks something is a big deal and the rest of the world doesn't care that person is called a fanatic.
If you don't want to work for a company that will only accept .doc resumes, then don't bother to apply. Just don't complain that they sent your .rtf file to the trash because they didn't know what it is.
It used to be that when you submitted resumes, you did it in person or by mail on nice paper. Most people didn't use this paper on a daily basis, so they bought it fro this task, or they took their typed resume to a copy shop and had it reproduced. These options are still available. RMS choses to curse the darknes rather that turning on a light.
Your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. So far $6.8 billion has been spent researching the site, and construction is estimated to cost $40 billion.
http://sltrib.com/01112002/utah/166549.htm
I think that most reasonable people would conclude that if they were giving you a license to view the DVD on whatever type of device you chose they wouldn't use a technology that prevents that exact behavior!
It doesn't take lawyers to convice the public. Lawyers convince judges and juries. I personally have never spoke to or read any statements from any lawyers on either side of the issue, and yet I disagree with you. You certainly don't need lawyers to convince those of us on Slashdot who disagree, you just need a rational argument.
For what it's worth, it has NEVER been legally upheld that there is ANY sort of license on a DVD. Saying that there is one is total bullshit.
You do not own the copyright on the work contained on the DVD. Without a some limited license (explicit or implied) you can't really do much at all with it. Assuming you legally obtained the copy it can be implied that you have a certain license to view and make Fair-Use of the material, but you certainly can't copy it in any way. If you don't have any license whatsoever, it makes your argument weaker, not stronger.
Playing a DVD on Linux is 100% non-infringing
Only the copyright holder can make that decision. A judge may someday decide that playing a DVD on Linux falls under one of the exceptions (like Fair-Use) but until that happens what grounds do you have for such a statement?
If that were true than using DeCSS would be OK and the MPAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they do. The fact is that DeCSS doesn't have substancial no infringing uses. In fact, I can't think of a single non-infringing use that _requires_ DeCSS. If you can think of any please enlighten me.
Keep in mind that the "Fair Use" right exalted here on /. doesn't protect the activities DeCSS is being used for. Playing a DVD under Linux is not a non-infringing use unless the Copyright holder tells you so. When you buy a DVD you have a license to play back that DVD on a licensed DVD player. PERIOD!
You do not have a license to back it up, copy it to your harddrive, trade it on usenet, make a copy in a different format, play it in public, or play it on your computer witout a licensed player. None of these activities are protected by fair-use, first-purchase, or any other doctrine of US copyright law.
I didn't think this was possible using current _consumer_ equipment due to special sectors of the disk, media capacity, etc.
The fact that commercial production houses can copy DVDs with their DVD mastering equipment is not relevant to any discussion of DeCSS since DeCSS makes _widespread_consumer_ copying possible.
How could they fall behind more than 100 years per century? Even if they made no progress at all, they would fall behind exactly 100 years per century. Are the countries without net access regressing, or are the coneected nations making more than 1 year of progress each year?
From a strict legal perspective the fact that the keyboard logger *could* record communications that the warrent didn't cover isn't really a reason no to use the device. If the device did record any such communication, the communication and anything resulting from it's interception would not be admissable as evidence.