Actually the effect to the "community of Internet users" will be very nearly zero.
1) These restirictions only apply to this agreement with verisign.
2) If you actually read the restrictions, they are almost trivially stupid and obvious.
3) The actual names that ICANN is reserving are probably actually going to be used by ICANN or IETF et al. They are simply calling "first dibs" on those names which is their perogative. They are NOT restricting permutations that contain those names wuch as icann-sucks.
4) The two letter domains are only reserved unitl the "implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes. " which is also perfectly reasonable.
5) Reserving single letter domain names is also reasonable considering how few there are and no one really has a "legitamate claim" to any of them. How would you settle a dispute between two people who wanted a.com?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. You stipulate that threatening someone with the force of law can be a tool of coercion, but you're asserting that in this case it's not-- simply because the instrument of the threat was only a cease-and-desist letter?
When it comes to coercion, threat of harm is not the same as a threat of a lawsuit or legal action. If I tell you that I will kill your wife and children if you don't help me rob a bank then you are being coerced. If I tell you that I will report you to the IRS for tax evasion if you don't help me then you are not. The RIAA does not have the power to prevent the publication of anything. They also don't have goons that go around breaking peoples knees. What they have is lawyers who are very good at protecting what they see as their best interests. Contrary to the slashdot babble filling a lawsuit != winning.
Had the authors decided to publish no harm would have come to them, the RIAA probably would have gotten a preliminary injuction against them and then the RIAA would have to prove (to a judge) that the paper should be confidential.
These people don't work for the RIAA, so the RIAA can't take away their jobs. If their employers threatened them, then you should be up in arms about that.
The RIAA does not have the power to seize anyone's home or property (everyone here seems to have forgotten that they are just a corporation) And in this country, the government can't even do that without deu process.
Since the authors willing agreed to remove the paper from publication the RIAA never had to go to court and have them injoined. It is not clear that the DMCA is even applicable in this case, and now the matter will never be decided, that was the CHOICE of the authors and their attorneys.
Although threatening someone with the force of law can sometimes be coercion it almost certainly is not in this case. The letter was a standard cease and desist letter. If you get such a letter and believe you are doing nothing wrong, you are free to keep doing it.
RIAA doesn't have to power or authority to silence anyone. RIAA asked the reseachers not to publish the paper, and they didn't. Sure, hey could have asked nicely instead of threatening a lawsuit but they did what they thought they had to in order to get the desired result. You're mad at them because these "academics" gave in instead of fighting? Why aren't you upset at the authors who chose not to present to paper?
If I sent you and email and threatend to sue you if you ever posted to/. again would you care?
As for all the people bitching about the DMCA, remember that the RIAA only threatend to use the DMCA, at this point whether or not they would have won is ambiguous since no judge ever got to hear the issue.
this link to the StlToday.com web site giving a brief summary of a pending lawsuit against Linuxgruven.com, Inc. A bit of rumor says the owners cannot be found and perhaps fled. While I'd rather not report rumor, I would like to make sure the people Linuxgruven.com, Inc. has burned hear about them going down in flames and let them know also of the pending lawsuits.
Wow, for someone who desn't want to spread rumors, you sure must want to start them. No where in that article does is it written that anyone has filed suit against linuxgruven.com. The article only says that the Missouri Attny General's office is investigating "complaints"
If the IP doesn't belong to you, then you don't have the right to release it under any license GPL or not.
Even if you are the one who wrote the code and a court later rules that the copyright belongs to your employer you can be found to have infringed on their copyright by releasing it.
for rip, direction = next hop and weight = num. of hops away = distance vector
for BGP, direction = next hop or originating router and weight = LocalPref/AS-Path/MED/Weight/Origin Code/any of the other BGP attributes. = path vector
inbound traffic to a specific range is routed to interface eth0. (x)versely, it follows that outbound traffic should originate from the same range, correct?
No that isn't always true. First of all, the terms "inbound" and outbound" are completely arbitrary and have no meaning to the router. In your case you have one subnet on the Ethernet side of your router that you own; you refer to this as inside. The router, however has no way of "knowing" this. You certainly can put an access list incoming on your Ethernet interface to only allow traffic from a certain range, and this will prevent devices on your network from sending spoofed packets, but how could you implement this within the router's code. The router doesn't and shouldn't know of all the networks it gets packets from, it only has to know where to send to packets it receives. This becomes more significant the larger the network becomes.
If your router behaved in the way you are suggesting it would only allow "incoming" packets from the subnet directly connected to the WAN interface, because the router doesn't know about the millions of networks on the other side of your ISP's router. Even if you allowed traffic from the other side of that router there are millions of router on the other side of you ISP. Not all of these routers can exchange dynamic routing protocols, so at some point you MUST use default routes or drop all packets to or from non-connected networks. How is that in any way useful?
All your router knows is which interface it needs to send a packet out to reach the destination address. In your case it is either ethernet or DSL. How does it know what addresses are on the LAN? Can you imagine a network with more than one router and multiple subnets? Your home network may be very simple, but that doesn't mean all networks are.
I am not, nor was I ever a smurf amplifier, but that does not stop attempts to do so from saturating my link.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not convinced you'd know if you were.
A router already understands what IP addresses are behind it. *By default*, why should it route traffic from IP's that don't exist on the LAN to the WAN? I am not a TCP/IP expert, but it seems to me that there are no legitimate applications for bounced packets.
Forget about IP, do you understand anything about networking? First please define what it means to be behind a router, and then explain how a router knows what is behind it.
While in your case you may have a single router connecting you to the Internet through a single provider and one subnet for your whole LAN this is usually not the case in any large organization. A large network will usually have multiple connections to the Internet as well as private WAN connections with other networks and possibly Internet connections of their own. While a very dilligent designer working from the ground up with free reign to filter at any arbitrary point should be able to contain legal traffic to specific areas this is rarely feasable in the real world.
If you are a large ISP with multiple backbone connections it is even harder to do *any* sort of filtering because there is a wide range of legal traffic that can traverse your network.
PS If you are a smurf amplifier it is because of a miscofiguration on your side, not your ISP.
Napster is not like broadcast radio. Radio stations and anyone else that wants to play copyrighted music in public pays licensing fees!
The comments that the licensing groups should have accepted Napster's offer for 1.5 Billion dollars are ludicrous as well. The licensing groups know that Napster won't be around in 5 years and in any case will never have $1 billion. Napster's plan was to get that money from subscription fees.
How many of you slashdotters would be signing up for Napster if you knew your monthly fee was going to the RIAA?
Using your same argument having a lock on my front door is pointless because there are widely available exploits that will very quikly and easily allow any person with very little skill to compromise the lock. Yet I still take the time to lock my door.
Second, your conslusion assumes another premise that you do not claim, "Wired LAN's have x amount of protection."
But then you said: It's not an experiment to see if NASA can deflect comets
But the article says: The project also aims to see if scientists can alter the orbit of a comet to protect the Earth from falling matter. The impact would alter the comet's orbit by a ``just barely measurable'' 62 to 620 miles (100 to 1,000 km), A'Hearn said.
Right and Wrong. Phone books and maps as collections of data are not copyrightable. But the people who make them know this, and they know how to get around it too. They do this by making stuff up. Fake names in the phone book, fake streets on maps. Copy the data all you want, but copy the fake info and you are guilty of copyright infringement.
In the case you cited the defendants selectively copied certain entries that were useful to them. Had they copied the whole thing it would have been infringement.
Income is income. If steve Jobs wants to get paid $1 a year and get $10,000,000 share of apple stock for the rest great. And if he doesn't sell any of that stock he shouldn't be taxed on it. Of course he is going to have a hard time buying anything with apple stock, and when he sells it, boom, it's income.
And I think the original poster got it wrong. I have never heard anyone call the flat tax regresive. Comsumption taxes (sales tax) are frequently accused of being regressive, but really aren't. Sales taxes are only regressive if you assume that rich people spend a smaller percentage of their income than poor people. This would only be true if rich people had the same standard of living as poor people, or lived well below their means. The real effect of a national sales tax would probably not be regressive at all and would closely resemble the effect of a flat tax but it would be a lot easier to enforce.
BTW either a flat tax or a national consumption tax would lower the tax burden across the board (read _everyone_ would pay less) and yet the government would actually get more. How can you not be in favor of that?
It seems pretty stupid to use this with an artificial light source like a bank of LEDs. You would be better off just using the LEDs. As others have pointed out this system MUST be lossy. You will get LESS light out of it than what you put in. This is usefull with levels of ambient that can be concentrated, but if there is no ambient and you use an artificial source you will be wasting energy.
While your quote is indeed from the home page of Macrovision and certainly was written by some PR flunky, if you actually browse their site you will find no mention of a single product that serves the purpose of preventing audio duplication or piracy.
You will find this product, which prevents the illicit reception of CCTV including two channels of audio.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on my assertion that the music industry really doesn't give a damn about analog piracy.
I'm sorry you think I'm a troll, especially since you seem to be agreeing with me. Sad that pointing out flaws in crappy arguments can be confused with trolling. Both of your citations demonstrate that "fair use" is a defense and not a right. That was the point of my post, and thank you for providing the supporting documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the effect to the "community of Internet users" will be very nearly zero.
1) These restirictions only apply to this agreement with verisign.
2) If you actually read the restrictions, they are almost trivially stupid and obvious.
3) The actual names that ICANN is reserving are probably actually going to be used by ICANN or IETF et al. They are simply calling "first dibs" on those names which is their perogative. They are NOT restricting permutations that contain those names wuch as icann-sucks.
4) The two letter domains are only reserved unitl the "implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes. " which is also perfectly reasonable.
5) Reserving single letter domain names is also reasonable considering how few there are and no one really has a "legitamate claim" to any of them. How would you settle a dispute between two people who wanted a.com?
When it comes to coercion, threat of harm is not the same as a threat of a lawsuit or legal action. If I tell you that I will kill your wife and children if you don't help me rob a bank then you are being coerced. If I tell you that I will report you to the IRS for tax evasion if you don't help me then you are not. The RIAA does not have the power to prevent the publication of anything. They also don't have goons that go around breaking peoples knees. What they have is lawyers who are very good at protecting what they see as their best interests. Contrary to the slashdot babble filling a lawsuit != winning.
Had the authors decided to publish no harm would have come to them, the RIAA probably would have gotten a preliminary injuction against them and then the RIAA would have to prove (to a judge) that the paper should be confidential.
These people don't work for the RIAA, so the RIAA can't take away their jobs. If their employers threatened them, then you should be up in arms about that.
The RIAA does not have the power to seize anyone's home or property (everyone here seems to have forgotten that they are just a corporation) And in this country, the government can't even do that without deu process.
Since the authors willing agreed to remove the paper from publication the RIAA never had to go to court and have them injoined. It is not clear that the DMCA is even applicable in this case, and now the matter will never be decided, that was the CHOICE of the authors and their attorneys.
Although threatening someone with the force of law can sometimes be coercion it almost certainly is not in this case. The letter was a standard cease and desist letter. If you get such a letter and believe you are doing nothing wrong, you are free to keep doing it.
RIAA doesn't have to power or authority to silence anyone. RIAA asked the reseachers not to publish the paper, and they didn't. Sure, hey could have asked nicely instead of threatening a lawsuit but they did what they thought they had to in order to get the desired result. You're mad at them because these "academics" gave in instead of fighting? Why aren't you upset at the authors who chose not to present to paper?
/. again would you care?
If I sent you and email and threatend to sue you if you ever posted to
As for all the people bitching about the DMCA, remember that the RIAA only threatend to use the DMCA, at this point whether or not they would have won is ambiguous since no judge ever got to hear the issue.
Wow, for someone who desn't want to spread rumors, you sure must want to start them. No where in that article does is it written that anyone has filed suit against linuxgruven.com. The article only says that the Missouri Attny General's office is investigating "complaints"
If the IP doesn't belong to you, then you don't have the right to release it under any license GPL or not.
Even if you are the one who wrote the code and a court later rules that the copyright belongs to your employer you can be found to have infringed on their copyright by releasing it.
You seem to be mistaken
for rip, direction = next hop and weight = num. of hops away = distance vector
for BGP, direction = next hop or originating router and weight = LocalPref/AS-Path/MED/Weight/Origin Code/any of the other BGP attributes. = path vector
"For each sequential packet, a new ISN is generated."
As others have pointed out, the ISN is the initial sequence number. The sequence number of the nth packet in a session is ISN+n.
The next sequence number is ISN+number of bytes.
No that isn't always true. First of all, the terms "inbound" and outbound" are completely arbitrary and have no meaning to the router. In your case you have one subnet on the Ethernet side of your router that you own; you refer to this as inside. The router, however has no way of "knowing" this. You certainly can put an access list incoming on your Ethernet interface to only allow traffic from a certain range, and this will prevent devices on your network from sending spoofed packets, but how could you implement this within the router's code. The router doesn't and shouldn't know of all the networks it gets packets from, it only has to know where to send to packets it receives. This becomes more significant the larger the network becomes.
If your router behaved in the way you are suggesting it would only allow "incoming" packets from the subnet directly connected to the WAN interface, because the router doesn't know about the millions of networks on the other side of your ISP's router. Even if you allowed traffic from the other side of that router there are millions of router on the other side of you ISP. Not all of these routers can exchange dynamic routing protocols, so at some point you MUST use default routes or drop all packets to or from non-connected networks. How is that in any way useful?
I am not, nor was I ever a smurf amplifier, but that does not stop attempts to do so from saturating my link.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not convinced you'd know if you were.
Forget about IP, do you understand anything about networking? First please define what it means to be behind a router, and then explain how a router knows what is behind it.
While in your case you may have a single router connecting you to the Internet through a single provider and one subnet for your whole LAN this is usually not the case in any large organization. A large network will usually have multiple connections to the Internet as well as private WAN connections with other networks and possibly Internet connections of their own. While a very dilligent designer working from the ground up with free reign to filter at any arbitrary point should be able to contain legal traffic to specific areas this is rarely feasable in the real world.
If you are a large ISP with multiple backbone connections it is even harder to do *any* sort of filtering because there is a wide range of legal traffic that can traverse your network.
PS If you are a smurf amplifier it is because of a miscofiguration on your side, not your ISP.
The comments that the licensing groups should have accepted Napster's offer for 1.5 Billion dollars are ludicrous as well. The licensing groups know that Napster won't be around in 5 years and in any case will never have $1 billion. Napster's plan was to get that money from subscription fees.
How many of you slashdotters would be signing up for Napster if you knew your monthly fee was going to the RIAA?
Second, your conslusion assumes another premise that you do not claim, "Wired LAN's have x amount of protection."
Can you document this?
But then you said: It's not an experiment to see if NASA can deflect comets
But the article says: The project also aims to see if scientists can alter the orbit of a comet to protect the Earth from falling matter. The impact would alter the comet's orbit by a ``just barely measurable'' 62 to 620 miles (100 to 1,000 km), A'Hearn said.
Or, "Where once that comet may have hit the Earth, it might now miss the Earth by a small amount."
Space is huge. The Earth is very, very, very, very, small.
NORAD is a cooperative effort between the US and Canada. The NSA isn't.
In the case you cited the defendants selectively copied certain entries that were useful to them. Had they copied the whole thing it would have been infringement.
Unless you're an admin, then you can kill it. Can just anyone kill a process under Linux?
And I think the original poster got it wrong. I have never heard anyone call the flat tax regresive. Comsumption taxes (sales tax) are frequently accused of being regressive, but really aren't. Sales taxes are only regressive if you assume that rich people spend a smaller percentage of their income than poor people. This would only be true if rich people had the same standard of living as poor people, or lived well below their means. The real effect of a national sales tax would probably not be regressive at all and would closely resemble the effect of a flat tax but it would be a lot easier to enforce.
BTW either a flat tax or a national consumption tax would lower the tax burden across the board (read _everyone_ would pay less) and yet the government would actually get more. How can you not be in favor of that?
It seems pretty stupid to use this with an artificial light source like a bank of LEDs. You would be better off just using the LEDs. As others have pointed out this system MUST be lossy. You will get LESS light out of it than what you put in. This is usefull with levels of ambient that can be concentrated, but if there is no ambient and you use an artificial source you will be wasting energy.
While your quote is indeed from the home page of Macrovision and certainly was written by some PR flunky, if you actually browse their site you will find no mention of a single product that serves the purpose of preventing audio duplication or piracy.
You will find this product, which prevents the illicit reception of CCTV including two channels of audio.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on my assertion that the music industry really doesn't give a damn about analog piracy.
I'm sorry you think I'm a troll, especially since you seem to be agreeing with me. Sad that pointing out flaws in crappy arguments can be confused with trolling. Both of your citations demonstrate that "fair use" is a defense and not a right. That was the point of my post, and thank you for providing the supporting documentation.