I don't believed the NSF created the Internet2, from my knowledge it was a banding together of multiple different universities. Corporations have to pay to be on the Internet2 and they have to have a specific educational requirement, so they don't get a free ride.
I suppose one could argue that the money given to the university often is tax payers public money... but saying that everybody should then have automatic access to it that is kind of stretching it.
You can thank the dot com days for that. In the past it used to be more about the company, now it's all about the investors immediate wants. Used to be a thought of hold for long term where long term, short term investor was under 5 years, now if it's longer than 6 months you are a long term holder. Mainly it's the uneducated public who want their "immediate" satisfaction destroying it, instead of growing a company long term, it's drain as much profit out of it then move on.
I'm not a gamer (either with PC or consoles) so I'm not always up on the latest but my guess is that they are planning on their Media Center product to be the storage/app hub with their console as the media playback units.
Using that methodology, for the past year then I can say Vonage has a 100% reliability factor and that the reports sampling is incorrect. Since for the past year, I've not had a drop or unavailability at all with Vonage when I picked up the phone.
Um no it's under copyright, unless you are saying that Microsoft can take GPL'd code off a public website and start using it without releasing source code. Saying it's legal because it's now public domain, is not a valid argument in any sense because it's not in the public domain.
Re:Thats because the computer thats "over there"
on
Gates Says No to Implants
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Why don't you name a modern generic OS that is???
Other than an embeded OS none of them are ready for this kind of critical application, as many times as I've got Linux & Solaris to dump on me I wouldn't want that near my heart monitor either.
You do realize of course that because the US is doing quite a bit in the Sudan. You do realize that because the rest of the world are sitting on their hands, the US (who's troops are a little busy elsewhere you'd have to admit) flew African soldiers in US planes to help. The US has limited foot soldiers but where they can help they *ARE* helping.
Unlike Canada, France, Germany, etc who really have *NO* excuse at all. The US is doing what they can, while other countries are doing *nothing* at all. The US is saying that it's a genocide, which would require all nations to intervene; *forcing* the issue, making all the countries sitting on their hands (including *yours*) to by UN law do something, while the UN is saying it's not but crimes against humanity might have occured so they don't have to do anything (collective sigh of releif comes from Canada, France, Germany, etc while they continue to point their fingers at the US for not doing anything).
To top it all off in 2002 the Sudan got voted *onto* the UN human rights commision, and the US got voted off, want to try and explain to me how the UN did this with any sanity? Want to explain to me how the UN can kick off the US, and add Sudan, when by your own statements that people are getting killed by the hundred of thousands?
You are forgetting that Microsoft has *actually* used non-proprietary BSD code in the past. So yes they have in the past and most likely would in the future, why would you think otherwise?
Now whether or not microsoft would actually continue to produce a product if it was legal for anybody to copy and use is another topic.
Would you also apply that to GPL'd software? In that Microsoft should be able to create derivative works and ignore the copyright restrictions placed on it?
The GPL only has any teeth in it, that unless you follow the license, you aren't allowed to use copies of it under copyright law. Remove enforcement of copyright and you remove any need of the GPL.
Actually the computer at the other end makes the copy and gives it to you, so basicaly the downloader is a holder of items they don't have a license to but the computer and hence it's owner is the actual breaker of copyright law.
The computer acts as an entity to itself that's why the government can't even ask you to run tcpdump if you've been hacked unless they get a supoena (if you did it on your own without them telling you, etc you can give them to the government and it will be admissible). I went to a SANS conference back in 2000 or 2001 that spoke directly about wiretaps and their legality.
And where exactly do you *buy* a supported Fedora release from Redhat?
The previous poster was talking about a product he paid Sun for, from the paid offerings from Redhat, there is a statement of a guarantee of support for 5+ years for AW, EL or AS OS offerings.
Do you really think the cost of raw materials are what makes them *so* expensive??? The raw materials cost is miniscule, so much it's probably thought of as an oversight. Mainly costs are 2 things:
1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out
2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.
For an example look at drug Tysabri 2 months ago, Biogen lost half of it's value (and it's a multi-*billion* dollar company) because one of the secondary drugs from another company that it combines with theirs to fight the affects of MS possibly caused a death after the decades of testing. They had a market cap of $22 billion, after that they had a market cap of $12 billion.
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.
One of the big benefits of the US is that the government has massive support for people starting their own business. If you think it's so easy, why don't you go ahead and start your own high-speed ISP for your area instead of relying on someone else, bitching that they haven't came to your area yet. You could have it *tomorrow* if you weren't waiting on someone else to do it for you. Putup or shutup is what I say.
If it's that be of a concern, than Canada can have the same policy, you can't come into the country with out a passport. Gives them the say in who get's in their country, who get's to stay in the coutnry and how long they can stay.
If they don't want to do it, and concerned about getting US citizens to the US, then the person gets sent to the consulate of the country they say they are from. The land of the consulate isn't Canadian so they aren't on their ground anymore.
Really the US/Canada border is one of the last border holdouts on this whole thing, I can't count the number of times I was woken up on a night train traveling in Europe to show my passport to the same guy in the same trip going from friendly country to friendly country some 10 years ago.
But it's not just links, they copy a portion of the copyrighted content. I'm not saying all stuff should/shouldn't be restricted, but the previous poster said that because there wasn't a password it was "free" if they didn't want it to be free they should have put a password on it.
From a freedom perspective this would be equivalent to instead of taking the entire kernel, incorporating a portion... let's say just the IP stack of the kernel.
Linux is free but it has restrictions as to redistribution rights, etc. Microsoft cannot take the free linux kernel and incorporate that into their product while ignoring the GPL restrictions that were put on the free download.
Just because you put it up on a website without a password, doesn't mean that there are not restrictions on it's use.
The LAND attack requires an open port, so by definition if the system isn't running any services it will have no open ports and not be vulnerable to this attack.
Really? Just a non-partisan information statement making jesture, ehhh???
Then why does the post contain just the link and the statement "Which party controlled the 105th Congress?" You'd have to have blinders on to not see the statement he's making there.
Ummm... and why exactly do you think he would have wanted to stop it? After the WIPO copyright treaty, the Clinton administration proposed the damn thing. Congress actually put some exceptions in place that Clinton did not (common carrier, etc). The author of the DMCA (Bruce Lehman) was apointed by Clinton to be commissioner of the patent & trade office.
Again why would Clinton want to veto legislation that basically his administration drew up to begin with?
Your post tried to make it sound like it was someone elses opinion, someone elses group; when in fact it was came directly from the people Clinton appointed, directly from the people in the patent & trade office. And somehow you are trying to say that he would want to veto it?
I'd be with you if it's after they've served their time. The deffinition of being on probation is that they are still doing their time, still paying their debt to society, it's just that they are not in state prison under 24 hour lockdown anymore, they are in 24 hour probation in their own house. When their probation ends, it comes off.
The only way the scarlet letter for life and this would ever equate would be if we put people on lifetime probation where they are always serving their sentence until they die.
Before you make sweeping generalizations about one party you should get your *facts* straight.
Back when it was given a "test vote" by congress to see whether or not the president should support it, not a single vote was cast in favor. Not a single one, and if I look... why yes there are both parties there.
They can't really "revoke" but they can deffinetly charge you before you can "see" the data. They can't prevent you from copying the data, but for access under the gfdl you are most truely allowed to be by "pay only". The restriction being: after I pay you, you aren't allowed to prevent me from copying, redistributing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believed the NSF created the Internet2, from my knowledge it was a banding together of multiple different universities. Corporations have to pay to be on the Internet2 and they have to have a specific educational requirement, so they don't get a free ride.
I suppose one could argue that the money given to the university often is tax payers public money... but saying that everybody should then have automatic access to it that is kind of stretching it.
You can thank the dot com days for that. In the past it used to be more about the company, now it's all about the investors immediate wants. Used to be a thought of hold for long term where long term, short term investor was under 5 years, now if it's longer than 6 months you are a long term holder. Mainly it's the uneducated public who want their "immediate" satisfaction destroying it, instead of growing a company long term, it's drain as much profit out of it then move on.
I'm not a gamer (either with PC or consoles) so I'm not always up on the latest but my guess is that they are planning on their Media Center product to be the storage/app hub with their console as the media playback units.
Using that methodology, for the past year then I can say Vonage has a 100% reliability factor and that the reports sampling is incorrect. Since for the past year, I've not had a drop or unavailability at all with Vonage when I picked up the phone.
Um no it's under copyright, unless you are saying that Microsoft can take GPL'd code off a public website and start using it without releasing source code. Saying it's legal because it's now public domain, is not a valid argument in any sense because it's not in the public domain.
Why don't you name a modern generic OS that is???
Other than an embeded OS none of them are ready for this kind of critical application, as many times as I've got Linux & Solaris to dump on me I wouldn't want that near my heart monitor either.
You do realize of course that because the US is doing quite a bit in the Sudan. You do realize that because the rest of the world are sitting on their hands, the US (who's troops are a little busy elsewhere you'd have to admit) flew African soldiers in US planes to help. The US has limited foot soldiers but where they can help they *ARE* helping.
Unlike Canada, France, Germany, etc who really have *NO* excuse at all. The US is doing what they can, while other countries are doing *nothing* at all. The US is saying that it's a genocide, which would require all nations to intervene; *forcing* the issue, making all the countries sitting on their hands (including *yours*) to by UN law do something, while the UN is saying it's not but crimes against humanity might have occured so they don't have to do anything (collective sigh of releif comes from Canada, France, Germany, etc while they continue to point their fingers at the US for not doing anything).
To top it all off in 2002 the Sudan got voted *onto* the UN human rights commision, and the US got voted off, want to try and explain to me how the UN did this with any sanity? Want to explain to me how the UN can kick off the US, and add Sudan, when by your own statements that people are getting killed by the hundred of thousands?
You are forgetting that Microsoft has *actually* used non-proprietary BSD code in the past. So yes they have in the past and most likely would in the future, why would you think otherwise?
Now whether or not microsoft would actually continue to produce a product if it was legal for anybody to copy and use is another topic.
Would you also apply that to GPL'd software? In that Microsoft should be able to create derivative works and ignore the copyright restrictions placed on it?
The GPL only has any teeth in it, that unless you follow the license, you aren't allowed to use copies of it under copyright law. Remove enforcement of copyright and you remove any need of the GPL.
Actually the computer at the other end makes the copy and gives it to you, so basicaly the downloader is a holder of items they don't have a license to but the computer and hence it's owner is the actual breaker of copyright law.
The computer acts as an entity to itself that's why the government can't even ask you to run tcpdump if you've been hacked unless they get a supoena (if you did it on your own without them telling you, etc you can give them to the government and it will be admissible). I went to a SANS conference back in 2000 or 2001 that spoke directly about wiretaps and their legality.
And where exactly do you *buy* a supported Fedora release from Redhat?
The previous poster was talking about a product he paid Sun for, from the paid offerings from Redhat, there is a statement of a guarantee of support for 5+ years for AW, EL or AS OS offerings.
It's called a TOE card, and companies have been producing them commercially for a few years now.
Do you really think the cost of raw materials are what makes them *so* expensive??? The raw materials cost is miniscule, so much it's probably thought of as an oversight. Mainly costs are 2 things:
1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out
2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.
For an example look at drug Tysabri 2 months ago, Biogen lost half of it's value (and it's a multi-*billion* dollar company) because one of the secondary drugs from another company that it combines with theirs to fight the affects of MS possibly caused a death after the decades of testing. They had a market cap of $22 billion, after that they had a market cap of $12 billion.
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.
What???? You don't think that there are patents in water treatment/radar systems?
One of the big benefits of the US is that the government has massive support for people starting their own business. If you think it's so easy, why don't you go ahead and start your own high-speed ISP for your area instead of relying on someone else, bitching that they haven't came to your area yet. You could have it *tomorrow* if you weren't waiting on someone else to do it for you. Putup or shutup is what I say.
If it's that be of a concern, than Canada can have the same policy, you can't come into the country with out a passport. Gives them the say in who get's in their country, who get's to stay in the coutnry and how long they can stay.
If they don't want to do it, and concerned about getting US citizens to the US, then the person gets sent to the consulate of the country they say they are from. The land of the consulate isn't Canadian so they aren't on their ground anymore.
Really the US/Canada border is one of the last border holdouts on this whole thing, I can't count the number of times I was woken up on a night train traveling in Europe to show my passport to the same guy in the same trip going from friendly country to friendly country some 10 years ago.
But it's not just links, they copy a portion of the copyrighted content. I'm not saying all stuff should/shouldn't be restricted, but the previous poster said that because there wasn't a password it was "free" if they didn't want it to be free they should have put a password on it.
From a freedom perspective this would be equivalent to instead of taking the entire kernel, incorporating a portion... let's say just the IP stack of the kernel.
Linux is free but it has restrictions as to redistribution rights, etc. Microsoft cannot take the free linux kernel and incorporate that into their product while ignoring the GPL restrictions that were put on the free download.
Just because you put it up on a website without a password, doesn't mean that there are not restrictions on it's use.
The LAND attack requires an open port, so by definition if the system isn't running any services it will have no open ports and not be vulnerable to this attack.
Really? Just a non-partisan information statement making jesture, ehhh???
Then why does the post contain just the link and the statement "Which party controlled the 105th Congress?" You'd have to have blinders on to not see the statement he's making there.
Ummm... and why exactly do you think he would have wanted to stop it? After the WIPO copyright treaty, the Clinton administration proposed the damn thing. Congress actually put some exceptions in place that Clinton did not (common carrier, etc). The author of the DMCA (Bruce Lehman) was apointed by Clinton to be commissioner of the patent & trade office.
Again why would Clinton want to veto legislation that basically his administration drew up to begin with?
Your post tried to make it sound like it was someone elses opinion, someone elses group; when in fact it was came directly from the people Clinton appointed, directly from the people in the patent & trade office. And somehow you are trying to say that he would want to veto it?
Clinton signed it in 97
It was put up for a test vote to see how much support it would get, in congress it was voted down 95-0.
Having no support it was never officially sent over to be ratified
I'd be with you if it's after they've served their time. The deffinition of being on probation is that they are still doing their time, still paying their debt to society, it's just that they are not in state prison under 24 hour lockdown anymore, they are in 24 hour probation in their own house. When their probation ends, it comes off.
The only way the scarlet letter for life and this would ever equate would be if we put people on lifetime probation where they are always serving their sentence until they die.
Before you make sweeping generalizations about one party you should get your *facts* straight.
Back when it was given a "test vote" by congress to see whether or not the president should support it, not a single vote was cast in favor. Not a single one, and if I look... why yes there are both parties there.
They can't really "revoke" but they can deffinetly charge you before you can "see" the data. They can't prevent you from copying the data, but for access under the gfdl you are most truely allowed to be by "pay only". The restriction being: after I pay you, you aren't allowed to prevent me from copying, redistributing, etc.