However, they've included "computer trespassers" as terrorists. They might as well declare a "war on crime," and remove civil liberties in support of that fight. You will never eliminate crime, drugs, or terrorism, until there are no dissatisfied people on Earth. I don't wan't to wait that long before the laws go back to normal.
First we need someone willing and able to break the new law and take the case to the Supreme Court. The checks and balances were supposed to be a deterrent to making unconstitutional laws, but they've become an excuse. Lawmakers now just throw laws with happy names (PATRIOT, USA, etc) at the wall, and see what sticks, letting the courts scrape the crap away.
I wonder if theress a list of the number of laws each legislator has proposed/voted for that were later ruled unconstitutional. Too bad there's such thing as "voice votes".
In a larger sense, though, the provider bankrupcies are a good business plan for the country. Some companies go bankrupt laying the infrastructure, and then sell it cheap to other companies. These new companies are not saddled with the huge debt from the construction, and can offer the service much cheaper. It's almost like government sponsored infrastructure projects, except the "taxpayers" are voluntary stock and venture capital gamblers.
The equipment manufacturer bankrupcies aren't so good, though.
doesn't change the fact that they are defining the playing field.
Almost every word processor (for example) has their own file format. I'm not sure what remedy could stop that from happening. However, with a documented file format, format conversion utilities would be (almost) trivial. And with easy format conversions, competition becomes much more feasible, no matter how big Microsoft is.
My central point remains: What Windows needs is a plain-English set of choices, in plain view, one that any novice user can easily find and understand, to tell the computer which program to use to open different kinds of files. There is no good reason under the sun that Microsoft has not provided such an option.
Well, the reason is obviously that it would look mighty suspicious if it was only hard to grab extensions from Microsoft applications.
More of these corporate-inspired initiatives should have these cute, fluffy names. If the DMCA had been called "Great System in Which Everyone is Better Off", nobody would have had a problem with it, right?
The waste product may be more nasty, but it is possible to put it into barrels. Fossil fuel waste is spewed into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe (plus, there is radioactive waste in fossil fuel smoke).
So what you're saying is: "Hey, hell no we won't put such things into linux!.... Damn! now we can't use linux (to view videos or listen to music)" "Hell, I don't want to build a computer using those parts that have built in copy control..... damn, now I can't build my own computer!"
While I am not saying that this is a good thing, don't you think that you all are going just a wee bit over the deep end with the exaggerations on this one?
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that it is nearly as bad as you are claiming it to be. If linux were to implement these technologies (which, of course, the people who make linux would really, really, truly rather not do) then you could still use it. If you bought the hardware that conformed (which, btw, all hardware sold will so I don't see the argument there?) then you can still build your own computer.
Manufacturers already have to pay a licensing fee per unit to make DVD players. An open source system can't keep track of the number of units, and it doesn't have the money to pay a license fee. They are also supposed to keep the inner workings secret, which open source is also incapable of. These are what made the DeCSS software illegal. Since this law allows the industry to set up the "standard," we may end up with a similar plan for this law.
Slashdot Mirror
However, they've included "computer trespassers" as terrorists. They might as well declare a "war on crime," and remove civil liberties in support of that fight. You will never eliminate crime, drugs, or terrorism, until there are no dissatisfied people on Earth. I don't wan't to wait that long before the laws go back to normal.
First we need someone willing and able to break the new law and take the case to the Supreme Court. The checks and balances were supposed to be a deterrent to making unconstitutional laws, but they've become an excuse. Lawmakers now just throw laws with happy names (PATRIOT, USA, etc) at the wall, and see what sticks, letting the courts scrape the crap away.
I wonder if theress a list of the number of laws each legislator has proposed/voted for that were later ruled unconstitutional. Too bad there's such thing as "voice votes".
How about the concept of the RIAA itself?
It's not terrorism because no one was terrorized by it.
Have you hever had 10000 minks climbing up your leg?
Curses! Foiled again! You'd think living in DC would make it easier to talk to government...
You're saying this about someone who released Linux under the GPL? Isn't the GPL a request for other people to offer their good ideas?
The US is not the centre of the world, and you need to appreciate this.
Well, from MS's POV, it is. But it isn't the whole world, and you are probably right that they'd hate to lose the market.
In a larger sense, though, the provider bankrupcies are a good business plan for the country. Some companies go bankrupt laying the infrastructure, and then sell it cheap to other companies. These new companies are not saddled with the huge debt from the construction, and can offer the service much cheaper. It's almost like government sponsored infrastructure projects, except the "taxpayers" are voluntary stock and venture capital gamblers.
The equipment manufacturer bankrupcies aren't so good, though.
In other words, there's no such thing as a "life saving" action, since we'll still die in the end?
doesn't change the fact that they are defining the playing field.
Almost every word processor (for example) has their own file format. I'm not sure what remedy could stop that from happening. However, with a documented file format, format conversion utilities would be (almost) trivial. And with easy format conversions, competition becomes much more feasible, no matter how big Microsoft is.
I know a former judge who knows her. He seems hopeful.
most users wouldn't bother to read their manuals
Their what? Does MS still supply manuals?
My central point remains: What Windows needs is a plain-English set of choices, in plain view, one that any novice user can easily find and understand, to tell the computer which program to use to open different kinds of files. There is no good reason under the sun that Microsoft has not provided such an option.
Well, the reason is obviously that it would look mighty suspicious if it was only hard to grab extensions from Microsoft applications.
More of these corporate-inspired initiatives should have these cute, fluffy names. If the DMCA had been called "Great System in Which Everyone is Better Off", nobody would have had a problem with it, right?
The tagline for this movie would certainly be a trademark conflict with the "YAHOO!" mark.
If they've got all of the 555 numbers, Hollywood foley folks will no longer be able to give the audio when someone dials a number onscreen.
Well, OK. As log as it costs less.
Are you saying that you will be required to pay a licensing fee in order to use "approved" technologies? I'm not so sure that you will...
Neither am I, but it is an extreme possibility, if any patented technologies are included.
Actually I wasn't aware that you have to pay royalties on DVD, I was under the impression that it was an open standard.
That would seem obvious, wouldn't it? But it is unfortunately not true.
The waste product may be more nasty, but it is possible to put it into barrels. Fossil fuel waste is spewed into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe (plus, there is radioactive waste in fossil fuel smoke).
So what you're saying is: "Hey, hell no we won't put such things into linux! .... Damn! now we can't use linux (to view videos or listen to music)" "Hell, I don't want to build a computer using those parts that have built in copy control ..... damn, now I can't build my own computer!"
While I am not saying that this is a good thing, don't you think that you all are going just a wee bit over the deep end with the exaggerations on this one?
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that it is nearly as bad as you are claiming it to be. If linux were to implement these technologies (which, of course, the people who make linux would really, really, truly rather not do) then you could still use it. If you bought the hardware that conformed (which, btw, all hardware sold will so I don't see the argument there?) then you can still build your own computer.
Manufacturers already have to pay a licensing fee per unit to make DVD players. An open source system can't keep track of the number of units, and it doesn't have the money to pay a license fee. They are also supposed to keep the inner workings secret, which open source is also incapable of. These are what made the DeCSS software illegal. Since this law allows the industry to set up the "standard," we may end up with a similar plan for this law.
That's covered under the subclause defining 'authorities' as legislative or executive officers or anyone with money.
Perhaps all those pundits are correct - irony is dead.
i can relate. i'm considering moving to australia (pending some research regarding their laws.)
Here's somewhere to start your reasearch.
Looking closely, that pig looks to have been carved from Spam(tm)...
Why, terrorists, of course.