...I don't see how they could reasonably do that without effectively throwing VCRs back into contributory infringment for the infringment committed with them. But who knows? Maybe we'll wind up with an "infringment tax" slapped on all new VCRs.
Agreed. What's even better is that this has a very nasty flip side -- if, due to this ruling, all home recording devices become infringement and we must pay a "tax" on them, recording now becomes very legal. (You know, like the Canadian CD levy.)
<disclaimer>IANAL. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer.</disclaimer>
instead of just an equals. There are other defined values for the rel attribute and you don't want to have your CSS miss this just because it contains more than just the "nofollow" tag.
In spite of this, I really think this will turn out to be something good. Good competition will never hurt us (i.e. users).
Since when was Microsoft a good competitor? (I'm not trying to troll, it's just I seem to still see the same "win-it-all" attitude that got them into their antitrust lawsuits with the US DOJ and the EU.)
Having read both Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon, I get the impression that you are aware that, as our society becomes more information-oriented, there will be more public and larger battles over the future of open information: both legally, as universities and companies are driven to protect (with patent and copyright) all discoveries and socially, as Peer-to-Peer and portable computing transforms the way we connect to one another.
May we hear what your opinion is over "intellectual property" -- copyright, patents, and so forth?
Setting aside the "XP/broadband for six years" implied in your comment --
How are you sure (if you don't run virus scanners, et al) that you aren't filled to the gills with them? The days of the destructive virus are -- by far and large -- over. A worm that "silently" spreads and keeps the system alive is likely to spread longer than one that eats machines.
There isn't going to be a blue screen or some window popping up: "Thanks, slob, I'm infecting the world with Nimda!" Quite honestly, I'd suspect your machine is 0wned, if you are running it the way you claim.
My prime -- and perhaps only -- complaint with Destructive Rights Manglement is that the media companies want to use it as a catch-all regieme, not for the few places where it would be most effective.
The music and movie studios rant and rave about how piracy is their target with this whole DRM push. Fine -- DRM the movie reels, the review disks, the portions of the chain that are never held by a paying customer, the portions that have in fact have been repeatedly shown to be the source for piracy, and drop those restrictions at the end of the supply chain.
DRM your business lines boys, not the end product. That way we know you're fighting the pirates -- after all, if you only DRM the end product, somebody might get the mistaken idea you're fighting the customer!
I do not object to Digital Rights Management (DRM) because it could be used to cripple legal innovations in broadcasting or music distrobution.
I do not object to DRM because it could trample traditional expressions of fair use.
I do not object to DRM because it could put an undue burden on public libraries or educational institutions.
I do not object to DRM because it could be used (in conjuction with the DMCA) to "lock out" open source technologies such as Linux or standards-based platforms.
I do not object to DRM because it could collide with some abstract agument revolving around the nature of "a sale" or "property", or because it could countermand existing legal arguments such as the doctrine of first sale.
I do not object to DRM because it could be used by the recording industry to further contractually bind their stable of musicians.
I object to DRM because it consolidates control into the hands of the content producers -- ones that have shown time and time again to have views in direct opposition of mine in ALL of the above principles. In that light, it is no longer "Rights Management" (since when did anyone need to manage them?) but Digital Rights Manglement.
Politics is simply a manifestation of what an individual believes
Religion is the art of arranging your life for maximum return in the hereafter.
Politics is the art of arraging others' lives for maximum return in the here and now. -- Me
If I may, I would like to ask you the same basic question I asked of Lawrence Lessig three years ago: what form do you think that copyright law (and licencing) should take on the Internet?
Windows comes from a box; Linux comes from a community.
Windows asks "where do you want to go today?"
Linux asks "Where do you want to be tomorrow?"
Windows: Because sometimes you just have to run 1980 vintage software on modern hardware.
Linux: Because sometimes you just have to run modern software on 1980 vintage hardware.
The yo-yos aren't important, they're mentioned because of the REACTION to the yo-yos, the people their were true crackers, trying to figure out how the yo-yos worked, taking them apart, making them better.
I think you mean true hackers; if the subjects were crackers the yo-yos would have been spat upon, stomped, kicked around, and probably thrown into the hotel pool. (Or, if they were the script kiddie kind, simply stared at slack-jawed with an "ooOOhh, teh 5h1nej!!!1!")
Just because there are no facts does not mean they carry zero information.
The information they do carry is opinion. (That you and I place no value on opinion, when compared to facts, is irrelevant.) I have said this in each of my prior comments: weasel words may remove all facts rom the sentence, but the speaker's bias (and thus opinion) still remains! "I think", "I feel", "In my opinion", "It seems to me" -- all weasel word phrases (albeit clearer than most weasels speak them), and they very clearly change whatever would follow them from fact to opinion.
Opinions are information. They may be useless to your point of view, but they still are informative nonetheless.
I am sorry, but even the crack smoking moderators will disagree. Weasel words do not destroy all meaning; their meaning might be to convey an opinion dressed as fact, or be phrased in a way that most people misunderstand them, but they are not without a meaning. If nothing else, they at least express a opinion.
It's not a lie strictly speaking. Strictly speaking it conveys no actual information.
It may be that most people expect a string words to mean something. It may be that the job title "reporter" might imply certain responsibilities, one of which very well might be "presenting facts rather than speculation"; another could be "reduce or remove personal bias". I would expect most people, most of the time, carry these assumptions whenever they watch, read or otherwise grok news.
Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless. Instead, consider it a presentation of opinion; for that alone, I object-- after all, the BBC says they hire news reporters not news speculators.
Sure it sucks that the Girl Scouts need an ASCAP license to sing 'God Bless America.' But there is nothing keeping some counselor or scout from writing another song. Let's face it, we have gotten so innured about buying pre-made books, and pre-made music that we have almost forgotten that there was a time when people would just make this stuff up.
Except, perhaps, that "God Bless America" is part of the American culture. Sure, for the most part copyright is a great thing; however, when the idea under copyright becomes part of the common culture -- and you can't "just make this stuff up" when it's cultural -- its' status as an "owned idea" becomes onerous. That is the prime reason I object to the length of copyright terms as they exist today: too much of the culture around me seems to be owned by one corporation or another. (I don't mean the physical artifacts of the culture, either: there's a critical difference between owning a Van Gogh painting and owning copyright on, say, "The Wizard of Oz".)
Last time I checked, Jim Allchin (VP at MS) talked about "unfixable security flaws" on the stand at the antitrust trial. That alone has made me laugh any time Microsoft starts talking about their security measures. Therefore, I'll take any talk on security Microsoft makes seriously only after they announce a fix for their unfixable flaws -- things like shatter attacks.
This actually affects fewer people than you'd think. Most farmers purchase their own seed year after year in order to insure that they have pure breeding stock. Plant breeding on the user end is not an exact science, and homologous recombination happens quite often. It takes years and years to obtain a pure breeding stock through seed saving, and even then it's through the time-consuming process of selecting the plants with traits you want from a field of thousands.
Gee, you sure try hard to make this sound like it hasn't been practiced across the, oh, last 10,000 years of human culture but is a fairly recent idea. In any case, there is only one method for obtaining natural crop seed, and it sure isn't buying from Monsanto.
Slashdot Mirror
<disclaimer>IANAL. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer.</disclaimer>
Yes; user defined styles override everything.
I mean, nobody has trademarks on allen wrenches or tarmac, Spandex, or Polaroid....
Come out of the office with your routers where we can see them! The GIG is up!
Developers, devel... erk, Security, Security, Security!
Having read both Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon, I get the impression that you are aware that, as our society becomes more information-oriented, there will be more public and larger battles over the future of open information: both legally, as universities and companies are driven to protect (with patent and copyright) all discoveries and socially, as Peer-to-Peer and portable computing transforms the way we connect to one another.
May we hear what your opinion is over "intellectual property" -- copyright, patents, and so forth?
How are you sure (if you don't run virus scanners, et al) that you aren't filled to the gills with them? The days of the destructive virus are -- by far and large -- over. A worm that "silently" spreads and keeps the system alive is likely to spread longer than one that eats machines.
There isn't going to be a blue screen or some window popping up: "Thanks, slob, I'm infecting the world with Nimda!" Quite honestly, I'd suspect your machine is 0wned, if you are running it the way you claim.The music and movie studios rant and rave about how piracy is their target with this whole DRM push. Fine -- DRM the movie reels, the review disks, the portions of the chain that are never held by a paying customer, the portions that have in fact have been repeatedly shown to be the source for piracy, and drop those restrictions at the end of the supply chain.
DRM your business lines boys, not the end product. That way we know you're fighting the pirates -- after all, if you only DRM the end product, somebody might get the mistaken idea you're fighting the customer!I do not object to DRM because it could trample traditional expressions of fair use.
I do not object to DRM because it could put an undue burden on public libraries or educational institutions.
I do not object to DRM because it could be used (in conjuction with the DMCA) to "lock out" open source technologies such as Linux or standards-based platforms.
I do not object to DRM because it could collide with some abstract agument revolving around the nature of "a sale" or "property", or because it could countermand existing legal arguments such as the doctrine of first sale.
I do not object to DRM because it could be used by the recording industry to further contractually bind their stable of musicians.
I object to DRM because it consolidates control into the hands of the content producers -- ones that have shown time and time again to have views in direct opposition of mine in ALL of the above principles. In that light, it is no longer "Rights Management" (since when did anyone need to manage them?) but Digital Rights Manglement.Politics is the art of arraging others' lives for maximum return in the here and now. -- Me
It means you can beg off giving rides through time because Homeland Security has made it impossible to obtain enough Plutonium!
With a Mr. Fusion you'd just have to give some lamer, cheap excuse....If I may, I would like to ask you the same basic question I asked of Lawrence Lessig three years ago: what form do you think that copyright law (and licencing) should take on the Internet?
Windows asks "where do you want to go today?"
Linux asks "Where do you want to be tomorrow?"
Windows: Because sometimes you just have to run 1980 vintage software on modern hardware.
Linux: Because sometimes you just have to run modern software on 1980 vintage hardware.
Ha ha, only serious!
The information they do carry is opinion. (That you and I place no value on opinion, when compared to facts, is irrelevant.) I have said this in each of my prior comments: weasel words may remove all facts rom the sentence, but the speaker's bias (and thus opinion) still remains! "I think", "I feel", "In my opinion", "It seems to me" -- all weasel word phrases (albeit clearer than most weasels speak them), and they very clearly change whatever would follow them from fact to opinion.
Opinions are information. They may be useless to your point of view, but they still are informative nonetheless.I am sorry, but even the crack smoking moderators will disagree. Weasel words do not destroy all meaning; their meaning might be to convey an opinion dressed as fact, or be phrased in a way that most people misunderstand them, but they are not without a meaning. If nothing else, they at least express a opinion.
It may be that most people expect a string words to mean something. It may be that the job title "reporter" might imply certain responsibilities, one of which very well might be "presenting facts rather than speculation"; another could be "reduce or remove personal bias". I would expect most people, most of the time, carry these assumptions whenever they watch, read or otherwise grok news.
Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless. Instead, consider it a presentation of opinion; for that alone, I object-- after all, the BBC says they hire news reporters not news speculators.
Last time I checked, Jim Allchin (VP at MS) talked about "unfixable security flaws" on the stand at the antitrust trial. That alone has made me laugh any time Microsoft starts talking about their security measures. Therefore, I'll take any talk on security Microsoft makes seriously only after they announce a fix for their unfixable flaws -- things like shatter attacks.
Gee, you sure try hard to make this sound like it hasn't been practiced across the, oh, last 10,000 years of human culture but is a fairly recent idea. In any case, there is only one method for obtaining natural crop seed, and it sure isn't buying from Monsanto.