Wow, I haven't seen an article this biased since.. well, ever! Even the EFF anti-DMCA stuff is more even-handed than this! The poster is rather plainly a Macedonian who is annoyed at having trouble with web sites, and looking for someone to blame. While sure, I'd be pissed off too, I don't see why it's Slashdot's job to be free advertising for this guy's personal opinion, especially given the limited news value of a pure opinion post.
The article seems to me at least to be little more than "blame everyone", it's the USA's fault, Israel's fault, Russia's fault, the political establishment's fault, that a non-governmental body has come to the opinion that Macedonia has an unreasonably high number of scammers running out of it compared to legitimate users. I for one would love to know what the hell the political lobby in the USA has to do with internet blacklists.
C'mon, really, slashdot is a news site, not "opinionated rant of the week", for that I read the comments, not the articles.
Hmmmm, I found a kernel bug... in the CREDITS file:
N: Leonard N. Zubkoff W: http://www.dandelion.com/Linux/ D: BusLogic SCSI driver D: Mylex DAC960 PCI RAID driver D: Miscellaneous kernel fixes
N: Alessandro Zummo E: azummo@ita.flashnet.it W: http://freepage.logicom.it/azummo/ D: CMI8330 support is sb_card.c D: ISAPnP fixes in sb_card.c S: Italy
N: Marc Zyngier E: maz@wild-wind.fr.eu.org W: http://www.misterjones.org D: MD driver D: EISA/sysfs subsystem S: France
# Don't add your name here, unless you really _are_ after Marc # alphabetically. Leonard used to be very proud of being the # last entry, and he'll get positively pissed if he can't even # be second-to-last. (and this file really _is_ supposed to be # in alphabetic order)
Or are they just not changing it so that Leonard doesn't catch on and get "positively pissed"?
Not completely true. Unless Anne Thwacks was actually one of the people designing the transparent windows, then it's not probably not secret once they show him. There have even been cases where simply handing out a few sample pens implementing a new technology to a few government employees were considered enough to make the invention public. Well, at least that's what I learnt in my Australian IP law class.
In any case, I am wondering if what the SCO group are attempting to do could best be covered by Fair Trading laws which, in Australia, are administered by the State governments.
Unfortunately, this is not acutally correct. While it is true that each state has a "Fair Trading Act", it is limited to trading by natural persons, all fair trading laws relating to corporations are under the federal Trade Practices Act. So to put it simply, don't expect to see state governments going after SCO any time soon.
Yes, they have to leave some people behind. Yes, it's a tragedy. But come-on; three times!?. Talk about rubbing it in. And even though we're meant to believe that it's such a disaster, people make these life or death decisions with hardly a flicker of anxiety.
Umm... not really, heck, it was a key decision near the start of the second part of the miniseries, where the president and apollo are arguing over if they should run right away, or wait to transfer civlians off non-jump capable ships. Then you have the abandoned people pleading as the president runs, as the cylons arrive to kill them all.
Sure, it wasn't some grand soap-opera decision which took hours to make, but it was given appropriate time and attention under the circumstances.
Just a note, I accidentally used subsection (2) of that section, when I should have used (1), which covered the video portion of the recording, not just the sound portion. Oh well, that'll teach me not to proofread my posts properly.
Umm... what are you talking about? In Australia, s111(2) of the Copyright Act provides that e copyright in a sound broadcast, or in a television broadcast in so far as it consists of sounds, is not infringed by the making of a sound recording of the broadcast, or a copy of such a sound recording, for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made. So quite simply, as long as you're not recording a show of TV to copy over and over and sell, you're totally in the clear. Sure, there are plenty of things to complain about in Austrlian copyright law, but that's not one of them.
Well, this has to be one of the most inaccurate Slashdot stories in a while. For those who do not read Groklaw, SCO _have_ complied for the most part with the court order to produce specifics of their case, they simply haven't completed a few pieces involving information from company directors. While certainly, it's a huge failure on SCO's part to allow this to happen, to claim this means they haven't produced any evidence at all is a flat out lie. After all, if they haven't, then what were those "more than 60 pages" they served on IBM recently (though readers may draw their own conclusions on how strong SCO's case may be if it's only 60 pages)?
So c'mon people, RTFA first before cheering "woohoo! SCO suck! We are win!".
No, they are not. There was an FAQ put out a while ago with the answers officially from Valve, and they were asked if a Linux port would be coming out. They said no, and there were no plans to do it at all. However, if Transgaming aren't all over this game the moment it comes out, I'll be very surprised.
I'm not a sympatico user, I'm a DALnet user and channel operator instead. While I've never set such a broad ban myself, I know of many channels which have banned sympatico. Apparrently there was an extremely major spammer on sympatico, who kept jumping IPs, simply to the point that operators were forced to ban the entire domain.
So there is a reason for it, though I do agree it is a bit severe.
As the saying goes "Better, Cheaper, Faster, pick any two", it's pretty much the same for the interface. Sure, it is "possible" to design an uber-UI which is intuitive and fast to use, but then it would almost surely also be a far more difficult design task, either delaying development or costing much more (or both). Quite simply, you can't have everything all the time, and choosing to optimise for efficiency over usability is a reasonable decision.
Yes, but if you read the full article, the source was also PGP signed, specifically so that tampering could be detected. Short of a miracle, it would be impossible for any cracker to fake a PGP signature, as they wouldn't have the required private key. So if you checked that (as it was specifically intended for), then you pick it up, and I expect that may quite possibly have been how it was detected.
EFnet doesn't have a nickserv bot AFAIK, so there's no real need to be stuck with a "nick from hell" because some loser who only comes on for 5 seconds a week has what you want registered (which is what happens for me on DALnet, my wanted nick is taken by a guy who genuinely spends about 10 seconds a week on DALnet, just long enough to keep the nick).
As for 1. you aren't quite right, a contract in the form of a deed (ie if he's signing an appropriately formatted written document, with a witness' signature) a contract can still be enforceable even if it only contains unilateral consideration. In other words, if the employers are smart, they can make it binding anyway.
2. Well, that much is fairly true. You can still sue, but that lawsuit would really have to be with regards to the illegitimacy of your severance contract, as forbearance to sue is an accepted and recognised form of consideration. That's why out-of-court settlements are binding.
Oh yes, I do understand all that, but the parent was more referring to Paypal fraud (unless I'm much mistaken) and users abusing the system. I was simply pointing out that the argument "we aren't responsible for our users" has to be either right or wrong, not just depend on if you like the company.
As for the difference between IP and cash, I recognise it exists (though IMHO IP should be just as valued, however much RMS and Napsterites may not like it), but it's not really relevant to what I was talking about.
I can't remember the exact court case, I think it was "Actor's Equity... v Someone", and it was admittedly also an English case, but supposedly a contract cannot oust the courts, they can make you go to arbitration, but once that is complete you can proceed to the courts.
Without links to more info (and I don't really know where to look for US details), I don't know how much the US situation differs, but I'd assume that the courts would find similarly, so even if you do have to go through annoying arbitration, it's not really binding, you can just then proceed to the courts.
Does it occur to anyone that this was basically exactly the argument that Napster was running, in that they weren't responsible for the use of their system? I seem to recall at the time that/. thought it was the best argument ever, or does the strength of the argument depend only on if/.ers are getting free stolen music from the arguer? I mean at least Paypal has a largely legitimate business going, unlike Napster which was founded upon the supposed "abuse" of the system.
Oh, and before you mod me as Flamebait, I want to point out that this is a genuine opinion, and not just something intended to tick people off. I'm just saying that you have to either accept or reject (IMHO reject) that line of argument, you can't accept if just for those you like and reject it for others.
Yes, wine has supported solitare for a hell of a long time. Indeed, I believe you'll find that it's the first program you're shown how to run in the WINE HOWTO.
I'd rather disagree with you there about the installer. Yes, there are some known problems with the installer sometimes hanging at the end (but with the program installed), but I've actually once been forced to use Wine to install (and even run) a program that just wouldn't work under windows. My trusty old Kodak DC50 digital camera refused to install under my windows 98se, though I should admit it was a fairly crusty install at the time. So I installed it using wine, and everything worked fine. Indeed, if I remember correctly, even the program itself wasn't willing to work, and I believe I ended up even extracting the photos off the camera using wine as well.
In any case, while the exact details are hazy, I can assure you that I have encountered circumstances where wine has even run the installer when windows has not, and I've not encountered any problems with installers under wine (though again, I should admit I've only attempted installing a few games). So don't be so quick to insult it, especially for a free program for a free OS to run games that normally require a $200 POS OS to run.
He's not flaimbait, but he is wrong IMHO. Firstly, the law can be validly characterised as being with respect to protecting consumers from the costs of fax spam, and while my knowledge of US law isn't great, having a valid primary purpose is sufficient to excuse secondary effects on free speech and suchlike.
Secondly, even without the law, you could still hurt fax.com just through trespass law. While I admit it's a bit borderline, I reckon someone could have a good chance of running an argument that the direct interference with one's possession of their fax machine and consumables without consent or lawful justification would constitute civil trespass.
As such, one is entitled to damages without even having to prove actual damage (though of course it can be claimed), but can at the very least claim some nominal damages, and possibly aggravated for the 3am faxes cited, or punitive damages considering fax.com's blatant disregard for people's legal rights. So even if $500 isn't given per fax, I'm guessing you could still get a dollar or two per fax at a minimum simply from that, and given the incredible number of faxes being claimed here, that's more than enough to put fax.com out of business.
Oh, and just before you get up to flame me, IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
The article seems to me at least to be little more than "blame everyone", it's the USA's fault, Israel's fault, Russia's fault, the political establishment's fault, that a non-governmental body has come to the opinion that Macedonia has an unreasonably high number of scammers running out of it compared to legitimate users. I for one would love to know what the hell the political lobby in the USA has to do with internet blacklists.
C'mon, really, slashdot is a news site, not "opinionated rant of the week", for that I read the comments, not the articles.
Not completely true. Unless Anne Thwacks was actually one of the people designing the transparent windows, then it's not probably not secret once they show him. There have even been cases where simply handing out a few sample pens implementing a new technology to a few government employees were considered enough to make the invention public. Well, at least that's what I learnt in my Australian IP law class.
Unfortunately, this is not acutally correct. While it is true that each state has a "Fair Trading Act", it is limited to trading by natural persons, all fair trading laws relating to corporations are under the federal Trade Practices Act. So to put it simply, don't expect to see state governments going after SCO any time soon.
Umm... not really, heck, it was a key decision near the start of the second part of the miniseries, where the president and apollo are arguing over if they should run right away, or wait to transfer civlians off non-jump capable ships. Then you have the abandoned people pleading as the president runs, as the cylons arrive to kill them all.
Sure, it wasn't some grand soap-opera decision which took hours to make, but it was given appropriate time and attention under the circumstances.
Just a note, I accidentally used subsection (2) of that section, when I should have used (1), which covered the video portion of the recording, not just the sound portion. Oh well, that'll teach me not to proofread my posts properly.
Umm... what are you talking about? In Australia, s111(2) of the Copyright Act provides that e copyright in a sound broadcast, or in a television broadcast in so far as it consists of sounds, is not infringed by the making of a sound recording of the broadcast, or a copy of such a sound recording, for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made. So quite simply, as long as you're not recording a show of TV to copy over and over and sell, you're totally in the clear. Sure, there are plenty of things to complain about in Austrlian copyright law, but that's not one of them.
So c'mon people, RTFA first before cheering "woohoo! SCO suck! We are win!".
Before I saw that the category was about space, I thought they were talking about the Web Server.
I'd have thought the need to use the word "may" in the topic would be a giveaway that we clearly weren't talking about IIS.
If you're planning on selling them to anyone, I sure hope the rest of your list is of better quality than that, given they're not internet addresses.
No, they are not. There was an FAQ put out a while ago with the answers officially from Valve, and they were asked if a Linux port would be coming out. They said no, and there were no plans to do it at all. However, if Transgaming aren't all over this game the moment it comes out, I'll be very surprised.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish we had a Fark.com-style "OBVIOUS" tag for these types of stories?
bash-2.05b$ uname -a
Linux A1000 2.4.20-gentoo-r5 #4 SMP Mon Aug 11 08:59:55 EST 2003 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
What are you going to do SCO? Sue me?
I'm not a sympatico user, I'm a DALnet user and channel operator instead. While I've never set such a broad ban myself, I know of many channels which have banned sympatico. Apparrently there was an extremely major spammer on sympatico, who kept jumping IPs, simply to the point that operators were forced to ban the entire domain.
So there is a reason for it, though I do agree it is a bit severe.
As the saying goes "Better, Cheaper, Faster, pick any two", it's pretty much the same for the interface. Sure, it is "possible" to design an uber-UI which is intuitive and fast to use, but then it would almost surely also be a far more difficult design task, either delaying development or costing much more (or both). Quite simply, you can't have everything all the time, and choosing to optimise for efficiency over usability is a reasonable decision.
Yes, but if you read the full article, the source was also PGP signed, specifically so that tampering could be detected. Short of a miracle, it would be impossible for any cracker to fake a PGP signature, as they wouldn't have the required private key. So if you checked that (as it was specifically intended for), then you pick it up, and I expect that may quite possibly have been how it was detected.
EFnet doesn't have a nickserv bot AFAIK, so there's no real need to be stuck with a "nick from hell" because some loser who only comes on for 5 seconds a week has what you want registered (which is what happens for me on DALnet, my wanted nick is taken by a guy who genuinely spends about 10 seconds a week on DALnet, just long enough to keep the nick).
As for 1. you aren't quite right, a contract in the form of a deed (ie if he's signing an appropriately formatted written document, with a witness' signature) a contract can still be enforceable even if it only contains unilateral consideration. In other words, if the employers are smart, they can make it binding anyway.
2. Well, that much is fairly true. You can still sue, but that lawsuit would really have to be with regards to the illegitimacy of your severance contract, as forbearance to sue is an accepted and recognised form of consideration. That's why out-of-court settlements are binding.
Though of course, IANAL.
Oh yes, I do understand all that, but the parent was more referring to Paypal fraud (unless I'm much mistaken) and users abusing the system. I was simply pointing out that the argument "we aren't responsible for our users" has to be either right or wrong, not just depend on if you like the company.
As for the difference between IP and cash, I recognise it exists (though IMHO IP should be just as valued, however much RMS and Napsterites may not like it), but it's not really relevant to what I was talking about.
I can't remember the exact court case, I think it was "Actor's Equity... v Someone", and it was admittedly also an English case, but supposedly a contract cannot oust the courts, they can make you go to arbitration, but once that is complete you can proceed to the courts.
Without links to more info (and I don't really know where to look for US details), I don't know how much the US situation differs, but I'd assume that the courts would find similarly, so even if you do have to go through annoying arbitration, it's not really binding, you can just then proceed to the courts.
Oh, and IANAL.
Does it occur to anyone that this was basically exactly the argument that Napster was running, in that they weren't responsible for the use of their system? I seem to recall at the time that /. thought it was the best argument ever, or does the strength of the argument depend only on if /.ers are getting free stolen music from the arguer? I mean at least Paypal has a largely legitimate business going, unlike Napster which was founded upon the supposed "abuse" of the system.
Oh, and before you mod me as Flamebait, I want to point out that this is a genuine opinion, and not just something intended to tick people off. I'm just saying that you have to either accept or reject (IMHO reject) that line of argument, you can't accept if just for those you like and reject it for others.
Yes, wine has supported solitare for a hell of a long time. Indeed, I believe you'll find that it's the first program you're shown how to run in the WINE HOWTO.
I'd rather disagree with you there about the installer. Yes, there are some known problems with the installer sometimes hanging at the end (but with the program installed), but I've actually once been forced to use Wine to install (and even run) a program that just wouldn't work under windows. My trusty old Kodak DC50 digital camera refused to install under my windows 98se, though I should admit it was a fairly crusty install at the time. So I installed it using wine, and everything worked fine. Indeed, if I remember correctly, even the program itself wasn't willing to work, and I believe I ended up even extracting the photos off the camera using wine as well.
In any case, while the exact details are hazy, I can assure you that I have encountered circumstances where wine has even run the installer when windows has not, and I've not encountered any problems with installers under wine (though again, I should admit I've only attempted installing a few games). So don't be so quick to insult it, especially for a free program for a free OS to run games that normally require a $200 POS OS to run.
okay - "Aussie telcos suck more than British ones, but I agree BT suck"
He's not flaimbait, but he is wrong IMHO. Firstly, the law can be validly characterised as being with respect to protecting consumers from the costs of fax spam, and while my knowledge of US law isn't great, having a valid primary purpose is sufficient to excuse secondary effects on free speech and suchlike.
Secondly, even without the law, you could still hurt fax.com just through trespass law. While I admit it's a bit borderline, I reckon someone could have a good chance of running an argument that the direct interference with one's possession of their fax machine and consumables without consent or lawful justification would constitute civil trespass.
As such, one is entitled to damages without even having to prove actual damage (though of course it can be claimed), but can at the very least claim some nominal damages, and possibly aggravated for the 3am faxes cited, or punitive damages considering fax.com's blatant disregard for people's legal rights. So even if $500 isn't given per fax, I'm guessing you could still get a dollar or two per fax at a minimum simply from that, and given the incredible number of faxes being claimed here, that's more than enough to put fax.com out of business.
Oh, and just before you get up to flame me, IANAL.