You're just jealous that I get paid more than you, I am smarter than you, I drive a better car than you, AND I am nailing your girlfriend who is about to dump you.
Not only that, but you also envy the fact that I smell nice and write a better troll.
"but she could sign purchase orders faster than I could type"
You overplayed your hand right there, son.
Todd McFarlane (hack) is blocking reprinting
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
great that nobody on/. has a clue what you are talking about - and its quite possibly the most annoying IP war in the history of copyrights.
Then again, these are Gaiman fans, not Moore fans.
somebody moderate the parent up, I'm fairly sure Neil has plenty to say on this topy.
>"The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. "I think (they've) got a strong case," said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida."
>Is this company the same as www.mcci.com ? Where at this link it mentions the president of the company is called "Terry Moore" ?? And it seems to be very much a Microsoft shop?!?
Good catch
I got some even better ones for you:
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for the term "Windows"
tinyurl.com/kf24
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for "Unix"
tinyurl.com/kf2a
Want something REALLY revealing? Try this: this is www.mcci.com searched by google for "SCO"
tinyurl.com/kf2l
Judge for yourself if they are a Microsoft shop or a Unix shop. I wonder what they were even doing there at SCO Forum? SCO isn't even mentioned on their website ANYWHERE. I don't think they are a reseller of SCO's Unix, with no mention of SCO anywhere on their webpage - how could they be?
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.8 on Thu Jul 24 18:52:32 2003 *filter:INPUT ACCEPT [251238:18127669]:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]:OUTPUT ACCEPT [147443:28849496] [0:0] -A INPUT -s 12.29.112.0/255.255.255.240 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 63.199.57.120/255.255.255.248 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 198.70.114.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.49.164.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.50.66.224/255.255.255.224 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 64.166.187.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 64.241.31.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 65.244.101.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 66.252.128.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 67.112.252.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 67.125.49.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 81.4.78.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 146.82.174.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.192.0.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.209.2.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.225.90.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.229.253.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.49.164.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 212.241.48.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -s 217.228.123.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP COMMIT # Completed on Thu Jul 24 18:52:32 2003
reed solomon the METHOD was not patented (nor should it be) but if that paper had been published later, code that implemented it most CERTAINLY would have been patented..
As usual, the mass media is incapable of reporting on anything that requires more than 30 second soundbites, sweeping generalizations, and inane observations.
I am writing to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (HR 1066).
As a software developer AND digital content consumer, I strongly believe in striking a balance between both content consumers' and producers' digital rights. HR 1066 does just this by addressing some of the more onerous effects the DMCA has (and will continue to have, if unchecked) on our future in the Information Age.
I am a strong believer in the power of the free exchange of information, and many content producing corporate media groups and organizations (at their worst embodied by organizations such as the BSA, the MPAA, and the RIAA) have so far shown absolutely no concern for the content consumer's Fair Use Rights OR the content producer's (in the form of artists, programmers, musicians, etc). rights of control over their own creations.
A balance MUST be struck, and thus far no organization or group has had the resources to combat the huge amount of money that corportate lobbiests have used to further their own profit-driven goals.
Copyright and intellectual property rights exist for the Public Good, not an unlimited, government-guaranteed revenue stream. HR 1066 is a start to bringing those ideals back to what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this great country.
I would like to close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Please SUPPORT HR 1066, and oppose any further laws that seek to erode our Fair Use Rights.
Would be nice to crucify the BSA with the RICO Act under the "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs, through a patter of racketeering activity" section, for misrepresenting the legal system for the express purpose of intimidation.
Nailing them for mail fraud would be nice too, if you can find them deliberately transmitting false statements.
First off, you provide no evidence that your correlation is direct evidence of causation.
Secondly, and more importantly, history is replete with DIRECT counterexamples of the assertion that IP laws stimulate innovation.
Innovations in airplanes did not occur until the US invalidated them soon after the onset of WWI
Innovations in the gun did not occur until Colt's revolver patent expired, even though Browning (and many others) had almost immediately improved on the original revolver design significantly. Patent law prevented any such advances from seeing the light of day for decades.
These are just two examples of the most obvious (and famous) patents stifling innovation; an even CURSORY look at the history of "successful" patents will give you example after example of innovation coming to an almost complete halt during the life of a patent, only to resume again after it had lapsed. To further illustrate this, in endeavors where the patent holder was succesfully able to extend his patent, innovation similarly died off again.
Note also that this effect of patents is ENTIRELY intentional; all competition is supposed to be stifled until the patent holder has "recouped" his investment. This is a "functioning" government enforced monopoly.
Also, note that "intentional" does NOT imply constitutionality either. That has more to do with the lobbying activities of rent-seeking corporations...
Slashdot Mirror
You're just jealous that I get paid more than you, I am smarter than you, I drive a better car than you, AND I am nailing your girlfriend who is about to dump you.
Not only that, but you also envy the fact that I smell nice and write a better troll.
"but she could sign purchase orders faster than I could type"
You overplayed your hand right there, son.
great that nobody on /. has a clue what you are talking about - and its quite possibly the most annoying IP war in the history of copyrights.
Then again, these are Gaiman fans, not Moore fans.
somebody moderate the parent up, I'm fairly sure Neil has plenty to say on this topy.
perfect pitch is NOT the ability to sing in tune, it is the ability to know the pitch of a tone w/o a reference.
Stop, drop, and rollover minutes
good job moderators
from here
>"The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. "I think (they've) got a strong case," said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida."
>Is this company the same as www.mcci.com ? Where at this link it mentions the president of the company is called "Terry Moore" ?? And it seems to be very much a Microsoft shop?!?
Good catch
I got some even better ones for you:
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for the term "Windows"
tinyurl.com/kf24
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for "Unix"
tinyurl.com/kf2a
Want something REALLY revealing? Try this: this is www.mcci.com searched by google for "SCO"
tinyurl.com/kf2l
Judge for yourself if they are a Microsoft shop or a Unix shop. I wonder what they were even doing there at SCO Forum? SCO isn't even mentioned on their website ANYWHERE. I don't think they are a reseller of SCO's Unix, with no mention of SCO anywhere on their webpage - how could they be?
is it a typo? their htaccess lists 66.252.128
:INPUT ACCEPT [251238:18127669] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [147443:28849496]
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.8 on Thu Jul 24 18:52:32 2003
*filter
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 12.29.112.0/255.255.255.240 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 63.199.57.120/255.255.255.248 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 198.70.114.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.49.164.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.50.66.224/255.255.255.224 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 64.166.187.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 64.241.31.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 65.244.101.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 66.252.128.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 67.112.252.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 67.125.49.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 81.4.78.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 146.82.174.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.192.0.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.209.2.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.225.90.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.229.253.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 208.49.164.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 212.241.48.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
[0:0] -A INPUT -s 217.228.123.0/255.255.255.0 -j DROP
COMMIT
# Completed on Thu Jul 24 18:52:32 2003
mpaa.org A 66.252.129.188
vs
66.252.128
riaa.org A 68.163.90.13
is missing
$ host riaa.org
riaa.org A 146.82.174.13
riaa.org A 68.163.90.13
$ host mpaa.org
mpaa.org A 66.252.129.188
neither appear in those netblocks...
Also, somebody should put up a nice iptables script for those of us too lazy to figure them out for ourselves
reed solomon the METHOD was not patented (nor should it be) but if that paper had been published later, code that implemented it most CERTAINLY would have been patented..
an amusing side note: do a patent search on Reed Solomon
I guess you, like 100s of other misguided /. devils advocates missed the VCR and DAT flaps, and the resulting Macrovision idiocy and DAT taxes.
Oh, and did we already mention the RIAA's attempts to legislate MANDATORY DRM into any device capable of recording sound digitally?
... during the VCR and DAT flaps?
Are you still missing the connection, or do you need a sharp thwack with a cluestick?
if our IP system weren't so hopelessly corrupt, the GPL would not be needed.
The crux of the ruling seems to stem from the inherent deniability of the gnutella proto...
i.e. the plaintiffs could NOT prove contributory infringment, unlike in the Napster case.
All in all, a very interesting precedent is set, especially in light of Freenet.
As usual, the mass media is incapable of reporting on anything that requires more than 30 second soundbites, sweeping generalizations, and inane observations.
1) calculate transmission time for a 64 byte frame at 56k, 1Mbit, and 100Mbit
2) calculate transmission time for a 1518 byte frame at 56k, 1Mbit, and 100Mbit.
3) compare each of those times to the transmission time of light from Los Angeles to New York.
4) do the same for a TCP SYN/ACK sequence.
5) discuss the correlation of bandwith/distance/UDP/TCP vs end to end latency.
I am writing to encourage you to support Representative Zoe Lofgren's "Balance Act" (HR 1066).
As a software developer AND digital content consumer, I strongly believe in striking a balance between both content consumers' and producers' digital rights. HR 1066 does just this by addressing some of the more onerous effects the DMCA has (and will continue to have, if unchecked) on our future in the Information Age.
I am a strong believer in the power of the free exchange of information, and many content producing corporate media groups and organizations (at their worst embodied by organizations such as the BSA, the MPAA, and the RIAA) have so far shown absolutely no concern for the content consumer's Fair Use Rights OR the content producer's (in the form of artists, programmers, musicians, etc). rights of control over their own creations.
A balance MUST be struck, and thus far no organization or group has had the resources to combat the huge amount of money that corportate lobbiests have used to further their own profit-driven goals.
Copyright and intellectual property rights exist for the Public Good, not an unlimited, government-guaranteed revenue stream. HR 1066 is a start to bringing those ideals back to what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this great country.
I would like to close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Please SUPPORT HR 1066, and oppose any further laws that seek to erode our Fair Use Rights.
And do I have to put a cover letter on it?
Workers, RISE UP AND SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!
Not many programmer unions, though, huh? A friend of mine likes to tell me that "leftists make bad programmers."
Because if you did, you would see that there are several solutions, all far better than our current model.
Hey, noob, It's spelled "drivel"
Would be nice to crucify the BSA with the RICO Act under the "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs, through a patter of racketeering activity" section, for misrepresenting the legal system for the express purpose of intimidation.
Nailing them for mail fraud would be nice too, if you can find them deliberately transmitting false statements.
They are scum only out to extort a buck.
First off, you provide no evidence that your correlation is direct evidence of causation.
Secondly, and more importantly, history is replete with DIRECT counterexamples of the assertion that IP laws stimulate innovation.
Innovations in airplanes did not occur until the US invalidated them soon after the onset of WWI
Innovations in the gun did not occur until Colt's revolver patent expired, even though Browning (and many others) had almost immediately improved on the original revolver design significantly. Patent law prevented any such advances from seeing the light of day for decades.
These are just two examples of the most obvious (and famous) patents stifling innovation; an even CURSORY look at the history of "successful" patents will give you example after example of innovation coming to an almost complete halt during the life of a patent, only to resume again after it had lapsed. To further illustrate this, in endeavors where the patent holder was succesfully able to extend his patent, innovation similarly died off again.
Note also that this effect of patents is ENTIRELY intentional; all competition is supposed to be stifled until the patent holder has "recouped" his investment. This is a "functioning" government enforced monopoly.
Also, note that "intentional" does NOT imply constitutionality either. That has more to do with the lobbying activities of rent-seeking corporations...
We knew 3 of the heights, and some of the angles.
Took me 10 blanks and 4 hours but I eventually got it.
The tolerance of the angles isn't so hot; you really only need 0,-45,+45 and a bit of wiggling to cover all of them.