As unlikely as it is for me to concede that the US should still do anything for the world good... the root zone should still be run as it has been for the last couple decades. Few, infrequent changes, and very very stable. THat's what matters.
Why do other parties want control of the root zone? So they can bargain with it? Add new TLD's? Give me a break.
The root zone needs to simply run as it is, that's all.
That's trivial to do with most firewalls... and can backfire, as it can create a DOS situation when none exists (because it thinks something is being attacked)
They didn't say it would run windows, they ONLY said they wouldn't do anything to try to purposefully prevent it from running windows.. they are simply going to ignore whether or not windows runs on it, they don't care.
Apple using Intel has absolutely nothing to do with linux, no impact, no noting. IT will still be a mac, not a wintel box, you'll still buy it from apple, and it will have the same features you would expect on a mac. It's not suddenly going to run on every linux box or anything like that.
Of course it is... like FreeBSD, it's a core set of tools that are updated as a whole. And OpenBSD is even more focused, with less clutter than FreeBSD, which is already quite tight.
Of course it's more coherently engineered.. BSD is about updating a core set of libraries and tools. When we say "OpenBSD" we don't just mean a kernel.. we mean the entire package.. similar to if we say "Debian Linux".
Linux isn't "well architected" because there is no "Linux".. there is a kernel, developed by some people, and a bunch of tools and libraries develoepd by a bunch of different people, which are together rolled into distributions by yet OTHER people.
Simple answer: They were not asked to. They build the machines according to specifications from the customer. THe customer didn't say he wanted a paper trail. The customer also accepted delivery of said machines without a paper trail.
Blame the customer, not the vendor who simply built what they were asked to.
Well, I can vouch that I've seen several occasions where company data was stolen and sold to competitors, by employees, ex-employees, and hackers.
We don't hear about "Corporate espionage" because it's not like catching a spy.. real spies are a threat to national security. A corporate spy is just a real-life employee who violates their confidentiality agreements.. such things do happen, and are usually settled in civil court. You don't hear about them because they aren't newsworthy. We aren't talking about selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans here... we're talking about customer demographics, policy changes, roadmaps, etc.
Yes, trade secrets, release dates, and customers lists are valuable.
I suspsect the more common situation is someone obtains the data then shops it around to competitors, rather than competitors saying up front they want the data stolen.
1) Presumably after the switch, they can switch if they choose, much easier. 2) What is the alternative? IBM's powerpc roadmap isn't cutting it. Apple needs to deliver performant machines to their customers. 3) It wasn't a major sell argument, it was hype based on ignorance. The underlying architecture was never that important, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. the true stability and performance of the mac comes from a well defined platform and apis, and a limited set of hardware to support.
I believe that's urban legend, actually.. the law empowers the police to act in an undercover manner in certain situations.
If they don't catch you actually selling the drugs, then you will be charged with Posesssion with intent to distribute (if they have evidence you intended to distribute, such as baggies). Otherwise, they will chargge you with possession.
To actually charge you with distribution, they have to actually catch you distributing.
In either case, all of these are felonies, mere posession is illegal, and it's not a good comparison to copyright law at all.
So, how do we determine when something has been posted on the net in an illegal manner? How do you draw the line?
I'm sure we could both agree that:
- Setting up your new starwars XVID on a huge popular bittorrent warez tracker is definately intent to distribute - Accidentally leaving some of your personal software and mp3s on an unprotected personal webserve because you were transferring them to your laptop while on vacation is probably NOT intent to distribute...
a precedent that says "if you posted it on the net, it's distribution" makes both these people equally guilty.
I'm in no way trying to protect copyrighted file sharers here... I'm only saying that requiring actual proof that distribution took place is sensible, and serves to protect those who DIDN'T distribute from unfair persecution for simply using technologies, or perhaps misunderstanding them.
The whole point of the parent article we are here talking about is that the mere act that a file was SHARED is not enough to prove distribution.. you need actual evidence of distribution.
I believe the post I started out responding to said that the mere act of sharing should be enough to prove distribution.. I'm merely stating why it's not.
How should the law differentiate between file sharing networks and, say, a personal file share? how would you define this?
There are no scientific facts, only theories that haven't been falsified yet.
Saying "Cold Dark Matter" exists, or "Dark Energy" is just saying "our formulas work if there is such a hting as dark energy with such-and-such a property involved here."
What is detection but observing something's effect on something else? if the only weay we can explain the universe expanding at a certain rate is that there is more energy out there than we can detect (other than by the rate of expansion, of course), that's a valid observation, and for as long as it explains the universe and no data contradicts it, it's the best we can do, just like any other observation.
Slashdot Mirror
won't someone stop them?
We don't need all these new TLD's, especially seemingly arbitrary ones like this.
As unlikely as it is for me to concede that the US should still do anything for the world good... the root zone should still be run as it has been for the last couple decades. Few, infrequent changes, and very very stable. THat's what matters.
Why do other parties want control of the root zone? So they can bargain with it? Add new TLD's? Give me a break.
The root zone needs to simply run as it is, that's all.
Or they will more intelligently do neither saying "Anyone can modify our open source client to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want."
Do you really think google doens't understand open source?
That's trivial to do with most firewalls... and can backfire, as it can create a DOS situation when none exists (because it thinks something is being attacked)
WHat sort of protection will this PIX 500 give above the usual stateful packet filtering?
You are aware that this kind of theft is ALSO illegal in India, and they will be prosecuted there?
Is this supposed to suggest that Indian call center workers are less trustworthy than American call center workers?
That same data could likely be had from any call center working for any business sector for the appropriate price.
The merchants are the ones taking the risks here.
NO signature? No proof that you authorized the transaction? Then it was fraudulent, and you don't have to pay a penny. It's that simple.
Who pays? The merchant pays.. visa won't pay them a contested fee if they can't show a signature or other proof.
They didn't say it would run windows, they ONLY said they wouldn't do anything to try to purposefully prevent it from running windows.. they are simply going to ignore whether or not windows runs on it, they don't care.
Apple using Intel has absolutely nothing to do with linux, no impact, no noting. IT will still be a mac, not a wintel box, you'll still buy it from apple, and it will have the same features you would expect on a mac. It's not suddenly going to run on every linux box or anything like that.
The printer should not be liable for copyright infringement unless they knew or should have known that the work was under copyright.
Having the client sign a paper stating that they have the right to reproduce the product in question should be enough.
This is just absurd.
Of course it is... like FreeBSD, it's a core set of tools that are updated as a whole. And OpenBSD is even more focused, with less clutter than FreeBSD, which is already quite tight.
Of course it's more coherently engineered.. BSD is about updating a core set of libraries and tools. When we say "OpenBSD" we don't just mean a kernel.. we mean the entire package.. similar to if we say "Debian Linux".
Linux isn't "well architected" because there is no "Linux".. there is a kernel, developed by some people, and a bunch of tools and libraries develoepd by a bunch of different people, which are together rolled into distributions by yet OTHER people.
Or they'll pull out their contract, which you agreed to before purchasing the service, which covers their ass in this situation.
Because marketing their hardware to the open source operating system market is NOT part of their current strategy. It's that simple.
IT's widely said that you can go between the two without difficulty.. it's not like learning one precludes using the other.
(just like, say, yoy can type on a calculator keypad or telephone pad equally quickly, despite a different layout.
And it doesn't handle multiple users.
Simple answer: They were not asked to. They build the machines according to specifications from the customer. THe customer didn't say he wanted a paper trail. The customer also accepted delivery of said machines without a paper trail.
Blame the customer, not the vendor who simply built what they were asked to.
Well, I can vouch that I've seen several occasions where company data was stolen and sold to competitors, by employees, ex-employees, and hackers.
We don't hear about "Corporate espionage" because it's not like catching a spy.. real spies are a threat to national security. A corporate spy is just a real-life employee who violates their confidentiality agreements.. such things do happen, and are usually settled in civil court. You don't hear about them because they aren't newsworthy. We aren't talking about selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans here... we're talking about customer demographics, policy changes, roadmaps, etc.
Yes, trade secrets, release dates, and customers lists are valuable.
I suspsect the more common situation is someone obtains the data then shops it around to competitors, rather than competitors saying up front they want the data stolen.
1) Presumably after the switch, they can switch if they choose, much easier.
2) What is the alternative? IBM's powerpc roadmap isn't cutting it. Apple needs to deliver performant machines to their customers.
3) It wasn't a major sell argument, it was hype based on ignorance. The underlying architecture was never that important, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. the true stability and performance of the mac comes from a well defined platform and apis, and a limited set of hardware to support.
unsupported by who?
How many people who actually care about these features actually go for official microsoft support?
Err...
I believe that's urban legend, actually.. the law empowers the police to act in an undercover manner in certain situations.
If they don't catch you actually selling the drugs, then you will be charged with Posesssion with intent to distribute (if they have evidence you intended to distribute, such as baggies). Otherwise, they will chargge you with possession.
To actually charge you with distribution, they have to actually catch you distributing.
In either case, all of these are felonies, mere posession is illegal, and it's not a good comparison to copyright law at all.
So, how do we determine when something has been posted on the net in an illegal manner? How do you draw the line?
I'm sure we could both agree that:
- Setting up your new starwars XVID on a huge popular bittorrent warez tracker is definately intent to distribute
- Accidentally leaving some of your personal software and mp3s on an unprotected personal webserve because you were transferring them to your laptop while on vacation is probably NOT intent to distribute...
a precedent that says "if you posted it on the net, it's distribution" makes both these people equally guilty.
I'm in no way trying to protect copyrighted file sharers here... I'm only saying that requiring actual proof that distribution took place is sensible, and serves to protect those who DIDN'T distribute from unfair persecution for simply using technologies, or perhaps misunderstanding them.
Of course not.
The whole point of the parent article we are here talking about is that the mere act that a file was SHARED is not enough to prove distribution.. you need actual evidence of distribution.
I believe the post I started out responding to said that the mere act of sharing should be enough to prove distribution.. I'm merely stating why it's not.
How should the law differentiate between file sharing networks and, say, a personal file share? how would you define this?
There are no scientific facts, only theories that haven't been falsified yet.
Saying "Cold Dark Matter" exists, or "Dark Energy" is just saying "our formulas work if there is such a hting as dark energy with such-and-such a property involved here."
What is detection but observing something's effect on something else? if the only weay we can explain the universe expanding at a certain rate is that there is more energy out there than we can detect (other than by the rate of expansion, of course), that's a valid observation, and for as long as it explains the universe and no data contradicts it, it's the best we can do, just like any other observation.