"I personally think that only HP, IBM and Sun are any of the big boys PC makers that offer real non-MS products."
Out of curiosity, when you purchased these servers, was a windows CD included? Numerous times I have bought a "linux" server from HP or Dell, only to find out I payed for a Windows OS anyway, it just was not installed...
I'm really unconcerned about this. I don't buy CDs anymore. I don't download them from kazaa either. I'm tired of giving a shit about people being screwed by RIAA (et. al.), artists being screwed even worse, etc.
I'm not getting ripped off anymore. I tell everyone I know to do the same, for all the usual reasons, as I've been doing since I started to get informed on these greedy leeches. But if people wanna keep getting screwed, and the artists don't demand better conditions, I don't feel bad or angry anymore. Only justified in my newfound (albeit limited) apathy.
I used to work in the AstroMaterials office at JSC, and i got to hold some aerogel a couple times. The stuff feels absolutely weird becuase it is quite solid yet so light you can hardly feel it in your hand. Neat stuff. They have gobs and gobs of it in storage all over JSC and JPL, the Stardust mission only took the highest quality samples for each of its collectors.
Uh, DoD did NOT want to use the Shuttle. They were forced to by Nixon to justify the development expense to Congress. The payload expansion was ESSENTIAL since years of DoD satellite development was already in progress and assumed the larger payload capacity.
"I'm all for your freedom to smoke whatever you want. I'm all against the tobacco corporations' freedom to sell a product that addicts people and kills 1200 of them each and every day. What kind of civilized society allows corporations to kill 1200 people a day?"
I'll chime in here with my own point of view:
I'm all for your freedom to smoke whatever you want. I'm all for the tobacco corporations' freedom to sell a product that addicts people and kills 1200 of them each and every day. I'm all against me having to pay for it in the form of medical expenses for cancer patients who have been life-long smokers, even though they KNEW it would cause cancer. What kind of civilized society makes me pay for someone else being a moron?
Big enough that smaller chunks of Reinforced Carbon-Carbon paneling floated into space on the 2nd day of the mission. Yes, it is true. You can read about it in the accident report. There test on RCC panel 8 put a huge hole in the RCC panel, "roughly 16 inches by 17 inches".
I could rant on and on about the foolishness of the shuttle (I work at NASA) but I wont here. To much to say.
1) Gamespy has sucked and will continue to suck regardless of this.
2) The DMCA is a foul piece of legislation.
3) If this keeps up, white-hats will no longer play nice. Imagine if instead of alerting Gamespy of the problems, he released the info anonymously to IRC--virus and worms ensue.
Or how about the Texas City Disaster? This ship explosion ignited a huge petrochemical refining center. One of the most destructive non-war explosions ever.
That's like saying only chefs are truly capable of choosing what food tastes good, because they are trained in such matters. Well, I like cheez whiz and crackers sometimes and my grandma eats marmalade and sausage sandwiches, both of which most chefs probably don't think is the best tasting combination...
*sigh* You are exaggerating my statement, which as usual, makes one look incredibly stupid. Lawyers can write laws yes, thats all well and good. Only other people besides lawyers should have some say in what goes into said law! I hope my clarification of the obvious has satisfied you appropriately.
I most certainly agree with you. The DMCA is nothing more than a tool bought by big-name copyright folks (RIAA, MPAA, Publishers, et. al.). The DOJ IP folks don't care one way or the other: its job security for lawyers.
As always: the number one problem with US Government is that we have Lawyers Making Laws!
This is the sad truth. The independent inventor in American is dead. Patents cost too much and research is too expensive. The company you work for has no obligation to give you anymore than what you got for your invention.
This was my concern/confusion too when I posted this question to the DOJ IP Lawyers: See here Reprinted here:
3) Question regarding the DMCA and copyright terms - by rhadamanthus
If DRM-included hardware does become the law via the CBDTPA (SSSCA) or any other legislation, how does this interact with regards to copyright expiration? The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent such DRM, thereby basically enforcing perpetual protection of the work. If the work is perpetually protected via this combination of law and technology, how can it be copyrighted legitimately, since the work will never *really* be able to join the public domain? This is analogous to trade secrets vs. patents, unless measures are taken to ensure the DRM encryption is removed once the copyright term is over. Or would that be illegal through the DMCA as well? The DMCA states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The title referred to is title 17 of the US Code, which covers copyright. I can therefore assume that removing copyright protections on expired copyrights would not be against the law. However, the DMCA also forbids the selling of tools to circumvent the very same DRM. I find it hard to believe that the RIAA/MPAA would let these tools become available regardless of the user's intent and/or rights under copyright expiration rules. Any comments about this apparent paradox?
O'Leary:
I don t believe that the CBDTPA is under consideration in the current Congress, nor are we aware of other pending bills that would mandate the use of digital rights management systems. However, your question seems more focused on the DMCA, specifically the portions of the DMCA that govern anti-circumvention technologies, i.e. Section 1201 of Title 18. For purposes of answering this question, the term DMCA refers specifically to Section 1201.
The DMCA prohibits trafficking (which includes manufacture, sale, distribution, importation, etc.) in tools (i.e., technologies, products, services, devices, etc.) that:
(a) are primarily designed to circumvent,
(b) are primarily marketed for use in circumventing, or
(c) have limited commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing, either one of the following:
(1) a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [i.e., the Copyright Act] (see 18 U.S.C. Section) 1201(a)(2); or
(2) a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright holder under this title (see Section 1201(b(1)).
The first type of control above will be referred to as an access control, the second as a copy control. In addition to the restrictions on trafficking, the DMCA also prohibits actual circumvention of access controls (see Sec. 1201(a)).
The DMCA s main purpose is to help protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the DMCA was also designed in part to protect and preserve the rights of people who use copyrighted works. First, the DMCA expressly states that it is not intended to affect limitations on copyright or defenses to infringement such as fair use. Second, the DMCA contains a number of exceptions and exemptions that, for example, allow in some circumstances reverse engineering, encryption research, and certain actions by libraries and certain educational institutions. Third, while the DMCA prohibits the actual circumvention of access controls, it does not prohibit the actual circumvention of copy controls. As the district court in the Elcom case noted, Congress omitted a prohibition against circumventing copy controls specifically so that users could engage in fair use (and, presumably, to use works that enter the public domain). (See U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1020
And, as the Columbia report made it VERY obvious that management ignoring technical advice led to the disaster, don't you think the NASA managers would heed the warning _this_ time?
Heck, don't watch TV, movies, etc too. If you cannot get what you want out of it (i.e., fair use) don't buy it. Tell everyone in Hollywood to go f*ck themselves.
What you refer to are provisions/bills passed by congress regarding civil rights and welfare. Which lately roll over the citizens so that the power-hungy warmongers can do what they see fit and imprison the dissenters.
My comment regards those policies/bills/treaties that impact corporate holdings. I would venture to say that patents, trademarks, copyright, and other forms of "intellectual property" are more important to companies today then the quality of there respective products. Thus, when wealthy corporations make a push for more rights regarding this ubiqitous holdings, congress jumps into action, seeing as congress (naturally) has deigned to not reform campaign financing rules.
We both speak the truth, the trick is to get everyone else as motivated/informed as we.
"Now is not too early to let your representatives and others know what a bad idea the intellectual property elements of the treaty are."
Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? I have written to my congresspeople probably on the order of 10-15 times each about an item specifically regarding the myth of intellectual property and its associated devestation. I have recived neat and grammatically precise responses each time, full of absolutely nothing of value or substance regarding the issues. Not even my representative's opinion on the matter. You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.
I will write my congressperson again this time, only with a heavy hand, and a large dose of bitterness in knowing that I don't have the pocketbook required to make a real impact.
Corporate politics is ruining what's left of the U.S., and is pulling a lot of other nations down with it.
The hypocricy in this article is a little too thick for me to ignore. How would any of the companies that rely on non-GPL licenses react if said licenses were ignored? For instances, what if someone decided to install a single copy Microsoft Windows on multiple machines? There is no difference between the two from a legal prespective. The article seems to say that it is unfair and odious of the FSF to protect the clauses outlined in the GPL. However, these companies were not under an illusion as to what they bargained for; the GPL makes it perfectly clear what it is required of companies or people that partake in it. This is a contract dispute, just like any other, and it reeks of misguided bias to paint it any other way. The FSF is justified in their pursuit of corrective action from Cisco; they broke the license. Please save you misinformed and hypocritical rants for a magazine of less stature than Forbes.
"Flamebait? Call it whatever you like, but if people spent 1/10 as much effort making sure they had a safe, effective, reliable computing environment as they spend to ensure the same about other aspects of their lives - such as their cars - there wouldn't be an IE as we know it today."
Big Fat Distinction: People take a lot of time choosing cars/homes/insurance/savings-plans etc. because they are truly critical decisions. Choosing a browser or OS is NOT. So what, you get a virus, you spend 20 bucks at joe's computer shop and get it fixed, hell, you spend 500 and get a new computer. You get a faulty brake system with your chevy, you die. Big distinction. We geeks care for technological reasons that the average frankly does not care about at all. And I don't blame them. There are enough choices and problems in life to deal with...
He was an asshole. Read the "biographies" section in the back of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" to get just one example of his mean-spirited character.
Wow. What you say is entirely true but hopelessly unfair. What on earth makes you think that my post here is demonstrative of my overall efforts to stop patent abuse and corporate takeover of government? You accuse me of "flaming" the topic and then flame away yourself. You pompous hypocrite, what I write on Slashdot is for Slashdot. What I write to my congressional representatives, or family, or friends, or my own personal journal is another thing entirely. I agree with your statement that advocacy " is primarily about persuading moderates and those on the other side to see clearly your position". However, judging by your comment I seriously doubt that you are one to preach.
Simply stated, I agree with you in principle, but in this case I know that I work hard to persuade my representatives of the appropriate choice regarding these issues, I work just as hard to enlighten my friends and family. I do my research and backup my statements. I assume you do too, but judging by your posts it is obvious you did not give me the same benefit of the doubt. I used to be like you, until I realized how foolish it is to judge someone so quickly.
"the counter-argument is that the corporate interest _is_ the public interest"
That is a disturbing statement. It reminds me of the quote by General Motor's President Charles Wilson: "What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa." This is flawed logic. Corporations may employ people, but their only interest is profit. Time and time again we see that the interest of the people is NOT the interest of corporations. Read some books, google Monsanato's milk hormone problems, Exxon's complete disregard for people in Alaska afer Valdez, car manufacturer's intentional ignoring of safety studies in the 60s, big pharmaceutical companies that cover up defects etc. It goes on and on. Corporations do serve a purpose in employing people, but that purpose is moot if they then go about eroding centuries of work to place the will and health of the people above any other entity. You have a good point too, but it is rendered dangerous and defeatist upon investigation: working solely for the corporate interest is courting disaster without appropriate regulation, or better yet, true accountablity.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, when you purchased these servers, was a windows CD included? Numerous times I have bought a "linux" server from HP or Dell, only to find out I payed for a Windows OS anyway, it just was not installed...
YMMV, of course
--rhad
I'm not getting ripped off anymore. I tell everyone I know to do the same, for all the usual reasons, as I've been doing since I started to get informed on these greedy leeches. But if people wanna keep getting screwed, and the artists don't demand better conditions, I don't feel bad or angry anymore. Only justified in my newfound (albeit limited) apathy.
---rhad, who is a little cynical today
--rhad
--rhad
---rhad
Not in America. In America it is never your fault if you are an idiot.
--rhad
I'll chime in here with my own point of view:
I'm all for your freedom to smoke whatever you want. I'm all for the tobacco corporations' freedom to sell a product that addicts people and kills 1200 of them each and every day. I'm all against me having to pay for it in the form of medical expenses for cancer patients who have been life-long smokers, even though they KNEW it would cause cancer. What kind of civilized society makes me pay for someone else being a moron?
--rhad
I could rant on and on about the foolishness of the shuttle (I work at NASA) but I wont here. To much to say.
---rhad
2) The DMCA is a foul piece of legislation.
3) If this keeps up, white-hats will no longer play nice. Imagine if instead of alerting Gamespy of the problems, he released the info anonymously to IRC--virus and worms ensue.
With regards to 3), SERVES EM' RIGHT.
disgusted,
--rhad
--rhad
I think thats pretty good...
--rhad
*sigh* You are exaggerating my statement, which as usual, makes one look incredibly stupid. Lawyers can write laws yes, thats all well and good. Only other people besides lawyers should have some say in what goes into said law! I hope my clarification of the obvious has satisfied you appropriately.
--rhad
As always: the number one problem with US Government is that we have Lawyers Making Laws!
--rhad
--rhad
See here
Reprinted here:
3) Question regarding the DMCA and copyright terms - by rhadamanthus
If DRM-included hardware does become the law via the CBDTPA (SSSCA) or any other legislation, how does this interact with regards to copyright expiration? The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent such DRM, thereby basically enforcing perpetual protection of the work. If the work is perpetually protected via this combination of law and technology, how can it be copyrighted legitimately, since the work will never *really* be able to join the public domain? This is analogous to trade secrets vs. patents, unless measures are taken to ensure the DRM encryption is removed once the copyright term is over. Or would that be illegal through the DMCA as well? The DMCA states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The title referred to is title 17 of the US Code, which covers copyright. I can therefore assume that removing copyright protections on expired copyrights would not be against the law. However, the DMCA also forbids the selling of tools to circumvent the very same DRM. I find it hard to believe that the RIAA/MPAA would let these tools become available regardless of the user's intent and/or rights under copyright expiration rules. Any comments about this apparent paradox?
O'Leary:
I don t believe that the CBDTPA is under consideration in the current Congress, nor are we aware of other pending bills that would mandate the use of digital rights management systems. However, your question seems more focused on the DMCA, specifically the portions of the DMCA that govern anti-circumvention technologies, i.e. Section 1201 of Title 18. For purposes of answering this question, the term DMCA refers specifically to Section 1201.
The DMCA prohibits trafficking (which includes manufacture, sale, distribution, importation, etc.) in tools (i.e., technologies, products, services, devices, etc.) that:
(a) are primarily designed to circumvent,
(b) are primarily marketed for use in circumventing, or
(c) have limited commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing, either one of the following:
(1) a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [i.e., the Copyright Act] (see 18 U.S.C. Section) 1201(a)(2); or
(2) a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright holder under this title (see Section 1201(b(1)).
The first type of control above will be referred to as an access control, the second as a copy control. In addition to the restrictions on trafficking, the DMCA also prohibits actual circumvention of access controls (see Sec. 1201(a)).
The DMCA s main purpose is to help protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the DMCA was also designed in part to protect and preserve the rights of people who use copyrighted works. First, the DMCA expressly states that it is not intended to affect limitations on copyright or defenses to infringement such as fair use. Second, the DMCA contains a number of exceptions and exemptions that, for example, allow in some circumstances reverse engineering, encryption research, and certain actions by libraries and certain educational institutions. Third, while the DMCA prohibits the actual circumvention of access controls, it does not prohibit the actual circumvention of copy controls. As the district court in the Elcom case noted, Congress omitted a prohibition against circumventing copy controls specifically so that users could engage in fair use (and, presumably, to use works that enter the public domain). (See U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1020
Dumb and dumber...
---rhad
Heck, don't watch TV, movies, etc too. If you cannot get what you want out of it (i.e., fair use) don't buy it. Tell everyone in Hollywood to go f*ck themselves.
--rhad, who is sick of this shit
What you refer to are provisions/bills passed by congress regarding civil rights and welfare. Which lately roll over the citizens so that the power-hungy warmongers can do what they see fit and imprison the dissenters.
My comment regards those policies/bills/treaties that impact corporate holdings. I would venture to say that patents, trademarks, copyright, and other forms of "intellectual property" are more important to companies today then the quality of there respective products. Thus, when wealthy corporations make a push for more rights regarding this ubiqitous holdings, congress jumps into action, seeing as congress (naturally) has deigned to not reform campaign financing rules.
We both speak the truth, the trick is to get everyone else as motivated/informed as we.
--rhad
Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? I have written to my congresspeople probably on the order of 10-15 times each about an item specifically regarding the myth of intellectual property and its associated devestation. I have recived neat and grammatically precise responses each time, full of absolutely nothing of value or substance regarding the issues. Not even my representative's opinion on the matter. You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.
I will write my congressperson again this time, only with a heavy hand, and a large dose of bitterness in knowing that I don't have the pocketbook required to make a real impact.
Corporate politics is ruining what's left of the U.S., and is pulling a lot of other nations down with it.
--rhad
pdf995 will make you very happy. Google it.
To whom it may concern,
The hypocricy in this article is a little too thick for me to ignore. How would any of the companies that rely on non-GPL licenses react if said licenses were ignored? For instances, what if someone decided to install a single copy Microsoft Windows on multiple machines? There is no difference between the two from a legal prespective. The article seems to say that it is unfair and odious of the FSF to protect the clauses outlined in the GPL. However, these companies were not under an illusion as to what they bargained for; the GPL makes it perfectly clear what it is required of companies or people that partake in it. This is a contract dispute, just like any other, and it reeks of misguided bias to paint it any other way. The FSF is justified in their pursuit of corrective action from Cisco; they broke the license. Please save you misinformed and hypocritical rants for a magazine of less stature than Forbes.
--rhad
Big Fat Distinction: People take a lot of time choosing cars/homes/insurance/savings-plans etc. because they are truly critical decisions. Choosing a browser or OS is NOT. So what, you get a virus, you spend 20 bucks at joe's computer shop and get it fixed, hell, you spend 500 and get a new computer. You get a faulty brake system with your chevy, you die. Big distinction. We geeks care for technological reasons that the average frankly does not care about at all. And I don't blame them. There are enough choices and problems in life to deal with...
just my two bits of course,
--rhad
--rhad
Simply stated, I agree with you in principle, but in this case I know that I work hard to persuade my representatives of the appropriate choice regarding these issues, I work just as hard to enlighten my friends and family. I do my research and backup my statements. I assume you do too, but judging by your posts it is obvious you did not give me the same benefit of the doubt. I used to be like you, until I realized how foolish it is to judge someone so quickly.
You hypocritical dolt.
--rhad
That is a disturbing statement. It reminds me of the quote by General Motor's President Charles Wilson: "What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa." This is flawed logic. Corporations may employ people, but their only interest is profit. Time and time again we see that the interest of the people is NOT the interest of corporations. Read some books, google Monsanato's milk hormone problems, Exxon's complete disregard for people in Alaska afer Valdez, car manufacturer's intentional ignoring of safety studies in the 60s, big pharmaceutical companies that cover up defects etc. It goes on and on. Corporations do serve a purpose in employing people, but that purpose is moot if they then go about eroding centuries of work to place the will and health of the people above any other entity. You have a good point too, but it is rendered dangerous and defeatist upon investigation: working solely for the corporate interest is courting disaster without appropriate regulation, or better yet, true accountablity.
--rhad