Please, so if I make a symbol with an i and a circle around it for information, i should own that? Come on. Putting a circle around a letter or symbol is not clever. I can put a circle around any letter in the keyboard...doesn't mean I should be able to trademark it.
This is a bunch of bullshit. Intel, please don't blame others for your assinite attempts to own the English language. Its not the laws fault that you're assholes. Not only that, but who FORCED you to trademark a COMMON word like Inside? There are many common usages of the word inside which have another describing word preceeding it.
"We can't let a precedent be set," he explained. " 'Yoga Inside' might not sound bad, but what happens when someone comes along with 'Apple Inside'?"
If its in reference to an Apple being in an apple orchard, that's fucking fine.
Even if its Apple computer, who said you have the right to trademark common words? If Apple came up with an add that said something like:
"Apple Inside"
there's nothing wrong with that either. After all, that's what it is: Its an Apple. Since its also an Apple on the outside, they might say something like:
Apple Outside. Apple Inside.
This is just plain ludicrous. Other people shouldn't be prevented from using the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to their benefit because you assholes can't be original and trademark things that aren't already words.
By the way, you fucking assholes, there's something called the First Amendment. It has constitutional basis, so it trumps any "trademark" laws.
This is no different than IBM trying to trademark the "e" symbol with a circle around it. Come on. That's fucking bullshit.
Suggesting to Intel, IBM, and other lamers who are trying to own the English Language by trademarks: if your going to make a trademark, make up a word/symbol for it. Suggestion to Intel for a REAL trademark:
"Intelliside"
Oh wait, because of assholes like you Intel fucks, MS might sue you for trademark violations of its "IntelliPoint" mouse.
Other assholes include Nike, both for trademarking the word "Nike" and for trademarking the Nike symbol. Nike is the greek god of victory, closely associated with Athena/Minerva. And her symbol was the same symbol that the Nike shoe uses. Sounds like fucking prior art to me. Not to mention, it should be public domain.
This is just proof that the settlement isn't enough. MS should not be allowed to use predjudicial behavior in any manner. MS is a PUBLIC company. So, yes, they have the obligation to obey PUBLIC rules. It would be different if MS was a private company owned by one person; but its not.
You can't refuse to sell black people food at publicly owned restaurants.
Why should MS be allowed to PENALIZE companies for selling other OS'? Or for not selling ridiculously high quantities of MS products.
This is just a method by which MS can unfairly maintain its monopoly, put itself ABOVE capitalistic competition.
I don't see why people defend MS so much. Whatever you think of their products, whatever you think of whether or not they got to their present position by merit or fraud...they're still a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently not good. They are everything capitalism opposes.
Even if MS were to play perfectly fair -- no crooked deals, no blackballing, no spurious lawsuit threats -- it still wouldn't be good enough. They would still hinder competition and deny consumers choice, if only by default.. Because they're so large, its impossible competing against them effectively; they can outspend you a million to one. Because they own so much of the desktop industry, few hardware or software developers offer software/driver versions for non-MS products.
Let me put it to you this way. Lets just assume Gates was a saint, freakin' mother teresa, a Stallman on wheels. That still doesn't mean we should tolerate his current power. No matter how good the man, you wouldn't want to have a person be dictator of the United States, would you?
Its the same thing with MS.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Four more people to add to my list of people who'd make the world a better place if they were dead:
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) John Breaux (D-Louisana) Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
What a crock. Every computer-related device having to have copy protection? Can you imagine how much that would slow down even the simplest programs like Vi? Not only would it dramatically hinder performance, it would violate OUR rights. The congress/senate doesn't have the right to deny MY fair use rights, or force THEIR fucked-up ideas about computers on me.
These people know nothing about computers. They shouldn't be making any decisions about them.
Not only that, but no one has the right to regulate Free Source Software (FSS) or Open Source Software (OSS). Projects like these done for no price, as a service to the public, should not be crippled and hindered because some assholes in hollywood are worried about their shitty movies being distributed on the net.
The last thing most of us want is to spend 24 hours downloading a copy of the latest crappy holywood movie, like Deep Blue Sea.
While the government's trying to fight "terrorism" how about dealing with these wackjobs. Anyone who claims to be an "upper level" scientologist should be detained in holding cells as being a terrorist.
Look, I've went to these sites that offer "scientology" documents. Quit frankly, they're not worth the read, though they do inform you of how much BS these wack-jobs are full of and how corrupt the clan/business of scientology is. I started to read some of this crap by Hubbard or whatever. It's even worse than the bullshit in the Bible.
But, if you want to distribute this crap, do it on P2P networks. There's no way to stop P2P distribution of information.
The more I read about these scientology nutjobs, the more they remind me of the KKK and Hitler's Nazi "Supermen".
I am an atheist. I don't believe in any of that religious bullshit. Anyone who has any common sense doesn't.
I've always been weery of Christians forcing their narrow-minded self-depricating views on others. It seems that these nut-case scientologists are even worse.
These people are wack-jobs. Frauds. Crooks. They need to be exposed for what they are and put in jail. The Church of Scientology is no better than the organized mob.
That these wack-jobs use the word "science" to describe their non-sense is even worse. Scientists should sue them for libel and defamation.
New entry to my list of people who would be better off dead:
(my comment here addresses most responses to my initial comment)
Yes, but from OUR standpoint, it was. Why should the standpoint of ONE company be more important than that of MILLIONS of people? When you or I downloaded the GPL'ed code, WE were of the understanding that we would be FREE to redistribute it and modify it was we pleased. We put significant stock in that assumption: time learning to use the program, and possibly time modifying it. From our side of the agreement, everything was legit, so why should we be punished by not being allowed to distribute/modify?
If a court invalidates the license from OUR side, invalidating OUR rights, then we've been wronged and shafted. We put effort into learning how to use the program well because we knew it could be redistributed, and we developed or helped develop the program because of that. The releaser might not have had legal standing to release the code, but we, having sacraficed what we have to uphold our half, SHOULD have legal standing to redistribute/modify under the GPL.
In other words, the public which downloaded GPL believed there was a contract in effect guarenteeing them certain rights; to nullify that is to violate the PUBLIC's rights. We have a right to have the contracts we enter into be respected, irrelevant of the other side. So what, this guy didn't technically have the "right" to release it? We didn't know that. And we sacraficed to use that code, so we should be able to continue operating under our terms of the contract.
Finally, I think that all work for hire nonsense should be illegalized by the Federal Government. It should be just as illegal as buying slaves, or as a company putting a clause in their contract saying they have the right to "kill" an employee if (s)he shows up for work late. If someone develops code, it should be THEIR code, unless a specific contract was in effect saying, "I'll develop a for you and give you the IP rights". This means that if I don't have such a contract with my employee, and I develop something on his/her computer, its MINE. Companies should, however, be allowed to make policies which stipulate that the IP rights to any program developed on their resources or their time must be transferred to them, or the employee can be fired (i.e., a legitimate grounds for termination is failure to transfer IP rights to software developed on company time/resources for company-related software).
Corporate-o-philes will bitch about this. But the fact is, corporations don't have the right to do whatever they will (though I stated in an earlier post, "companies have rights too", that no one's entitled to screw off on company computers). The gov't has the rights to regulate acceptable employment terms. Though I generally support minimal intervention, there's already too much IP exploitation and hogwash which needs to be eliminated.
Release the code anonymously, if your worried about nazi employers. Release it stating that the author's anonymous, and providing some way by which the author can identify he in fact is the true author later on. When you feel the cost is clear, claim you wrote it.
For this particular prommer, I suggest he start doing that. Release the code anonymously.
As for the code already released under the GPL, that's GPL'ed permanently for everyone (though for the company, its effectively under public-domain). The company can't stop it from being distributed, and can't stop others from redistributing. When WE download a GPL'ed code, there's an implicit understanding on OUR part that we have the freedom to redistribute according to the terms of the license; irrelevant of anything else, we have the right to demand our side of the legal bargain.
Even if the company can somehow get a ruling prohibiting others from distributing it under GPL, that won't stop them from doing it. One, such a order would have to be federal. A court in one state can't have jurisdiction over the other states. Only a Federal Court can. Two, such an order would be unenforcible. Proof? Despite us constantly complaining about the nazis who decided the DeCSS case, DeCSS' distribution hasn't been halted since the judge ordered its distribution stopped. In fact, its increased.
Now, here's something this guy can do. Claim he isn't the author of the programs. He didn't write the programs. How can the company prove that he did? If he wrote these things out of work, there's no way the company can prove he's the author. He simply wipes the files, and there's no proof.
(1) This plan violates the e2e principle, which has made the internet what it is: that intelligence should be at the ends of a network, not within it. Of course, many things the proprietary pigs are doing also violates e2e, and we should fight that to. At the very most, any "prioritizing" of packets should be done to ensure the overall net efficiency of the net, not to benefit any one group/individual/gov't which thinks they "deserve" more than everyone else despite the fact that they don't have any more right to bandwidth than anyone else. In a paradigm consisent with e2e, any "prioritizing" would only be to optimize the overall performance of the network. A simple shopping analogy here: its better overall (in that as few people as possible are held up) if the 10 people with 1 item go through the line before the one person with 10 items.
(2) Things like this, where the government might want to force me to give THEM priority, violate MY RIGHTS. If I own a server, its MY server/router, MY uploading bandwidth, and MY computer resources, not the government's. The government doesn't have the right to force me to give them priority to use MY resources. (on the other hand, a "resource-sharing" plan as proposed by Lessig, where other people use "my" resources when I'm not using them, is fine).
(3) I noticed some imbecile said, "If you don't set your servers/routers to prioritize for the government in emergency situations, and someone dies because of it, you can be sued for not helping them." This is bullshit. Good-summaritan laws don't exist, and would be unconstitutional if they did. I have no obligation to help anyone with MY resources. If there's a blizzard outside, and some straggler comes into my property, I have no obligation to take him into my home, and am well within my rights to kick him off my property. And if I do let him in my home, I can certainly kick him out if I please.
(1) ISP's, nor the government, should not be in the business of banning certain websites, or blocking access to them. There's no difference between that and banning, or burning, books. Fucking nazis.
(2) In regards to "simulated child pornography", if its simulated, who does it harm? In such a case -- i.e., an 18+ woman who looks younger, or a computer-generated image -- no one's privacy is voilated, nor was anyone's rights violated in producing the image. Banning that is just christian bullshit where they want to control your mind. It's a victimless crime in that case.
(3) In regards to real pornography, which was actually derived from children, there are three classes: (a) Forced; (b) Exploitative; (c) Self-done. Here's my take on each of them:
a. Forced. If a child is forced (raped) into sexual poses/positions/whatever, and the image of that taken is distributed on the web, there's no reason the government shouldn't be able to take down that image from the website, in protection of the child. Every minute the image is up there is a VIOLATION of the child's rights to privacy, self-dignity, and her body.
b. Exploitative. When the child is not "forced" per se, but nevertheless is taken advantage of by an adult. The act itself should be illegal in most cases; I don't think we should be ardent about "exact" age limits. The legal age for consentual sex with older people is 18 most places; if a guy has sex with a girl a month away from being 18, so what? Of course, we need to have precise laws, so people know exactly what they can and cannot do. I suggest keeping the legal age at 18, but varying the punishment for statutory rape depending on the age-difference of the "victim" and of the adult. There's a big difference when a 60-year old man sleeps with a 16-year old girl, as opposed to a 19-year old man doing the same.
c. Self-done. When an underage person engages in sexual poses/sex, and photographs themselves; then they either post it online immediately, or wait until they're older (18) and publish it then. There's nothing wrong with this, though current laws prohibit it. If someone took pictures of themselves having sex at 16 and wants to post it on the web later on, that's their right: it is their body.
Even in case (a), where I feel the government does have the obligation to -- in protection of minor's rights -- stop the distribution of child-pornography, that doesn't justify any means. The government is free to do so via any means that are non-draconian. They are not permitted to, for example, take down an entire P2P network to stop some porn, nor to spy on what all of us put on the web.
I really think that child-molestation laws are unneeded. They are redundant with rape laws. The standard in rape law is, "could/did the person give informed consent". Obviously, a 6-year old child can't give informed consent, as that person doesn't even know what sex is. Obviously, a woman who says "no" can't give informed consent. Obviously, a woman passed out drunk can't give any kind of consent.
But there are some sticky situations where its a little vague. What about when the person is 16-18? When can they give informed consent? Obviously, some people make better sexual decisions at 16 than others do at 30. Well, maybe you can have a "sex license" sort of like a drivers license, which verifies that you know about basic sexual issues. Sounds kinda stupid, huh, a "license to have sex"? But its alot better than setting unmeaningful absolute standards which don't apply uniformly.
What about a case where a woman is drunk and is the sexual aggressor? Should the man be charged with rape if he has sex with her? I don't think so. Another consideration is, "who was the initiator"? Was it the man, the woman, or both? I think that if there is an "initiator" and the other person accepts the advances, it should never be considered rape (unless the other person was purposefully stoned to make them "easy"), except in cases where the person doesn't have their "sex license".
But even that has problems. For example, do we really want to say that a person mentally retarded can't have sex, except with other mentally retarded people?
It is clear to me that this society has not thought enough about sex; all of our answers the a complicated issue are black/white, clearly goaded on by Christian humbug.
Actually, if you had READ what I said, I also mentioned that while actions performed on the leisure system would not be monitored/logged, the TIME spent on the leisure system WOULD, as well as the time spend on the work system. Thus, employers know how much time their employees are spending on their work system v. their leisure system.
Employees would be advised not to do any of their work on their leisure system/accounts, as this would count as "break time".
This would also help to create professionalism, by creating a clear separation between work and personal life.
Look, the company you work at owns the hardware/computers there -- not you. You don't have the right to use their resources as you please.
While I think they shouldn't have the right to snoop on your private documents or e-mails just because you're in their building, that doesn't mean they can't restrict certain types of uses.
A wise company has a distributed system, whereby users login with different usernames/passwords for "leisure activity" and for "work activity". The company should separate the "leisure" and "work" logins and files separately, on separate hard-drives.
A good idea is to give unrestricted access on the "leisure" system, but allocate less resources to them. There's no reason why they need to be operating at 2GHz with 1GB RAM for leisure. Btw, sorry, the workplace is not for playing Quake or Descent 3.
Furthermore, privacy policies should be different on the leisure and work accounts/systems. There should be no privacy on your "work" account, but only on your "leisure" account. The company should also assign different e-mails for "leisure" and "work" accounts for each person; if you want privacy, you'll only use your "business" e-mail for work.
Though an individual's activities would not be monitored on the "leisure" system, the time spent on the "leisure" and "work" accounts would be monitored and compared; obviously, companies don't want to keep someone on the paycheck who spends 4 out of 8 hours a day on leisure.
The key thing here is for employees to realize that they don't have the RIGHT to use their company's resources for their own personal matters.
It, however, is also not acceptable for companies to go back on previously agreed-upon privacy rules in regards to their employees. Companies also shouldn't go on a power trip, as that is likely to alienate employees.
Re:Anti-Semitic Advertisements on Google
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 2
Interesting point, and its really commendable that being Jewish, you still think that the racist Free Occident group should be able to have access to SourceForge like everyone else. Most people support freedom of speech, privacy, whatever until it becomes inconvenient to them; i.e., alot of Pro Choice people don't believe in freedom of speech for sites like The Nuremburg Files (this is not a reference to the Nazi war-crimes; the Pro-Life activists have tried to parallel the "murder" of "unborn babies" to the holocaust, hence the name of a major Pro-Life site as Nuermburg Files).
I agree with you that Google serving up ads for white-supremecists is iffy. But who decides what's iffy? What if its an ad for NARAL.org, or for the NRLC.org (National Right to Life Coalition)? Undoubtedly, each of those links would offend half of America (as last time I checked, the nation's split about 50-50 on the abortion issue). Of course, there's a difference between that case and the case of white-supremecists, in that 90+% of America finds hate-groups immoral. But the point is the same.
Besides, despite the offensive racist nature of such articles, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be exposed to them. You don't make a problem go away by ignoring it, refusing to see it, or not having the best search engine of the world not display ads for it. Doing any of the aforementioned remove the symptom, not the disease.
Furthermore, I think its important that we be exposed to alternate viewpoints. If for nothing else, simply to understand our opposition. You don't really understand your own beliefs until you understand the beliefs of someone who believes in exactly the opposite of what you believe in. Furthermore, perhaps being exposed to their viewpoints would help us to understand why they hate Jewish peoples.
The typical reasons are, "well, all Jews are crooks"; in fact, that's typically an attitude which defines an anti-semite. But the question is, why do they think that? And can you change their minds. People's opinions are not carved in stone; they can change; sometimes for the better (i.e., a Supreme Court Justice who once ruled against allowing homosexual marriages now said he deeply regrets that); sometimes for the worse (i.e., Roe [of Roe v. Wade] is no Pro-Life). There's no reason to think that the mind of a racist can't change. You can change people's mind's by showing them the errors of their beliefs; i.e., showing them that not all Jewish people are crooks (by pointing to, for example, Henry Kissenger).
Another way to try to change these people's minds is to address the common thought among anti-semites that there's a "conspiracy among Jews to...etc etc". The best way to do this would be for Jewish people who aren't crooks, such as yourself, to be the harshest critics and biggest enemies of those who are crooks, such as Gary Wenig and Lawrence Whalley (the Presidents of Global Crossings and Enron, respectively). One way to do this would be by opposing the election of such people as "honorary members" of Jewish philanthropy societies. I'm not an anti-semite, but when I hear about BS like Wenig being elected as an honorary member of a Jewish philanthropy society, and then read on wsj.com (in the same article), about how his rabi was praising him, it pisses me off. That's the kind of stuff which turns people who aren't racists into racists, entrenches racists further, and gives racists power.
So, in conclusion, my point is we shouldn't try to hide or cover up remarks/websites we don't agree with. That doesn't serve any purpose, and in fact is dangerous.
Blizzard's case is weak and has no merits. They're trying to claim that the DMCA requires that developers, hardware manufacturers, etc., be forced to include recognition for anti-circumvention/copy-protection in their products, which it clearly DOES NOT. In fact, the DMCA explicitly states that no one has to recognize anyone elses copy-protection or anti-circumvention devices.
So its clear that this case is a flop for Blizzard. Aside from it being a flop, there's nothing wrong w/ bnet. They're creating a superior open sourced solution for customers who paid GOOD money for Blizzard's products and DESERVE better than a laggy, slow, sucky network. Furthermore, how exactly do you shut down an open-sourced project, since it need not have any center of development? The best they could do is shut down the server bnet's using...but that doesn't stop the software from being developed. Sure, they can get an injunction against distributing the software, like in the BULLSHIT DeCSS case...but as DeCSS showed, an injunction against distributing something which is free to distribute DOES NOT WORK. DeCSS is more widely available now than it was before the court cases banning it.
However, this case DOES illustrate the dangers of the SSSCA as proposed by that fuck Hollings (who ever said the Democratic Party was the party "for the people". The SSSCA will like the DMCA be unconstitutional if passed; there's some hope it won't pass, because there are some very powerful interests that don't want it to pass (namely, IBM). However, pass or not, its just another example of how this is really a plutocracy not a democracy. Professors, librarians, programmers, scholars, college students -- all of these people's concerns and interests were steam-rolled over in the passing of the DMCA. Whether or not the SSSCA is passed, the people who MATTER won't have their voices heard.
On another note, inspired by Sen. Hollings, here's my list of the top 10 people who should've been in the WTC when it collapsed:
1. Bill Clinton -- ex. Pres., #1 on the list for signing the DMCA into law. What a fuck.
2. Hollings -- #2 on the list for supporting a piece of legislation even worse than the DMCA (the SSSCA). Another wanker.
3. This one's a tie: Gary Wenig (President of Global Crossings) and Lawrence Whaley (President of Enron). These fucks got rich by selling stocks off of inside information while stock-holders got screwed.
4. Hillary Rosen -- President of the RIAA and one greedy bitch. Need I say moret han RIAA to explain my reasons here?
5. Jack Valentini -- President of the MPAA, another greedy fuck. Likewise, need I say moret han MPAA?
6. Robert Holleyman -- President of the BSA, a real greedy fuck who also uses Gestapo tactics to force compliance. Need I say more?
7. Jerry Falwell -- he thinks the purple teletubby is gay, and he thinks that 9/11 is punishment delivered to our nation for being sinful. Apparently, he'd prefer we bring back the inquisition, start torturing homosexuals, burning women at the stack for witch-craft, and throwing stones at Prostitutes.
8. Pat Robertson -- founder of the Christian Coalition. Christian Coalition to women: we own your uterus. CC to hoomsexuals: your evil and should all be converted. CC to prostitutes: your evil and need forgiveness or your going to hell. CC on witches: we need to stop spending money teaching evolution and use it to hunt down the Blair Witch.
9. Ingrid Newkirk -- president of PETA. According to these PETA fucks, animals are more important than people. A bunch of farmers in Ohio should go broke just so they can protect some fucking sucker-fish. Not only that, but we're all murderers because we eat meat. If these fucks like animals so much, how about they live with them?
10. Gary Condit -- need I say more?
Any suggestions for additional entries?
Netscape failed b/c MS abuses its power
on
Andreesen "Grows Up"
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only reason why Netscape failed is b/c MS abused its monopoly power to crush it. Integrating IE into Windows when competitors can't do that for lack of knowledge about Windows gave MS an unfair advantage in the browser market, because their browsers inherently load faster than other equally-poorly coded browsers (actually, part of IE is ALWAYS loaded in Win9x, as that's what the file browser is).
And contrary to what this idiot in the Economist says, "growing up" for the internet does not mean conforming to the previous business regime and becoming nothing more than TV on speed, nothing more than a huge space for corporatization.
Contrarily, the internet is growing up as it realizes its full potential -- more and more user-interaction: more "grass roots" power. As time progresses, the ratio of non-corporate:corporate web-sites will become larger, as: (1) The number of people in this world is increasing faster than the number of corporations; (2) Many people have interest in creating sites or putting information online (not only via web-sites, but via P2P); (2) The bandwidth and computing power becoming available to consumers is increasing. P2P and file-sharing technologies represent a sign of maturity for the internet.
But really, using the word "maturity" in reference to the internet is nonsense. The internet is flexible, and new uses for it will be found continually. There is no "goal" for what the internet should become. It will simply evolve, step by step, web-site by website, idea by idea.
I feel very sorry for anyone who's mind is so small, who's imagination is so bleak, that (s)he can only think of the internet as ultimately useful as an avenue of corporatization and commercialization.
This thing looks neat, but it seems even less functional than fsv. A truly useful 3D browser will integrate the feature's that we're already familiar with in 2D browsers -- and which are useful in 2D browsers, into it.
Look, whenver virus' or spam get propogated, its bad. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that the law should restrain ISP's or individuals with routing services. Remember the lesson Lawrence Lessig taught us -- the intelligence in a network should be at its ends (e2e) not within it. Networks where intelligence is within the network are static and can't evolve or adapt to new changes. This doesn't mean that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to filter out SPAM, use blacklists, filter virus', etc (so long as they're not filtering out things just b/c they don't agree w/ them). Indeed, the internet would be even slower if ISP's let every spam request go through. But ISP's shouldn't be forced to abide by certain standards. After all, we, the END user, have the ability to filter out that crap, and not even download it based on the header.
As for virus' propogation, its not the fault of an ISP or a router. Virus' only propogate becase people are stupid enough that they don't use virus checkers and that they open up obviously questionable "executables" or otherwise dangerous files. As a simple rule, any thing you get which isn't from someone you know, or isn't something you requested, is probably a virus, spam, hate-mail, political hogwash, some stupid chain letter which you really don't find interesting, or a combination of the above.
Lets not blame ISP's and because the "ends" are ****ing dumb sometimes.
That's like blaming Ford because they didn't include precautions in their car to prevent someone from crashing into a wall.
Show me one logical reason why "cloning" is wrong?
The sanctity of life? That's just bullshit we made up.
Playing god? More bullshit we made up. There is no god.
Growing a person to harvest him for organs? Well, we do have abortions, and if there's nothing wrong with abortion, there can't be anything wrong with that. As long as it isn't conscious, there's no big deal.
Cloning Hitler, Jesus, Socrates, Imhotep, or other dead persons? Well, their dead and have no say in the matter anymore. As for the concern of cloning someone who "was" evil, its ludacrous to think that doing so will result in the same person. Hitler wasn't a product of his genes. If Hitler had been born today, he probably would have wound up in a mental institute; or perhaps been a great artists; or who knows. But he wouldn't have been the holocaust-creating Nazi that we associate with the name. As for those people who believe that cloning such a person would result in the same end result, that's nonsense: every person makes their own decisions and choices. Hitler chose to become who he was; it wasn't forced on him by some quasi-religious concept of predestinaton.
Lets get over the irrational fear of human cloning. Its only the product of religious bullshit. Proof of point, in China, where the people aren't brainwashed by religion, they find nothing wrong with it; same in Britain.
This just proves that piracy is GOOD for consumers.
Piracy is really just another form of competition -- whine about it being "unfair" or not. Piracy offers the base product at no price.
Thus, producers are forced to lower their prices in order to compete and offer other benefits or increase the value of other benefits already offered (such as making customer support better). Those producers that arrogantly think the approach to piracy si to raise the price of products eventually find out that such only pushes more people to piracy.
Simply put, US courts do not have jurisdiction over any thing outside of the US.
If Elcomsoft and all its assets are outside the US, a US court can rule anything it wants -- but the ruling won't get enforced.
They could rule that Elcomsoft be made to pay money, but that ruling is unenforcible unless Elcomsoft has assets in the US.
The US courts only have legitimate jurisdiction over things done in the US, where the perpretrator is in the US.
The US gov't trying to enforce its laws on a Russia-based company would be like China trying to prosecute me in America for "treason against the Chinese government (criticism)".
Its pretty clear to me that these guys filed a meritless lawsuit to cover up their pathetic earnings...look at the companies annual stock record over the last year -- it parallels the track-record of Enron and more so Global Crossing: steadily down hill, with no end in sight, except for the big ch11. Anyone who'd buy stock in this company is nuts.
Some asshole here said, "the first amendment doesn't apply in civil lawsuits"?? So, somehow you think the founding father's wanted rich corporations preventing people from speaking freely? Somehow, you think that just because its "only money" that's involved, that's less serious than being sent to jail on a criminal case? I'd rather go to jail for years than lose 400k.
Defamation/libel lawsuits are nothing but a crock. All of them. Someone says something about you that's not true, and somehow that entitles you to their hard earned money? Bullshit. If its not true, put out a factual statement, with facts, testifying to its falsity. If people believe the liar over you, well then that's not the liar's fault -- its the fault of people who believe in gossip. While we're on defamation/libel, why don't they just sue people who gossip, as well?
Lets face the facts -- libel/defamation suits are only used as weapons by the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. They NEVER help out the average person. Overall, more harm is done by them than good. They should be abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I meant "Inteliside" to be a shortened replacement for Intel Inside, not as "Intelicide".
Please, so if I make a symbol with an i and a circle around it for information, i should own that? Come on. Putting a circle around a letter or symbol is not clever. I can put a circle around any letter in the keyboard...doesn't mean I should be able to trademark it.
And the top then star inside phrases associated with Intel:
10. Assholes Inside.
09. Lawyers Inside.
08. Fuck-holes Inside.
07. Dorks Inside.
06. Pinheads Inside.
05. Greedy-fucking-bastards Inside.
04. Arrogant-pricks Inside.
03. Information-nazi's Inside.
02. Dumb-fucks Inside.
and the number one Star Inside phrase is...
01. Big-Brother Inside.
This is a bunch of bullshit. Intel, please don't blame others for your assinite attempts to own the English language. Its not the laws fault that you're assholes. Not only that, but who FORCED you to trademark a COMMON word like Inside? There are many common usages of the word inside which have another describing word preceeding it.
"We can't let a precedent be set," he explained. " 'Yoga Inside' might not sound bad, but what happens when someone comes along with 'Apple Inside'?"
If its in reference to an Apple being in an apple orchard, that's fucking fine.
Even if its Apple computer, who said you have the right to trademark common words? If Apple came up with an add that said something like:
"Apple Inside"
there's nothing wrong with that either. After all, that's what it is: Its an Apple. Since its also an Apple on the outside, they might say something like:
Apple Outside. Apple Inside.
This is just plain ludicrous. Other people shouldn't be prevented from using the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to their benefit because you assholes can't be original and trademark things that aren't already words.
By the way, you fucking assholes, there's something called the First Amendment. It has constitutional basis, so it trumps any "trademark" laws.
This is no different than IBM trying to trademark the "e" symbol with a circle around it. Come on. That's fucking bullshit.
Suggesting to Intel, IBM, and other lamers who are trying to own the English Language by trademarks: if your going to make a trademark, make up a word/symbol for it. Suggestion to Intel for a REAL trademark:
"Intelliside"
Oh wait, because of assholes like you Intel fucks, MS might sue you for trademark violations of its "IntelliPoint" mouse.
Other assholes include Nike, both for trademarking the word "Nike" and for trademarking the Nike symbol. Nike is the greek god of victory, closely associated with Athena/Minerva. And her symbol was the same symbol that the Nike shoe uses. Sounds like fucking prior art to me. Not to mention, it should be public domain.
This is just proof that the settlement isn't enough. MS should not be allowed to use predjudicial behavior in any manner. MS is a PUBLIC company. So, yes, they have the obligation to obey PUBLIC rules. It would be different if MS was a private company owned by one person; but its not.
You can't refuse to sell black people food at publicly owned restaurants.
Why should MS be allowed to PENALIZE companies for selling other OS'? Or for not selling ridiculously high quantities of MS products.
This is just a method by which MS can unfairly maintain its monopoly, put itself ABOVE capitalistic competition.
I don't see why people defend MS so much. Whatever you think of their products, whatever you think of whether or not they got to their present position by merit or fraud...they're still a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently not good. They are everything capitalism opposes.
Even if MS were to play perfectly fair -- no crooked deals, no blackballing, no spurious lawsuit threats -- it still wouldn't be good enough. They would still hinder competition and deny consumers choice, if only by default.. Because they're so large, its impossible competing against them effectively; they can outspend you a million to one. Because they own so much of the desktop industry, few hardware or software developers offer software/driver versions for non-MS products.
Let me put it to you this way. Lets just assume Gates was a saint, freakin' mother teresa, a Stallman on wheels. That still doesn't mean we should tolerate his current power. No matter how good the man, you wouldn't want to have a person be dictator of the United States, would you?
Its the same thing with MS.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Four more people to add to my list of people who'd make the world a better place if they were dead:
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
John Breaux (D-Louisana)
Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
What a crock. Every computer-related device having to have copy protection? Can you imagine how much that would slow down even the simplest programs like Vi? Not only would it dramatically hinder performance, it would violate OUR rights. The congress/senate doesn't have the right to deny MY fair use rights, or force THEIR fucked-up ideas about computers on me.
These people know nothing about computers. They shouldn't be making any decisions about them.
Not only that, but no one has the right to regulate Free Source Software (FSS) or Open Source Software (OSS). Projects like these done for no price, as a service to the public, should not be crippled and hindered because some assholes in hollywood are worried about their shitty movies being distributed on the net.
The last thing most of us want is to spend 24 hours downloading a copy of the latest crappy holywood movie, like Deep Blue Sea.
While the government's trying to fight "terrorism" how about dealing with these wackjobs. Anyone who claims to be an "upper level" scientologist should be detained in holding cells as being a terrorist.
Look, I've went to these sites that offer "scientology" documents. Quit frankly, they're not worth the read, though they do inform you of how much BS these wack-jobs are full of and how corrupt the clan/business of scientology is. I started to read some of this crap by Hubbard or whatever. It's even worse than the bullshit in the Bible.
But, if you want to distribute this crap, do it on P2P networks. There's no way to stop P2P distribution of information.
The more I read about these scientology nutjobs, the more they remind me of the KKK and Hitler's Nazi "Supermen".
I am an atheist. I don't believe in any of that religious bullshit. Anyone who has any common sense doesn't.
I've always been weery of Christians forcing their narrow-minded self-depricating views on others. It seems that these nut-case scientologists are even worse.
These people are wack-jobs. Frauds. Crooks. They need to be exposed for what they are and put in jail. The Church of Scientology is no better than the organized mob.
That these wack-jobs use the word "science" to describe their non-sense is even worse. Scientists should sue them for libel and defamation.
New entry to my list of people who would be better off dead:
-Scientologists
(my comment here addresses most responses to my initial comment)
Yes, but from OUR standpoint, it was. Why should the standpoint of ONE company be more important than that of MILLIONS of people? When you or I downloaded the GPL'ed code, WE were of the understanding that we would be FREE to redistribute it and modify it was we pleased. We put significant stock in that assumption: time learning to use the program, and possibly time modifying it. From our side of the agreement, everything was legit, so why should we be punished by not being allowed to distribute/modify?
If a court invalidates the license from OUR side, invalidating OUR rights, then we've been wronged and shafted. We put effort into learning how to use the program well because we knew it could be redistributed, and we developed or helped develop the program because of that. The releaser might not have had legal standing to release the code, but we, having sacraficed what we have to uphold our half, SHOULD have legal standing to redistribute/modify under the GPL.
In other words, the public which downloaded GPL believed there was a contract in effect guarenteeing them certain rights; to nullify that is to violate the PUBLIC's rights. We have a right to have the contracts we enter into be respected, irrelevant of the other side. So what, this guy didn't technically have the "right" to release it? We didn't know that. And we sacraficed to use that code, so we should be able to continue operating under our terms of the contract.
Finally, I think that all work for hire nonsense should be illegalized by the Federal Government. It should be just as illegal as buying slaves, or as a company putting a clause in their contract saying they have the right to "kill" an employee if (s)he shows up for work late. If someone develops code, it should be THEIR code, unless a specific contract was in effect saying, "I'll develop a for you and give you the IP rights". This means that if I don't have such a contract with my employee, and I develop something on his/her computer, its MINE. Companies should, however, be allowed to make policies which stipulate that the IP rights to any program developed on their resources or their time must be transferred to them, or the employee can be fired (i.e., a legitimate grounds for termination is failure to transfer IP rights to software developed on company time/resources for company-related software).
Corporate-o-philes will bitch about this. But the fact is, corporations don't have the right to do whatever they will (though I stated in an earlier post, "companies have rights too", that no one's entitled to screw off on company computers). The gov't has the rights to regulate acceptable employment terms. Though I generally support minimal intervention, there's already too much IP exploitation and hogwash which needs to be eliminated.
dh003i checking in:
Release the code anonymously, if your worried about nazi employers. Release it stating that the author's anonymous, and providing some way by which the author can identify he in fact is the true author later on. When you feel the cost is clear, claim you wrote it.
For this particular prommer, I suggest he start doing that. Release the code anonymously.
As for the code already released under the GPL, that's GPL'ed permanently for everyone (though for the company, its effectively under public-domain). The company can't stop it from being distributed, and can't stop others from redistributing. When WE download a GPL'ed code, there's an implicit understanding on OUR part that we have the freedom to redistribute according to the terms of the license; irrelevant of anything else, we have the right to demand our side of the legal bargain.
Even if the company can somehow get a ruling prohibiting others from distributing it under GPL, that won't stop them from doing it. One, such a order would have to be federal. A court in one state can't have jurisdiction over the other states. Only a Federal Court can. Two, such an order would be unenforcible. Proof? Despite us constantly complaining about the nazis who decided the DeCSS case, DeCSS' distribution hasn't been halted since the judge ordered its distribution stopped. In fact, its increased.
Now, here's something this guy can do. Claim he isn't the author of the programs. He didn't write the programs. How can the company prove that he did? If he wrote these things out of work, there's no way the company can prove he's the author. He simply wipes the files, and there's no proof.
(1) This plan violates the e2e principle, which has made the internet what it is: that intelligence should be at the ends of a network, not within it. Of course, many things the proprietary pigs are doing also violates e2e, and we should fight that to. At the very most, any "prioritizing" of packets should be done to ensure the overall net efficiency of the net, not to benefit any one group/individual/gov't which thinks they "deserve" more than everyone else despite the fact that they don't have any more right to bandwidth than anyone else. In a paradigm consisent with e2e, any "prioritizing" would only be to optimize the overall performance of the network. A simple shopping analogy here: its better overall (in that as few people as possible are held up) if the 10 people with 1 item go through the line before the one person with 10 items.
(2) Things like this, where the government might want to force me to give THEM priority, violate MY RIGHTS. If I own a server, its MY server/router, MY uploading bandwidth, and MY computer resources, not the government's. The government doesn't have the right to force me to give them priority to use MY resources. (on the other hand, a "resource-sharing" plan as proposed by Lessig, where other people use "my" resources when I'm not using them, is fine).
(3) I noticed some imbecile said, "If you don't set your servers/routers to prioritize for the government in emergency situations, and someone dies because of it, you can be sued for not helping them." This is bullshit. Good-summaritan laws don't exist, and would be unconstitutional if they did. I have no obligation to help anyone with MY resources. If there's a blizzard outside, and some straggler comes into my property, I have no obligation to take him into my home, and am well within my rights to kick him off my property. And if I do let him in my home, I can certainly kick him out if I please.
(1) ISP's, nor the government, should not be in the business of banning certain websites, or blocking access to them. There's no difference between that and banning, or burning, books. Fucking nazis.
(2) In regards to "simulated child pornography", if its simulated, who does it harm? In such a case -- i.e., an 18+ woman who looks younger, or a computer-generated image -- no one's privacy is voilated, nor was anyone's rights violated in producing the image. Banning that is just christian bullshit where they want to control your mind. It's a victimless crime in that case.
(3) In regards to real pornography, which was actually derived from children, there are three classes: (a) Forced; (b) Exploitative; (c) Self-done. Here's my take on each of them:
a. Forced. If a child is forced (raped) into sexual poses/positions/whatever, and the image of that taken is distributed on the web, there's no reason the government shouldn't be able to take down that image from the website, in protection of the child. Every minute the image is up there is a VIOLATION of the child's rights to privacy, self-dignity, and her body.
b. Exploitative. When the child is not "forced" per se, but nevertheless is taken advantage of by an adult. The act itself should be illegal in most cases; I don't think we should be ardent about "exact" age limits. The legal age for consentual sex with older people is 18 most places; if a guy has sex with a girl a month away from being 18, so what? Of course, we need to have precise laws, so people know exactly what they can and cannot do. I suggest keeping the legal age at 18, but varying the punishment for statutory rape depending on the age-difference of the "victim" and of the adult. There's a big difference when a 60-year old man sleeps with a 16-year old girl, as opposed to a 19-year old man doing the same.
c. Self-done. When an underage person engages in sexual poses/sex, and photographs themselves; then they either post it online immediately, or wait until they're older (18) and publish it then. There's nothing wrong with this, though current laws prohibit it. If someone took pictures of themselves having sex at 16 and wants to post it on the web later on, that's their right: it is their body.
Even in case (a), where I feel the government does have the obligation to -- in protection of minor's rights -- stop the distribution of child-pornography, that doesn't justify any means. The government is free to do so via any means that are non-draconian. They are not permitted to, for example, take down an entire P2P network to stop some porn, nor to spy on what all of us put on the web.
I really think that child-molestation laws are unneeded. They are redundant with rape laws. The standard in rape law is, "could/did the person give informed consent". Obviously, a 6-year old child can't give informed consent, as that person doesn't even know what sex is. Obviously, a woman who says "no" can't give informed consent. Obviously, a woman passed out drunk can't give any kind of consent.
But there are some sticky situations where its a little vague. What about when the person is 16-18? When can they give informed consent? Obviously, some people make better sexual decisions at 16 than others do at 30. Well, maybe you can have a "sex license" sort of like a drivers license, which verifies that you know about basic sexual issues. Sounds kinda stupid, huh, a "license to have sex"? But its alot better than setting unmeaningful absolute standards which don't apply uniformly.
What about a case where a woman is drunk and is the sexual aggressor? Should the man be charged with rape if he has sex with her? I don't think so. Another consideration is, "who was the initiator"? Was it the man, the woman, or both? I think that if there is an "initiator" and the other person accepts the advances, it should never be considered rape (unless the other person was purposefully stoned to make them "easy"), except in cases where the person doesn't have their "sex license".
But even that has problems. For example, do we really want to say that a person mentally retarded can't have sex, except with other mentally retarded people?
It is clear to me that this society has not thought enough about sex; all of our answers the a complicated issue are black/white, clearly goaded on by Christian humbug.
Actually, if you had READ what I said, I also mentioned that while actions performed on the leisure system would not be monitored/logged, the TIME spent on the leisure system WOULD, as well as the time spend on the work system. Thus, employers know how much time their employees are spending on their work system v. their leisure system.
Employees would be advised not to do any of their work on their leisure system/accounts, as this would count as "break time".
This would also help to create professionalism, by creating a clear separation between work and personal life.
Look, the company you work at owns the hardware/computers there -- not you. You don't have the right to use their resources as you please.
While I think they shouldn't have the right to snoop on your private documents or e-mails just because you're in their building, that doesn't mean they can't restrict certain types of uses.
A wise company has a distributed system, whereby users login with different usernames/passwords for "leisure activity" and for "work activity". The company should separate the "leisure" and "work" logins and files separately, on separate hard-drives.
A good idea is to give unrestricted access on the "leisure" system, but allocate less resources to them. There's no reason why they need to be operating at 2GHz with 1GB RAM for leisure. Btw, sorry, the workplace is not for playing Quake or Descent 3.
Furthermore, privacy policies should be different on the leisure and work accounts/systems. There should be no privacy on your "work" account, but only on your "leisure" account. The company should also assign different e-mails for "leisure" and "work" accounts for each person; if you want privacy, you'll only use your "business" e-mail for work.
Though an individual's activities would not be monitored on the "leisure" system, the time spent on the "leisure" and "work" accounts would be monitored and compared; obviously, companies don't want to keep someone on the paycheck who spends 4 out of 8 hours a day on leisure.
The key thing here is for employees to realize that they don't have the RIGHT to use their company's resources for their own personal matters.
It, however, is also not acceptable for companies to go back on previously agreed-upon privacy rules in regards to their employees. Companies also shouldn't go on a power trip, as that is likely to alienate employees.
Interesting point, and its really commendable that being Jewish, you still think that the racist Free Occident group should be able to have access to SourceForge like everyone else. Most people support freedom of speech, privacy, whatever until it becomes inconvenient to them; i.e., alot of Pro Choice people don't believe in freedom of speech for sites like The Nuremburg Files (this is not a reference to the Nazi war-crimes; the Pro-Life activists have tried to parallel the "murder" of "unborn babies" to the holocaust, hence the name of a major Pro-Life site as Nuermburg Files).
I agree with you that Google serving up ads for white-supremecists is iffy. But who decides what's iffy? What if its an ad for NARAL.org, or for the NRLC.org (National Right to Life Coalition)? Undoubtedly, each of those links would offend half of America (as last time I checked, the nation's split about 50-50 on the abortion issue). Of course, there's a difference between that case and the case of white-supremecists, in that 90+% of America finds hate-groups immoral. But the point is the same.
Besides, despite the offensive racist nature of such articles, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be exposed to them. You don't make a problem go away by ignoring it, refusing to see it, or not having the best search engine of the world not display ads for it. Doing any of the aforementioned remove the symptom, not the disease.
Furthermore, I think its important that we be exposed to alternate viewpoints. If for nothing else, simply to understand our opposition. You don't really understand your own beliefs until you understand the beliefs of someone who believes in exactly the opposite of what you believe in. Furthermore, perhaps being exposed to their viewpoints would help us to understand why they hate Jewish peoples.
The typical reasons are, "well, all Jews are crooks"; in fact, that's typically an attitude which defines an anti-semite. But the question is, why do they think that? And can you change their minds. People's opinions are not carved in stone; they can change; sometimes for the better (i.e., a Supreme Court Justice who once ruled against allowing homosexual marriages now said he deeply regrets that); sometimes for the worse (i.e., Roe [of Roe v. Wade] is no Pro-Life). There's no reason to think that the mind of a racist can't change. You can change people's mind's by showing them the errors of their beliefs; i.e., showing them that not all Jewish people are crooks (by pointing to, for example, Henry Kissenger).
Another way to try to change these people's minds is to address the common thought among anti-semites that there's a "conspiracy among Jews to...etc etc". The best way to do this would be for Jewish people who aren't crooks, such as yourself, to be the harshest critics and biggest enemies of those who are crooks, such as Gary Wenig and Lawrence Whalley (the Presidents of Global Crossings and Enron, respectively). One way to do this would be by opposing the election of such people as "honorary members" of Jewish philanthropy societies. I'm not an anti-semite, but when I hear about BS like Wenig being elected as an honorary member of a Jewish philanthropy society, and then read on wsj.com (in the same article), about how his rabi was praising him, it pisses me off. That's the kind of stuff which turns people who aren't racists into racists, entrenches racists further, and gives racists power.
So, in conclusion, my point is we shouldn't try to hide or cover up remarks/websites we don't agree with. That doesn't serve any purpose, and in fact is dangerous.
All I'm saying is that it'd have been better for the world if these 10 people were in the WTC, instead of 10 good, normal citizens.
If you could've had the 10 people on that list in the WTC, as opposed to 10 ordinary upstanding citizens, wouldn't you?
Blizzard's case is weak and has no merits. They're trying to claim that the DMCA requires that developers, hardware manufacturers, etc., be forced to include recognition for anti-circumvention/copy-protection in their products, which it clearly DOES NOT. In fact, the DMCA explicitly states that no one has to recognize anyone elses copy-protection or anti-circumvention devices.
So its clear that this case is a flop for Blizzard. Aside from it being a flop, there's nothing wrong w/ bnet. They're creating a superior open sourced solution for customers who paid GOOD money for Blizzard's products and DESERVE better than a laggy, slow, sucky network. Furthermore, how exactly do you shut down an open-sourced project, since it need not have any center of development? The best they could do is shut down the server bnet's using...but that doesn't stop the software from being developed. Sure, they can get an injunction against distributing the software, like in the BULLSHIT DeCSS case...but as DeCSS showed, an injunction against distributing something which is free to distribute DOES NOT WORK. DeCSS is more widely available now than it was before the court cases banning it.
However, this case DOES illustrate the dangers of the SSSCA as proposed by that fuck Hollings (who ever said the Democratic Party was the party "for the people". The SSSCA will like the DMCA be unconstitutional if passed; there's some hope it won't pass, because there are some very powerful interests that don't want it to pass (namely, IBM). However, pass or not, its just another example of how this is really a plutocracy not a democracy. Professors, librarians, programmers, scholars, college students -- all of these people's concerns and interests were steam-rolled over in the passing of the DMCA. Whether or not the SSSCA is passed, the people who MATTER won't have their voices heard.
On another note, inspired by Sen. Hollings, here's my list of the top 10 people who should've been in the WTC when it collapsed:
1. Bill Clinton -- ex. Pres., #1 on the list for signing the DMCA into law. What a fuck.
2. Hollings -- #2 on the list for supporting a piece of legislation even worse than the DMCA (the SSSCA). Another wanker.
3. This one's a tie: Gary Wenig (President of Global Crossings) and Lawrence Whaley (President of Enron). These fucks got rich by selling stocks off of inside information while stock-holders got screwed.
4. Hillary Rosen -- President of the RIAA and one greedy bitch. Need I say moret han RIAA to explain my reasons here?
5. Jack Valentini -- President of the MPAA, another greedy fuck. Likewise, need I say moret han MPAA?
6. Robert Holleyman -- President of the BSA, a real greedy fuck who also uses Gestapo tactics to force compliance. Need I say more?
7. Jerry Falwell -- he thinks the purple teletubby is gay, and he thinks that 9/11 is punishment delivered to our nation for being sinful. Apparently, he'd prefer we bring back the inquisition, start torturing homosexuals, burning women at the stack for witch-craft, and throwing stones at Prostitutes.
8. Pat Robertson -- founder of the Christian Coalition. Christian Coalition to women: we own your uterus. CC to hoomsexuals: your evil and should all be converted. CC to prostitutes: your evil and need forgiveness or your going to hell. CC on witches: we need to stop spending money teaching evolution and use it to hunt down the Blair Witch.
9. Ingrid Newkirk -- president of PETA. According to these PETA fucks, animals are more important than people. A bunch of farmers in Ohio should go broke just so they can protect some fucking sucker-fish. Not only that, but we're all murderers because we eat meat. If these fucks like animals so much, how about they live with them?
10. Gary Condit -- need I say more?
Any suggestions for additional entries?
The only reason why Netscape failed is b/c MS abused its monopoly power to crush it. Integrating IE into Windows when competitors can't do that for lack of knowledge about Windows gave MS an unfair advantage in the browser market, because their browsers inherently load faster than other equally-poorly coded browsers (actually, part of IE is ALWAYS loaded in Win9x, as that's what the file browser is).
And contrary to what this idiot in the Economist says, "growing up" for the internet does not mean conforming to the previous business regime and becoming nothing more than TV on speed, nothing more than a huge space for corporatization.
Contrarily, the internet is growing up as it realizes its full potential -- more and more user-interaction: more "grass roots" power. As time progresses, the ratio of non-corporate:corporate web-sites will become larger, as: (1) The number of people in this world is increasing faster than the number of corporations; (2) Many people have interest in creating sites or putting information online (not only via web-sites, but via P2P); (2) The bandwidth and computing power becoming available to consumers is increasing. P2P and file-sharing technologies represent a sign of maturity for the internet.
But really, using the word "maturity" in reference to the internet is nonsense. The internet is flexible, and new uses for it will be found continually. There is no "goal" for what the internet should become. It will simply evolve, step by step, web-site by website, idea by idea.
I feel very sorry for anyone who's mind is so small, who's imagination is so bleak, that (s)he can only think of the internet as ultimately useful as an avenue of corporatization and commercialization.
This thing looks neat, but it seems even less functional than fsv. A truly useful 3D browser will integrate the feature's that we're already familiar with in 2D browsers -- and which are useful in 2D browsers, into it.
Look, whenver virus' or spam get propogated, its bad. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that the law should restrain ISP's or individuals with routing services. Remember the lesson Lawrence Lessig taught us -- the intelligence in a network should be at its ends (e2e) not within it. Networks where intelligence is within the network are static and can't evolve or adapt to new changes. This doesn't mean that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to filter out SPAM, use blacklists, filter virus', etc (so long as they're not filtering out things just b/c they don't agree w/ them). Indeed, the internet would be even slower if ISP's let every spam request go through. But ISP's shouldn't be forced to abide by certain standards. After all, we, the END user, have the ability to filter out that crap, and not even download it based on the header.
As for virus' propogation, its not the fault of an ISP or a router. Virus' only propogate becase people are stupid enough that they don't use virus checkers and that they open up obviously questionable "executables" or otherwise dangerous files. As a simple rule, any thing you get which isn't from someone you know, or isn't something you requested, is probably a virus, spam, hate-mail, political hogwash, some stupid chain letter which you really don't find interesting, or a combination of the above.
Lets not blame ISP's and because the "ends" are ****ing dumb sometimes.
That's like blaming Ford because they didn't include precautions in their car to prevent someone from crashing into a wall.
Cloning? Wrong? Immoral? Unethical? Nonsense.
Show me one logical reason why "cloning" is wrong?
The sanctity of life? That's just bullshit we made up.
Playing god? More bullshit we made up. There is no god.
Growing a person to harvest him for organs? Well, we do have abortions, and if there's nothing wrong with abortion, there can't be anything wrong with that. As long as it isn't conscious, there's no big deal.
Cloning Hitler, Jesus, Socrates, Imhotep, or other dead persons? Well, their dead and have no say in the matter anymore. As for the concern of cloning someone who "was" evil, its ludacrous to think that doing so will result in the same person. Hitler wasn't a product of his genes. If Hitler had been born today, he probably would have wound up in a mental institute; or perhaps been a great artists; or who knows. But he wouldn't have been the holocaust-creating Nazi that we associate with the name. As for those people who believe that cloning such a person would result in the same end result, that's nonsense: every person makes their own decisions and choices. Hitler chose to become who he was; it wasn't forced on him by some quasi-religious concept of predestinaton.
Lets get over the irrational fear of human cloning. Its only the product of religious bullshit. Proof of point, in China, where the people aren't brainwashed by religion, they find nothing wrong with it; same in Britain.
This just proves that piracy is GOOD for consumers.
Piracy is really just another form of competition -- whine about it being "unfair" or not. Piracy offers the base product at no price.
Thus, producers are forced to lower their prices in order to compete and offer other benefits or increase the value of other benefits already offered (such as making customer support better). Those producers that arrogantly think the approach to piracy si to raise the price of products eventually find out that such only pushes more people to piracy.
Simply put, US courts do not have jurisdiction over any thing outside of the US.
If Elcomsoft and all its assets are outside the US, a US court can rule anything it wants -- but the ruling won't get enforced.
They could rule that Elcomsoft be made to pay money, but that ruling is unenforcible unless Elcomsoft has assets in the US.
The US courts only have legitimate jurisdiction over things done in the US, where the perpretrator is in the US.
The US gov't trying to enforce its laws on a Russia-based company would be like China trying to prosecute me in America for "treason against the Chinese government (criticism)".
Its pretty clear to me that these guys filed a meritless lawsuit to cover up their pathetic earnings...look at the companies annual stock record over the last year -- it parallels the track-record of Enron and more so Global Crossing: steadily down hill, with no end in sight, except for the big ch11. Anyone who'd buy stock in this company is nuts.
Some asshole here said, "the first amendment doesn't apply in civil lawsuits"?? So, somehow you think the founding father's wanted rich corporations preventing people from speaking freely? Somehow, you think that just because its "only money" that's involved, that's less serious than being sent to jail on a criminal case? I'd rather go to jail for years than lose 400k.
Defamation/libel lawsuits are nothing but a crock. All of them. Someone says something about you that's not true, and somehow that entitles you to their hard earned money? Bullshit. If its not true, put out a factual statement, with facts, testifying to its falsity. If people believe the liar over you, well then that's not the liar's fault -- its the fault of people who believe in gossip. While we're on defamation/libel, why don't they just sue people who gossip, as well?
Lets face the facts -- libel/defamation suits are only used as weapons by the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. They NEVER help out the average person. Overall, more harm is done by them than good. They should be abolished.