Great for the Napster community? You haven't read HavenCo's AUP, have you? They wil not put anything up that is illegal by the laws of the country where the server (and service0 originates from. If Napster is illegal in Canada, then it would be illegal for a Canadian owned server to host it (Napster).
RTFM
However it is good for a lot of things, for example a server where open source people could log in and work on beating things like DeCSS and incorporating them in products and posting the result.
There are NO laws about reverse engineering in Sealand.
>What if you are forwarding spam to an abuse e-mail address? Could the spammer sic the legal attack dogs on you?
No, the spammer is participating in an illegal act. Pasing on (Forwarding) evidence of this would be closer to mandatory than forbidden.
>Or what if you got one of those "i love you" e-mails with a worm in it, and it forwarded e-mails without your knowledge?
I doubt the courts would take it seriously, but it might be better if they did. They would probably ban the idiot from using the Internet for three months (just as you can lose your driver's licence for doing something stupid on the road).
>Could the virus creator sue everyone who got the worm and unwittingly passed it to other people?!?? More braindead "ideas" from politicians.
No. Just like the spamer, the virus creator is breaking the law ("illegal intrusion").
Thank you, finally someone with more than half a brain...
What is 'law' and what is 'enforced' are two entirely different things.
For what it is worth the budget granted to the Australian Federal Police to manage this (and spam) was a total of $A200,000. How far do you think this is going to stretch?
IANAL Two other things. (1) Selective law enforcement is illegal here. They can't "pick and choose" their cases. (2) A law that is unenforced in greater than X% of cases (I think X = 50) or when greater than X% of the population disobey it, becomes legally unenforceable and invalid.
>Does the Australian government know they're quickly making their country into a laughingstock?
Do you know your ignorance of your own laws is turning you into a laughingstock?
>Given how future prosperity will depend on technology to an increasing extent, why are they trying to ensure the emigration of all their geeks?
Given that much of the worlds leading technology is first developed in Australia, (CSIROnet had 80,000+ networked computers when Darpanet had about 4,000 for just one example out of thousands). Our geeks are an export item. They always have been. Among the best in the world too. They usually return home to breed.
>Can any Australians here offer insight on the political climate that has created this shortsightedness? Why are they doing this?
It is easy. They (the politicians) want to look like they are doing someting. Since they don't know what they are doing they (deliberately in some cases) pass ineffective and unenforceable laws. This gives them public credability so than they can be re-elected without really changing things much. Remember all that fuss about censorship being introduced over a year ago? Want to check what the result has been (virtually zero)?
>Email is routinely forged these days, mostly in the form of SPAM. So now you can pin this crime on anyone at all. 5 years in jail, $60,000 fine. I suggest an air strike against Australia is in order, I think we can reach them some B2s and land in Guam...
The USA produces 50% of the world's pollution. They won't accept this or change their ways. They are contributing to the inevitable death of millions (if not billions) of non-Americans. I think nuclear wipeout of the USA is in order. I think we can distribute them in any variety of ways...
We probably have the biggest proportion of unenforced laws in the world. Many of our laws ar "vague". Many are "poorly expressed". Many are obsolete (I think I'm still supposed to have a man with a red flag run in front of my car to make sure that people with horses know I am coming).
You think this is bad? You're wrong. It leaves a lot of room for a judge to be "fair", and if he isn't then there is always a way to appeal. I'd reckon that there is more "justice" done than you would believe.
Not that there are not incredible injustices sometimes, but you get those everywhere. At least our legal system doesn't execute people.
>You should actually email a couple members of the Australian gov't about your decision and the reasoning. If the Australia gov't finds out that they are not able to attract tech talent because they have some of the stupidest laws in world, they may reconsider. Money talks.
We "copy" you and we have the "stupidest" laws? Sheesh. Thanks, but we already have enough people here who can't think.
>They already forced their citizens to turn in all their guns, then they authorized the Australian military to be able to shoot citizens. Is it really that surprising that this was far behind?
I am not aware of any time when the Australian Military have shot Aussie citizens in Australia. I am aware of when the American Military have shot (and killed) American student demonstraters on American soil.
If you are going to open your mouth, then get your facts right rather than slag off at a country you know nothing about and don't understand, particularly accusing it of your own sins.
>Australia starts acting like China and reading their citizen's emails, checking for 'inappropriate material'?
Illegal to do in Australia without a warrant. However, Echelon avoids that problem for them, doesn't it? So the USA is already acting "like China" over most of the western world.
>Australia starts packet sniffing?
They don't need to. See Echelon...
>Australia requires all traffic to go through a central server farm, so they can control everything going in and coming out?
They don't need too. We have stuff-all points of access into the country (by land/sea line). They just get the ISPs to do it.
>Australia filters web sites?
Do the letters RBL mean anything to you? Wasn't an Aussie invention (at least I don't think so).
So, all the things you complain about are already in the USA. When you leaving? And where for? Mars?
I'd like to point out that Australia had 80,000+ networked computers when Arpanet only had about 4000. Why don't you ask someone where most of the Decnet work was carried out?
I can't help it if you come from a technologicaly backwards country...
Actually, the Australian Government merely explicitly stated what was already law. International Law at that. So it already applies to you (drsoran) already. But you didn't know about it.
In Australia, it is not necessary to include a copyright notice in many things. Copyright is assumed (presumed?) unless otherwise stated. Copyright notices are only required if there is ambiguity about who has the copyright.
I won a legal case where I was not paid for completed work, where I had included a copyright TO THE COMPANY (not me) on the basis that since thay had not paid my fees, the copyright was in question and I was requesting a that they cease and desist form marketing it and that their customers cease and desist from using it until the copyright issue was resolved. Fastest I ever got paid... CEO met me at my bank with a cash cheque and got *immediate* clearance on the cheque.
>What I don't understand is how a judge with such a marked loathing for the defendant can at all be considered "impartial" and how the resulting trial can at all be considered "fair."
If a judge was shown during a trial evidence of some vile act (paedophilic rape for example) is it unreasonable to develop a "marked" loathing for a guilty defendant?
What is important is no bias before the facts are determined, and the judge starts "reading up" well before the trial and is the presented with further evidence and argument during the trial. Overall, it is not unreasonable for a judge to develop a loathing for something or someone. If that loathing results in injustice in sentencing, well that is why there are appeals courts. That's what is going on right now. Microsoft could have accepted the judges decision without appeal.
From my observation, there has was no unfairness in the findings of fact or the sentence. If fact after having read his findings of fact and the decision, I am inclined to think he has been lenient.
The law is the law unless you can buy a better appeal.
>Splitting the company will not help maily for one reason
> One company will still own windows
> Then we will still have the problem of one OS ruling the market
If you consider that it is the application that counts to the user, then it will make a difference. The full API must be extensively documentated by MS::OS otherwise MS::APP cannot use it. This means that the calls that MS::APP can make are limited and documented. Thus people like WINE can make the MS::APP run on another OS much more readily. With the same apps available, an admin can provide the same services with another OS. Given that, you would start to see *N[IU]X systems being run out of economy, spite, preference, desire for stability, speed, ease of stopping the user stuffing up the box, whatever other motive you can think of.
Additionally, MS::APP would never have a headstart on development when MS::OS made a change.
I've still got a copy of DR-DOS on the shelf and the Windows I bought to run on it. I gave up on DR-DOS purely because it (Windows) crashed more often on DR-DOS than MS-DOS. Ten years later, I find out that the version of Windows released to the Asian market (which includes Australia) did this (crashed) deliberately. so that people would give up on DR-DOS as I did.
I bought my first 8086 PC in 1984 and by 1986 it was clear what Microsoft were up to. I don't think you will find many techies that like MS unless they know nothing else or their most valuable skills are in the MS direction.
Break MS up, sure. Do that, and give 20% to the shareholders of D.R. when it was smashed by illegal and unfair competition. Give 10% to the Netscape people who got trampled on. Another 20% reserve against taxes, thus 'returning' some of the money back to the public purse. MS shareholders would still be way in front of where they should be.
The most clear cases of abuse are the early ones.
Ah, I suppose it is just as well I am a techie not a judge...
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could not be prejudiced against MS.
My solution is to dump spam directly into ricochet. It has actually increased the amount of spam I get, but once or twice a week, I'll get a 'thank you, user now cancelled' message from admins. Dunno if it is worthwhile though. It would be more effective if more people did it.
I feel sorry for you. You don't care what kind of breakfast cereal you eat? What do you do when you go to a restaurant, just buy whatever's cheapest?
No, I buy organic rolled oats, because I like 'em and *think* it is a good idea. But I don't have time to *know*.
Most of the several restaurants that I patronise no longer even bring me a menu. I tell them what I want. If they can't do it, then I will find someplace else. And you know something? Instead of being treated as a "difficult customer", I usually get treated like royalty. There is often a side dish or two that I didn't order that the chef thinks I might like to try (and don't get charged for), or a complimentary glass of wine "that will go particularly well with your meal". Unless the place is particularly busy, NEVER order from the menu (a list of someone else's choices).
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM
However it is good for a lot of things, for example a server where open source people could log in and work on beating things like DeCSS and incorporating them in products and posting the result.
There are NO laws about reverse engineering in Sealand.
No, the spammer is participating in an illegal act. Pasing on (Forwarding) evidence of this would be closer to mandatory than forbidden.
>Or what if you got one of those "i love you" e-mails with a worm in it, and it forwarded e-mails without your knowledge?
I doubt the courts would take it seriously, but it might be better if they did. They would probably ban the idiot from using the Internet for three months (just as you can lose your driver's licence for doing something stupid on the road).
>Could the virus creator sue everyone who got the worm and unwittingly passed it to other people?!?? More braindead "ideas" from politicians.
No. Just like the spamer, the virus creator is breaking the law ("illegal intrusion").
You lose. I more or less gave up beer when Foster's became harder to get.
Enjoy your comercial...
You cannot claim copyright on evidence of a crime.
What is 'law' and what is 'enforced' are two entirely different things.
For what it is worth the budget granted to the Australian Federal Police to manage this (and spam) was a total of $A200,000. How far do you think this is going to stretch?
IANAL Two other things. (1) Selective law enforcement is illegal here. They can't "pick and choose" their cases. (2) A law that is unenforced in greater than X% of cases (I think X = 50) or when greater than X% of the population disobey it, becomes legally unenforceable and invalid.
Do you know your ignorance of your own laws is turning you into a laughingstock?
>Given how future prosperity will depend on technology to an increasing extent, why are they trying to ensure the emigration of all their geeks?
Given that much of the worlds leading technology is first developed in Australia, (CSIROnet had 80,000+ networked computers when Darpanet had about 4,000 for just one example out of thousands). Our geeks are an export item. They always have been. Among the best in the world too. They usually return home to breed.
>Can any Australians here offer insight on the political climate that has created this shortsightedness? Why are they doing this?
It is easy. They (the politicians) want to look like they are doing someting. Since they don't know what they are doing they (deliberately in some cases) pass ineffective and unenforceable laws. This gives them public credability so than they can be re-elected without really changing things much. Remember all that fuss about censorship being introduced over a year ago? Want to check what the result has been (virtually zero)?
The USA produces 50% of the world's pollution. They won't accept this or change their ways. They are contributing to the inevitable death of millions (if not billions) of non-Americans. I think nuclear wipeout of the USA is in order. I think we can distribute them in any variety of ways...
We have a population of 20 million. The sustainable carrying capacity of the country is six million and diminishing.
We have damn good reasons for not accepting any one at ALL.
For a while it looked like Australia might become the "peacful home" of international terrorists. Pardon me if we take our responsibilities seriously.
We probably have the biggest proportion of unenforced laws in the world. Many of our laws ar "vague". Many are "poorly expressed". Many are obsolete (I think I'm still supposed to have a man with a red flag run in front of my car to make sure that people with horses know I am coming).
You think this is bad? You're wrong. It leaves a lot of room for a judge to be "fair", and if he isn't then there is always a way to appeal. I'd reckon that there is more "justice" done than you would believe.
Not that there are not incredible injustices sometimes, but you get those everywhere. At least our legal system doesn't execute people.
We "copy" you and we have the "stupidest" laws? Sheesh. Thanks, but we already have enough people here who can't think.
I am not aware of any time when the Australian Military have shot Aussie citizens in Australia. I am aware of when the American Military have shot (and killed) American student demonstraters on American soil.
If you are going to open your mouth, then get your facts right rather than slag off at a country you know nothing about and don't understand, particularly accusing it of your own sins.
Illegal to do in Australia without a warrant. However, Echelon avoids that problem for them, doesn't it? So the USA is already acting "like China" over most of the western world.
>Australia starts packet sniffing?
They don't need to. See Echelon...
>Australia requires all traffic to go through a central server farm, so they can control everything going in and coming out?
They don't need too. We have stuff-all points of access into the country (by land/sea line). They just get the ISPs to do it.
>Australia filters web sites?
Do the letters RBL mean anything to you? Wasn't an Aussie invention (at least I don't think so).
So, all the things you complain about are already in the USA. When you leaving? And where for? Mars?
I'd like to point out that Australia had 80,000+ networked computers when Arpanet only had about 4000. Why don't you ask someone where most of the Decnet work was carried out?
I can't help it if you come from a technologicaly backwards country...
Actually, the Australian Government merely explicitly stated what was already law. International Law at that. So it already applies to you (drsoran) already. But you didn't know about it.
I won a legal case where I was not paid for completed work, where I had included a copyright TO THE COMPANY (not me) on the basis that since thay had not paid my fees, the copyright was in question and I was requesting a that they cease and desist form marketing it and that their customers cease and desist from using it until the copyright issue was resolved. Fastest I ever got paid... CEO met me at my bank with a cash cheque and got *immediate* clearance on the cheque.
If a judge was shown during a trial evidence of some vile act (paedophilic rape for example) is it unreasonable to develop a "marked" loathing for a guilty defendant?
What is important is no bias before the facts are determined, and the judge starts "reading up" well before the trial and is the presented with further evidence and argument during the trial. Overall, it is not unreasonable for a judge to develop a loathing for something or someone. If that loathing results in injustice in sentencing, well that is why there are appeals courts. That's what is going on right now. Microsoft could have accepted the judges decision without appeal.
From my observation, there has was no unfairness in the findings of fact or the sentence. If fact after having read his findings of fact and the decision, I am inclined to think he has been lenient.
The law is the law unless you can buy a better appeal.
> One company will still own windows
> Then we will still have the problem of one OS ruling the market
If you consider that it is the application that counts to the user, then it will make a difference. The full API must be extensively documentated by MS::OS otherwise MS::APP cannot use it. This means that the calls that MS::APP can make are limited and documented. Thus people like WINE can make the MS::APP run on another OS much more readily. With the same apps available, an admin can provide the same services with another OS. Given that, you would start to see *N[IU]X systems being run out of economy, spite, preference, desire for stability, speed, ease of stopping the user stuffing up the box, whatever other motive you can think of.
Additionally, MS::APP would never have a headstart on development when MS::OS made a change.
But really FIVE parts would be better.
(a) MS::OS - Windows
(b) MS::LANG, - development tools
(c) MS::APPS - Office and it's ilk
(d) MS::INT - Internet Aplications
(e) MS::SER - Portal and mail services.
I've still got a copy of DR-DOS on the shelf and the Windows I bought to run on it. I gave up on DR-DOS purely because it (Windows) crashed more often on DR-DOS than MS-DOS. Ten years later, I find out that the version of Windows released to the Asian market (which includes Australia) did this (crashed) deliberately. so that people would give up on DR-DOS as I did.
I bought my first 8086 PC in 1984 and by 1986 it was clear what Microsoft were up to. I don't think you will find many techies that like MS unless they know nothing else or their most valuable skills are in the MS direction.
Break MS up, sure. Do that, and give 20% to the shareholders of D.R. when it was smashed by illegal and unfair competition. Give 10% to the Netscape people who got trampled on. Another 20% reserve against taxes, thus 'returning' some of the money back to the public purse. MS shareholders would still be way in front of where they should be.
The most clear cases of abuse are the early ones.
Ah, I suppose it is just as well I am a techie not a judge...
It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could not be prejudiced against MS.
The British Royal Family did.
Bit late.
Check out PicoBSD. It has been done.
No wrist movement required, built in wrist suppport
Supported on 3 sapphire bearings. To clean tip ball out and blow.
Incredibly precise and even operation, literally fingertip control to any part of the screen.
I very much doubt I'll ever find anything better in a hand directed pointing device.
Of course what we really need is a device that senses where you are looking.
No, I buy organic rolled oats, because I like 'em and *think* it is a good idea. But I don't have time to *know*.
Most of the several restaurants that I patronise no longer even bring me a menu. I tell them what I want. If they can't do it, then I will find someplace else. And you know something? Instead of being treated as a "difficult customer", I usually get treated like royalty. There is often a side dish or two that I didn't order that the chef thinks I might like to try (and don't get charged for), or a complimentary glass of wine "that will go particularly well with your meal". Unless the place is particularly busy, NEVER order from the menu (a list of someone else's choices).
I doubt they would bother. It would already be known.
> And do you think the Americans hadn't been peering down from space all along, watching them put the rocket together and getting ready to launch it?
No, where did I suggest it? I am well aware of the "facts" in your reply. So would anyone with the intelligence of an Earthworm.
So, Jim, exactly what invalidates my comment? What is incorrect?
No. It depends on the size of the wheels.
>But seriously folks, anyone have any idea about the comparative speed of the PDP-10? How well did these things scale up?
High for it's time. Particularly well for it's time
>Anyone tried using gcc to compile a linux kernel on it? My guess would be more in the days than the hours category.
Probably not a good guess. It has, however, been 20 years since I used one.
Zero Sum (doesn't amount to much)