I mean, when yahoo! did it for their yahoo.groups service, I was mildly peeved, but genuinely not surprised. For Hotmail, I just always thought/assumed you had no privacy, and getting spammed in there was normal, common protocol. I mean honestly, I use it soley as a spam repository, and i'm not dissapointed. 50 messages worth of sex creams, porn ads, refinancing barf and EARN CASH NOW! spots genuinely tells the clueful that MS has been selling my hotmail address for years now.
BFD. It must be a slow news day for/. to report on something that is so obvious.
Let Greene whine,bitch and moan all he wants. Let him admit he's breaking the law. Especially on television. The more vocal these folks become, the more likely we can use their words against them.
If Mr. Eisner, and Mr. Greene are hellbent on alienating their consumer base, let them have at it. Its still relatively isolated on the net as it stands, but soon, they're going to get cocky (I'd argue they already are) and start frothing at the mouth on public TV. Give audiences (and artists) enough of this, and the ensuing hatemail/flames and public outcry, and I think we'll see a marked change in the view that consumer=evil pirate.
Until then, Mr. Greene provides a vast ammount of entertainment, and I can just avoid watching his programs, and contributing to his cash flow.
What's truly humorous about this whole tirade (and thats all you can positively call anything spewed by Jackyboots) is that Mr. Valenti has this misnomer that a) its feasible to put copy protection to control the copyright interests of one party (in this case the MPAA) b) that other industries won't want a part in this copyright management free-for-all and that c) customers will buy it.
He manages to say in the same breath that while consumers are evil, we'll go ahead and latch on to the idea that less functionality is good, and moreso, that customers will eat the cost for such a machine. Oh how soon we forget the trials and tribulations that IBM went through merely trying to get a CPRM hard drive to market, and how they eventually backed down, i'm curious how Mr. valenti proposes an entire system would be willing to go the distance just to placate the film industry.
Here's a likely scenario: The MPAA has these supersecret talks with the major computer manufactuers (HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) and they hash out a preliminary. Word gets out to the rest of the copyright community -- Record labels, content producers -- hell even artists wanting to perfect a way for their pictures to be copy-proof on the websites -- and soon, the manufactuers are tweaking and tuning, and reconfiguring and modifying their parts in such a way that the box is nary more than a glorified television, streaming the content of -their- choice, at their discretion.
If such a system comes to be, I"ll become a luddite.
Hey slashdot crowd, you all should be excited about this. We finally have a place to go check out what the laws really mean (and how they're really applied), as opposed to talking out our asses all the time. This is indeed a Good Thing (tm) and I only hope the best for the affiliated schools.
Ok. So Be has been sitting on Information for 3 years (3 YEARS!) and they expect to get somewhere now? You know, I've heard of a lot of odd legal ploys, but this just doesn't make sense. When your company is gone, why sue then? Absent your masochistic desire to lose EVERYTHING you have, this smells strange to me. Someone has to be propping Be up for this. Methinks a conspiracy is afoot.
I mean honestly, I fall in this category, but this is too much, even for me:
'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'
For the record, how many guys do you know who come out saying 'Man, I'd love to have kids.. but its those damn _women_ I can't stand. Pussy? Who needs pussy! I just want a baby to cuddle!'
Sure, they don't like our PMS trips, but do they really want to eradicate sex (real sex) from their diets? I mean Rosy and her sisters, and the Realdoll only go so far...
How do hardcode in the protections that the court requires? So sure, Arriba does not allow the picture to be expanded in the web browser, but what is to stop average joe user from expanding the picture in say, an image viewer? This doesn't seem to accomplish anything functional. Instead, it shows that the courts, in many cases still don't understand the technological ramifications / limitations to their decisions.
No. It wouldn't. IT would not be illegal for say, dateline or whatnot to cover the fact that record labels are blocking consumer rights with their pathetic copy protection mechanisms. Merely informing folks of the facts of the game is NOT illegal under the DMCA. NOr would publishing or providing 'workarounds' as (explained in the FAQ section of the Universal Site, for instance) be illegal under the DMCA.
Here's what would be illegal:
If say, Dateline decided to get adventurous, hire a few hackers to CODE up some nifty software that would bypass the Copy protection on the 'silver discs' and then they published the code, or access points to get the code. That would be illegal. Distributing that code on their website, That would be illegal.
The DMCA is all sorts of evil, but lets get the law at least partially correct here.
What is far, FAR more likely a reason as to why the consumer shows will never have this break the light of day, is because the networks are all owned by the very media companies that are putting out this rot. You don't piss in your own pool, they aren't going to piss off their head corporation.
And it sucks too. But have no fear, this will get around. ENough folks will pop a 'silver disc' into their machines, fire it up, and be so dissapointed taht they can't even listen to the thing, much less copy it, that word of mouth and the Net will thwart their hopes.
But this just sucks. Period. Here I have a nice sexy little visor, and you damn well know that when they stop making them (and probably cease to make the springboard modules (as they aren't on the treos) that tech support will go down the shitter. Goddamn silly.
Perhaps a cat walked across the lawyer's keyboard and managed to bang out the "you shall have no legal recourse and waive all constitutional rights" paragraph.
Alright. The politech list was hammering on this, and still it pops up in/. For the nth time, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL right breached when Borland (a private company) enters your premises, (with notice, and during business hours, no less) to check on their software. None. Nada. The 4th Amendment/.ers keep quoting ferverently is related to (say it with me kids) Government entities only. Private citizens, corporations and the easter bunny can do whatever they want, provided you click on the EULA.
Sure, legal subpoenas trump privacy concerns, but in the discovery process, I'm going to say that the lawyers working on Lindows behalf had their heads up their asses.
Here's the problem. Discovery is great, and it can make you give up lots and lots of bits, but I'm curious why and how the discovery process could make them give up SO much, so fast. The Lindows people can still object. Especially on the grounds that MS is simply asking for too much. While MS might have a right ot know the number of folks signed up to the list, or perhaps their email I have a real hard time believing MS found that viable of a reason for getting everything without objection.
Especially because this is a TM case. It has absoloutely nothing to do with the folks who subscribed to the list, their personal bits or home location. I think the folks at Lindows are either caving early, or their lawyers suck.
Here's what I see is a more practical approach that the RIAA, et al., might take:
Trademarks, while lasting a helluva lot longer than patents, do suffer some problems. The one I see that said evildooers could target is the idea that CD has become synonymous with all recordable silver media (We don't call them Silver disks after all). It has almost become generic, the bane of Trademark holders everywhere. (For an example, think Kleenex). Granted, I'm no lawyer, but this could be a compelling argument given that all silver disks are usually marketed as CDs, sold in CD aisles, and pitched as CDs. They aren't called silver media disks, or even audio disks.
The DMCA is far less of an issue. It would be a difficult arugument to pursue for the record companies -- They would have to essentially prove circumvention of protection measures that were founded on the principles of the original -- in this case, the CD. Philips is a widely respected, recognized name. The RIAA would win less favor with a judge for a bill that was designed and targeted around criminal behavior.
I wish Philips all the luck in the world. They have power now, and I'm glad they're taking a stand. But the RIAA is just sinister, and they don't have scruples when it comes to screwing over everyone.
I scanned through the news articles and while an x10 ad (and boy, why does it have to be x10) popped up underneath the news article, I didn't see any articles merely being links to advertisements. What am I missing here?
I know exactly why the full bits aren't there. First, Monsanto would likely (if for no other reason than pure spite and desire to waste time) sue the shite out of these kids. Granted, it's all factual, and they would lose, but its amazing how long Defamation of character and libel lawsuits can go on (and on, and on). Second, I would be willing to wager that WP now has some strange kooky IP in relation to these documents. Its not all that farfetched, and if they 'own' it, they certainly don't want to give it out for free:)
Lord knows, there may be some other wonderful reason I'm not even examining. But those seem like likely culprits.
What I find is so funny,is this is in a response to a 'We've been hacked' letter. THeir system is ALREADY insecure, and they want more information from users? Yes! Lets just give the script children more info and more email addies to spam! Yay!
I have to admit, the first time I saw the email, I thought it was a hack. There have been numerous occasions when hackers have sent out security bulletins saying a system of victim company has been compromised, and asking or verifying that email addresses, passwords, credit card information, etc. be given. Most notably, Blizzard comes to mind as an example of this.
I think, just for giggles and shits, i'll install one of the renegade copies of software, and tell DC about it. I want to see if they really will 'recall' or unloan my cuecat, as they say they will in the EULA. Give me a break.
Between Kaplan's Ruling, and the proposed legislation barring drug information from being posted and viewable (see S. 486 and H.R. 2634), this is indeed a sad state of affairs for freedom of speech and political voice. The court is setting dangerous precidents in its decisions to silence alternate views (mentioned in the story). We're supposed to have freedom of speech here people. Instead we have banned books , blocked topics, and Judges deciding what is allowed to be linked to .
I was reading Richard Feynman's The Meaning of it All and he had a great bit of wisdom at the end of his second chapter. Granted, it was in reference to the Russians, but its applicable nwo, and I quote:
Man has been stopped before by stopping his ideas. Man has been jammed for long periods of time. We will not tolerate this. I hope for freedom for future generations - freedom to doubt, to develop, to continue the adventure of finding out new ways of doing things, of solving problems.
Why do we grapple with problems? We are only in the beginning. We have plenty of time to solve the problems. The only way that we will make a mistake is that ithe impetuous youth of humanity we will decide we know the answer. This is it. No one else can think of anything else. And we will jam. We will confine man to the limited imagination of today's human beings. "
... "No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic crations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the futher adventure and the development of the human race. Thank you.
Read him. Understand this, and wake up. This is too scary when the censorship gets close enough that I can feel it. Feynman understood it in the 60's.
Provide a card to adults which will allow unfettered access. All non-carded use should be assumed to be by a child, and will allow access to a limited, pre-defined set of domains like yahoo.com, cnn.com, slashdot.org, disney.com, olsentwins.com, etc...
While this has promise, you're missing two central issues. IF you install such a card system, you have 1) sheltered adults and 2) Children who need to find reserach that may border on what normal filters would 'filter out'. You have adults of the Bible-beating Anti-Porn People (BAPP) who are ardently against anything even depicting a bare arm, and you give them an adult card, well then, shoot, adequate blocking isn't in place. BAPP is pissed and life is hell for the poor guy who was supposed to set the thing up.
2) INqusitive junior has to do a report on sexual reproduction of llamas. Now, he doesn't get the card because, well he's a minor (duh). He types in 'Sexual reproduction of llamas' in yahoo and gets one of the clever browser remarks about looking at naughty bits. Hrm.
HOw do we solve this with such arbitrary methods?
Unless we had a method to control for these extremes, cards would be a bitch for everyone involved...
So what about companies that want secure computers? They need to root and sniff their own machines rather than hire someone who actually knows security? Kind of silly to me...
You are getting a little rediculous about this one. I believe the.sex TLD would be a great idea and I have thought that for awhile. The "pornagraphic" sites are clearly different from art sites with nude paintings. You have to draw the line between common sense and stupidity. You might see a statue of a unclothed man or women, but you never see a statue of a naked women with her legs spread pointing her finger at you or two girls going at it. So I hope you can see the point I am trying to get across. You can'y get so technical about this stuff or nothing will get acomplished. Peace! -Ryan
First off.. i'm not getting ridiculous about any of it. You didn't go to the art story I referenced did you? See, the problem comes with different opinions on obscenity and pornography. If you're one of the individuals (say in this case, the Christian home schooling parents) who have a VERY strict view on what they consider moral and good vs. sinful, you may view the Venus De Milo as pornographic. Most people probably wouldn't. And as far as your argument goes of 'You'll never see a statue of a naked women (sic) with her legs spread pointing her finger at you or two girls going at it,' I'd beg to differ. I've seen art where two women are embracing ( on the cover of many Marquis de Sade books;) and provocative pictures of nude women are very common in art museums.
This isn't technical. This is moral. There's a difference. IF it was technical, it'd have a logical sense to it.
Local governments do not have the right to override constitutionally protected freedoms. A city can't decide to ignore freedom of speech any more then they can force everyone to follow the same religion, or forcing a minority to be slaves.
THe constitution only protects federally. While the courts have stated that certain rights encompass both national and federal lines, states/localities still have odd ways of being able to regulate this.. Usually by local puruient interest laws (for obscenity) where localities can decide what is offensive to them. This is GOOD folks. This is good, because isntead of the national government deciding what is good and wholesome for the kiddies, local entities can do so. And we all know, if we don't liek the local decisions, we can argue with our feet (leave).
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the beginning of Distraction, you'll see something simlar. A great and frightening concept.
BFD. It must be a slow news day for /. to report on something that is so obvious.
I mena sure, this is great for lan parties n such, but if it breaks, you're toast. The Swiss have way -way- too much time on their hands.
If Mr. Eisner, and Mr. Greene are hellbent on alienating their consumer base, let them have at it. Its still relatively isolated on the net as it stands, but soon, they're going to get cocky (I'd argue they already are) and start frothing at the mouth on public TV. Give audiences (and artists) enough of this, and the ensuing hatemail/flames and public outcry, and I think we'll see a marked change in the view that consumer=evil pirate.
Until then, Mr. Greene provides a vast ammount of entertainment, and I can just avoid watching his programs, and contributing to his cash flow.
He manages to say in the same breath that while consumers are evil, we'll go ahead and latch on to the idea that less functionality is good, and moreso, that customers will eat the cost for such a machine. Oh how soon we forget the trials and tribulations that IBM went through merely trying to get a CPRM hard drive to market, and how they eventually backed down, i'm curious how Mr. valenti proposes an entire system would be willing to go the distance just to placate the film industry.
Here's a likely scenario: The MPAA has these supersecret talks with the major computer manufactuers (HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) and they hash out a preliminary. Word gets out to the rest of the copyright community -- Record labels, content producers -- hell even artists wanting to perfect a way for their pictures to be copy-proof on the websites -- and soon, the manufactuers are tweaking and tuning, and reconfiguring and modifying their parts in such a way that the box is nary more than a glorified television, streaming the content of -their- choice, at their discretion.
If such a system comes to be, I"ll become a luddite.
Hey slashdot crowd, you all should be excited about this. We finally have a place to go check out what the laws really mean (and how they're really applied), as opposed to talking out our asses all the time. This is indeed a Good Thing (tm) and I only hope the best for the affiliated schools.
Ok. So Be has been sitting on Information for 3 years (3 YEARS!) and they expect to get somewhere now? You know, I've heard of a lot of odd legal ploys, but this just doesn't make sense. When your company is gone, why sue then? Absent your masochistic desire to lose EVERYTHING you have, this smells strange to me. Someone has to be propping Be up for this. Methinks a conspiracy is afoot.
'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'
For the record, how many guys do you know who come out saying 'Man, I'd love to have kids.. but its those damn _women_ I can't stand. Pussy? Who needs pussy! I just want a baby to cuddle!'
Sure, they don't like our PMS trips, but do they really want to eradicate sex (real sex) from their diets? I mean Rosy and her sisters, and the Realdoll only go so far...
These chicks make us normal feminists look bad.
How do hardcode in the protections that the court requires? So sure, Arriba does not allow the picture to be expanded in the web browser, but what is to stop average joe user from expanding the picture in say, an image viewer? This doesn't seem to accomplish anything functional. Instead, it shows that the courts, in many cases still don't understand the technological ramifications / limitations to their decisions.
To quote the immortal words of Loveline...
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Caaaaaaaaaaaareeees!
Here's what would be illegal:
If say, Dateline decided to get adventurous, hire a few hackers to CODE up some nifty software that would bypass the Copy protection on the 'silver discs' and then they published the code, or access points to get the code. That would be illegal. Distributing that code on their website, That would be illegal.
The DMCA is all sorts of evil, but lets get the law at least partially correct here.
What is far, FAR more likely a reason as to why the consumer shows will never have this break the light of day, is because the networks are all owned by the very media companies that are putting out this rot. You don't piss in your own pool, they aren't going to piss off their head corporation.
And it sucks too. But have no fear, this will get around. ENough folks will pop a 'silver disc' into their machines, fire it up, and be so dissapointed taht they can't even listen to the thing, much less copy it, that word of mouth and the Net will thwart their hopes.
Silver discs, be damned.
But this just sucks. Period. Here I have a nice sexy little visor, and you damn well know that when they stop making them (and probably cease to make the springboard modules (as they aren't on the treos) that tech support will go down the shitter. Goddamn silly.
BAH.
Alright. The politech list was hammering on this, and still it pops up in
Here's the problem. Discovery is great, and it can make you give up lots and lots of bits, but I'm curious why and how the discovery process could make them give up SO much, so fast. The Lindows people can still object. Especially on the grounds that MS is simply asking for too much. While MS might have a right ot know the number of folks signed up to the list, or perhaps their email I have a real hard time believing MS found that viable of a reason for getting everything without objection.
Especially because this is a TM case. It has absoloutely nothing to do with the folks who subscribed to the list, their personal bits or home location. I think the folks at Lindows are either caving early, or their lawyers suck.
That the name of the car almost sounds like a feminine hygeine device?
MaxiMog -- For that ultimate in freshness during that 'special' time of the month...
Here's what I see is a more practical approach that the RIAA, et al., might take:
Trademarks, while lasting a helluva lot longer than patents, do suffer some problems. The one I see that said evildooers could target is the idea that CD has become synonymous with all recordable silver media (We don't call them Silver disks after all). It has almost become generic, the bane of Trademark holders everywhere. (For an example, think Kleenex). Granted, I'm no lawyer, but this could be a compelling argument given that all silver disks are usually marketed as CDs, sold in CD aisles, and pitched as CDs. They aren't called silver media disks, or even audio disks.
The DMCA is far less of an issue. It would be a difficult arugument to pursue for the record companies -- They would have to essentially prove circumvention of protection measures that were founded on the principles of the original -- in this case, the CD. Philips is a widely respected, recognized name. The RIAA would win less favor with a judge for a bill that was designed and targeted around criminal behavior.
I wish Philips all the luck in the world. They have power now, and I'm glad they're taking a stand. But the RIAA is just sinister, and they don't have scruples when it comes to screwing over everyone.
I scanned through the news articles and while an x10 ad (and boy, why does it have to be x10) popped up underneath the news article, I didn't see any articles merely being links to advertisements. What am I missing here?
That cleverly placed to the side of the Scarfo piece is an ad for the Sopranos DVD? Its advertising in action... ooo...
Lord knows, there may be some other wonderful reason I'm not even examining. But those seem like likely culprits.
What I find is so funny,is this is in a response to a 'We've been hacked' letter. THeir system is ALREADY insecure, and they want more information from users? Yes! Lets just give the script children more info and more email addies to spam! Yay!
I have to admit, the first time I saw the email, I thought it was a hack. There have been numerous occasions when hackers have sent out security bulletins saying a system of victim company has been compromised, and asking or verifying that email addresses, passwords, credit card information, etc. be given. Most notably, Blizzard comes to mind as an example of this.
I think, just for giggles and shits, i'll install one of the renegade copies of software, and tell DC about it. I want to see if they really will 'recall' or unloan my cuecat, as they say they will in the EULA. Give me a break.
-BB
I was reading Richard Feynman's The Meaning of it All and he had a great bit of wisdom at the end of his second chapter. Granted, it was in reference to the Russians, but its applicable nwo, and I quote:
Man has been stopped before by stopping his ideas. Man has been jammed for long periods of time. We will not tolerate this. I hope for freedom for future generations - freedom to doubt, to develop, to continue the adventure of finding out new ways of doing things, of solving problems.
Why do we grapple with problems? We are only in the beginning. We have plenty of time to solve the problems. The only way that we will make a mistake is that ithe impetuous youth of humanity we will decide we know the answer. This is it. No one else can think of anything else. And we will jam. We will confine man to the limited imagination of today's human beings. "
Read him. Understand this, and wake up. This is too scary when the censorship gets close enough that I can feel it. Feynman understood it in the 60's.
Provide a card to adults which will allow unfettered access. All non-carded use should be assumed to be by a child, and will allow access to a limited, pre-defined set of domains like yahoo.com, cnn.com, slashdot.org, disney.com, olsentwins.com, etc...
While this has promise, you're missing two central issues. IF you install such a card system, you have 1) sheltered adults and 2) Children who need to find reserach that may border on what normal filters would 'filter out'. You have adults of the Bible-beating Anti-Porn People (BAPP) who are ardently against anything even depicting a bare arm, and you give them an adult card, well then, shoot, adequate blocking isn't in place. BAPP is pissed and life is hell for the poor guy who was supposed to set the thing up.
2) INqusitive junior has to do a report on sexual reproduction of llamas. Now, he doesn't get the card because, well he's a minor (duh). He types in 'Sexual reproduction of llamas' in yahoo and gets one of the clever browser remarks about looking at naughty bits. Hrm.
HOw do we solve this with such arbitrary methods?
Unless we had a method to control for these extremes, cards would be a bitch for everyone involved...
DA
So what about companies that want secure computers? They need to root and sniff their own machines rather than hire someone who actually knows security? Kind of silly to me...
First off.. i'm not getting ridiculous about any of it. You didn't go to the art story I referenced did you? See, the problem comes with different opinions on obscenity and pornography. If you're one of the individuals (say in this case, the Christian home schooling parents) who have a VERY strict view on what they consider moral and good vs. sinful, you may view the Venus De Milo as pornographic. Most people probably wouldn't. And as far as your argument goes of 'You'll never see a statue of a naked women (sic) with her legs spread pointing her finger at you or two girls going at it,' I'd beg to differ. I've seen art where two women are embracing ( on the cover of many Marquis de Sade books ;) and provocative pictures of nude women are very common in art museums.
This isn't technical. This is moral. There's a difference. IF it was technical, it'd have a logical sense to it.
THe constitution only protects federally. While the courts have stated that certain rights encompass both national and federal lines, states/localities still have odd ways of being able to regulate this.. Usually by local puruient interest laws (for obscenity) where localities can decide what is offensive to them. This is GOOD folks. This is good, because isntead of the national government deciding what is good and wholesome for the kiddies, local entities can do so. And we all know, if we don't liek the local decisions, we can argue with our feet (leave).
These topics are always interesting to me... we oftentimes forget that the libraries and schools have been banning things for years. Frankly folks, not only is none of it good, but it completely destroys the information flow.
Write your politician. GEt the facts. Be coherent. Don't flame. Make a statement and move on. Remember, if it doesn't stop here, it'll just get worse.
\