Did the Wii or xbox tell you that it was an internet capable media player? Didn't think so. And frankly, I *do* take exception with them considering it a crime to run Linux on them, or doing anything you want (off their network), thank you.
Finally figured out what you were talking about. Sorry, I've haven't been on Digg in a very, very long time. It was a pure coincidence that I posted the same line. It was a pretty obvious joke, actually, I was just the first to post it here, likely you could google it and find plenty more exact copies of the line. As for using caps, if you look at my posts, I tend to do that a lot. I also tend to put a fair amount of links in my posts, so had I saw it on Digg (or anywhere else) first, I would have given proper credit for the line. Pure coincidence. I can see why you might have thought it was a copy, but it isn't.
The fact code exists does not necessarily mean we'll ever get to play the games.
Additionally, even if they fully port Source to Linux, most of the games on Steam don't use the Source engine. It would still be A Good Thing® as it would make the platform (Linux/x86) more viable if Steam supported it, which would serve to encourage other companies to release for Linux as well. It will be slow, but it has to start somewhere, and Steam/Valve has a very good reputation for being friendly to both content providers and gamers, providing the least offensive DRM out there.
t's kinda like going into a steak house and bitching to the manager that they don't serve sushi.
No, its kinda like going into a place called "The Steak House" only to find out it is really a vegetarian only restaurant. The iphone is supposed to be a media player, but Apple says you can only play media that isn't naughty on it. I don't see any point in watching porn on a phone, personally, but if I own the device, it seems I should decide what I can do with it. They can choose whether or not to support it at that point.
If you want to get one HBO show... this price will likely make it more cost effective for you to get HBO through your TV pipe, a reduction of traffic on the Internet that should make your community's connection work better.
Wrong. The the people who were using Usenet now use a different service for Usenet, then the amount of traffic overhead will INCREASE, not decrease, as now they have to use the pipe on BOTH sides of their IPS's servers to do so, raising the amount of traffic on the backbone side exponentially, as each user requires a separate connection, which is impossible to cache if they are to different providers. Granted, they will only be fetching what is requested instead of every single Usenet msg, although it is unlikely that Cox was already serving binaries groups, which make up the bulk of Usenet traffic. The amount of traffic on the customer side of the ISP's network will increase slightly due to higher likelihood of bad packets/resends.
Likely, the users of Usenet on Cox's network were not downloading porn/binaries anyway, as almost all ISPs don't carry those groups. People looking for illicit files were already getting them somewhere else.
Slashdot is seriously out of touch with reality regarding Apple.
So it is ok for Apple/Jobs to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, as long as they are profitable? What if they starting losing money, would you then find his words offensive? Perhaps some people find it offensive purely on the basis of it restricting your liberty with hardware you paid dearly for.
All Catholics ARE indeed Christians, and my experiences are not limited to the Catholic church either. And the Catholic church is the oldest and most known Christian church, particularly when it comes to abusing others when they disagree with the church, which was the point. And if you knew much about Catholicism, you would know that it is very, very fragmented from country to country, with different traditions and such (particularly since 1964 when priests began performing the mass in the local language rather than in Latin), so I wouldn't consider any modern Catholic diocese as part of the "Roman Empire". That is pretty outdated thinking.
And my SCO analogy demonstrates it *CAN* be. This would make it easier to use an injunction as a defensive corporate tool against other companies, by claiming they are infringing on your copyright. Linus might get an injunction against Linksys (or Tivo) because they didn't publish their source code (thus, a copyright infringement), SCO against all Linux distributors, etc.
<sarcasm>Yes, because we all know that Christians have NEVER tried to hurt anyone for believing differently than them.</sarcasm>
The problem is humans tend to want to kill/remove/banish anyone who doesn't agree with the local groupthink. Be it religion, science (global warming, for instance) or just cultural. The problem is that "beliefs" are held up high while "ideas" are not. Most religions amplify this tendency. Try being a non-Christian in the US today, it is a pain in the ass because of the sheer stupidity of others. Every time someone hears that I am not a Christian, the first thing they say is "oh, are you an atheist?" as if that is the only other option. When I tell them that 80% of the entire planet is not Christian, their response is "Well, everyone is in America", which is obviously not true and obviously saying that no one outside of America matters anyway.
I was raised in the Catholic church, so don't preach to me how Christianity is about "love". It is yet another flavor of control whereby you follow the rules, or "burn in hell", and anyone who believes different than you is automatically suspicious. Christians are not better than Muslims. Both have extremists even if the vast majority of believers are rational persons. Both believe their view of God is right and everyone else is wrong. Even their God is the same, the God of Abraham. And here in the southeastern USA, not being a Christian can still prevent you from having employment and make life difficult, which isn't very Christian of those folks, is it?
Don't you think China should have learned from our example? There is no excuse.
I bet they have, which is why their system is brutal, but less brutal than ours was. And a bad job is still better than no job, when your belly is empty.
Their manager class culture is just a dozen ways fucked up, and they make a shitty industrial revolution far more miserable than it has to be.
Once there are enough jobs for everyone that wants one, then it will change, as employees who have a choice will exercise that choice. Henry Ford figured it out that if you pay people more than minimum, and actually a decent wage with decent working conditions, they will tolerate the most boring job in the world. Of course, first he tried it the old fashioned way with goons and low pay, until he finally tired of paying so much to train new people and cover people out "sick" for the day.
Again, compare it to the American/European Industrial Revolution and it is easy to see that while it sucks, it sucks less. When I saw that photo, I was thinking, "Wow, at least they have decent lighting to do their work in.".
Prior restraint is something that is looked down upon in our judicial system, something that should only be used in the most extreme cases, and with damn good cause and serious consequences without the restraint. This treaty gives another point of authority for it, and justifies it under more moderate situations. MPAA/RIAA's life or liberty is not being threatened when someone infringes (so sue them), but when someone is restrained in this fashion, all too often their liberty is.
In the SCO case (and other potential future cases), prior restraint would have caused havok and great financial burden on many, many people, and in the end, the company/person making the claim LOST the case. Prior restraint can (and will) be used, not to prevent loss, but simply to put a chilling effect on free speech and fair use.
You are correct, we can already use prior restraint in the US where it is appropriate, and it is already abused enough as it is. The countries that don't, that is their decision. Make it easier to use it is NOT "a good thing", particularly for free speech.
This is why unions are so important, to help stop the type of treatment that RJR has subjected its employees to. And best of all, the unions only request a portion of your paycheck and that you vote for who they say to vote for.
We might also remember that we did the same thing in America (and Europe) during our Industrial Revolution, which is about the closest parallel you can draw to what is happening in China right now. The article states that the people working more than 12 hours a day are doing so voluntarily to earn more money, overtime isn't required. It is sad and painful in many ways, but the reality is that they are likely in less danger than the western sweatshop workers from the 1880s, from fire and other dangers. It isn't perfect, hell, it isn't even good, but it appears to be much better than what we did to our own people during a similar period in our industrialization.
As I point out in a post below, just imagine if the judge in the SCO case used this treaty as a basis, then he could have enjoined anyone from distributing (or using) Linux that didn't already have an SCO license. It *was* specifically a copyright issue, just like this treaty covers.
Think about the SCO case: Perhaps SCO should have gotten an injuction to prevent anyone from distributing any version of Linux while the courts figured it all out. After all, they were claiming copyright infringement, exactly the type that would be covered in this treaty. SCO even brought the case to full fruition. This is 100% the type of case that can be subject to being enjoined. Imagine if that happened, and the judge decided that everyone that didn't have an SCO license also needed to take their Linux servers down for infringment.
The answer is to NOT have prior restraint, and sue for damages later if that is the case.
In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.
How do you sue someone for "potential infringement"? This says they can be enjoined before they actually infringe anything. This is stomping over someone to make sure they don't do something that violates a copyright. Why not take away every teenagers computer, to prevent them from pirating in the first place?
"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."
This reminds me of "processor affinity" or "affinity mask", whereby you assign software to a particular processor or core. If you want to setup your software so that only less cpu intensive software (cooler) runs on the questionable core, you can do this in Windows 7, and likely for at least some software in Linux (I'm really not sure here), then yes, in theory, you could do this so only Word runs on core #3.
But please remember the wisdom of Yogi Berra when trying to apply a theory like this: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
Slashdot Mirror
Did the Wii or xbox tell you that it was an internet capable media player? Didn't think so. And frankly, I *do* take exception with them considering it a crime to run Linux on them, or doing anything you want (off their network), thank you.
Finally figured out what you were talking about. Sorry, I've haven't been on Digg in a very, very long time. It was a pure coincidence that I posted the same line. It was a pretty obvious joke, actually, I was just the first to post it here, likely you could google it and find plenty more exact copies of the line. As for using caps, if you look at my posts, I tend to do that a lot. I also tend to put a fair amount of links in my posts, so had I saw it on Digg (or anywhere else) first, I would have given proper credit for the line. Pure coincidence. I can see why you might have thought it was a copy, but it isn't.
So Steve Jobs was wrong, you CAN get porn on your iPhone ;)
The fact code exists does not necessarily mean we'll ever get to play the games.
Additionally, even if they fully port Source to Linux, most of the games on Steam don't use the Source engine. It would still be A Good Thing® as it would make the platform (Linux/x86) more viable if Steam supported it, which would serve to encourage other companies to release for Linux as well. It will be slow, but it has to start somewhere, and Steam/Valve has a very good reputation for being friendly to both content providers and gamers, providing the least offensive DRM out there.
t's kinda like going into a steak house and bitching to the manager that they don't serve sushi.
No, its kinda like going into a place called "The Steak House" only to find out it is really a vegetarian only restaurant. The iphone is supposed to be a media player, but Apple says you can only play media that isn't naughty on it. I don't see any point in watching porn on a phone, personally, but if I own the device, it seems I should decide what I can do with it. They can choose whether or not to support it at that point.
If you want to get one HBO show... this price will likely make it more cost effective for you to get HBO through your TV pipe, a reduction of traffic on the Internet that should make your community's connection work better.
Wrong. The the people who were using Usenet now use a different service for Usenet, then the amount of traffic overhead will INCREASE, not decrease, as now they have to use the pipe on BOTH sides of their IPS's servers to do so, raising the amount of traffic on the backbone side exponentially, as each user requires a separate connection, which is impossible to cache if they are to different providers. Granted, they will only be fetching what is requested instead of every single Usenet msg, although it is unlikely that Cox was already serving binaries groups, which make up the bulk of Usenet traffic. The amount of traffic on the customer side of the ISP's network will increase slightly due to higher likelihood of bad packets/resends.
Likely, the users of Usenet on Cox's network were not downloading porn/binaries anyway, as almost all ISPs don't carry those groups. People looking for illicit files were already getting them somewhere else.
Slashdot is seriously out of touch with reality regarding Apple.
So it is ok for Apple/Jobs to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, as long as they are profitable? What if they starting losing money, would you then find his words offensive? Perhaps some people find it offensive purely on the basis of it restricting your liberty with hardware you paid dearly for.
What are you, a stockholder or just a tool?
Its OK if Johnny sees a titty blown off with a shotgun, as long as no one was suckling it at the time.
Who needs a phone that actually does something when you have one that makes you look cool?
All Catholics ARE indeed Christians, and my experiences are not limited to the Catholic church either. And the Catholic church is the oldest and most known Christian church, particularly when it comes to abusing others when they disagree with the church, which was the point. And if you knew much about Catholicism, you would know that it is very, very fragmented from country to country, with different traditions and such (particularly since 1964 when priests began performing the mass in the local language rather than in Latin), so I wouldn't consider any modern Catholic diocese as part of the "Roman Empire". That is pretty outdated thinking.
And my SCO analogy demonstrates it *CAN* be. This would make it easier to use an injunction as a defensive corporate tool against other companies, by claiming they are infringing on your copyright. Linus might get an injunction against Linksys (or Tivo) because they didn't publish their source code (thus, a copyright infringement), SCO against all Linux distributors, etc.
Not all "copyrighted works" are movies and songs.
<sarcasm>Yes, because we all know that Christians have NEVER tried to hurt anyone for believing differently than them.</sarcasm>
The problem is humans tend to want to kill/remove/banish anyone who doesn't agree with the local groupthink. Be it religion, science (global warming, for instance) or just cultural. The problem is that "beliefs" are held up high while "ideas" are not. Most religions amplify this tendency. Try being a non-Christian in the US today, it is a pain in the ass because of the sheer stupidity of others. Every time someone hears that I am not a Christian, the first thing they say is "oh, are you an atheist?" as if that is the only other option. When I tell them that 80% of the entire planet is not Christian, their response is "Well, everyone is in America", which is obviously not true and obviously saying that no one outside of America matters anyway.
I was raised in the Catholic church, so don't preach to me how Christianity is about "love". It is yet another flavor of control whereby you follow the rules, or "burn in hell", and anyone who believes different than you is automatically suspicious. Christians are not better than Muslims. Both have extremists even if the vast majority of believers are rational persons. Both believe their view of God is right and everyone else is wrong. Even their God is the same, the God of Abraham. And here in the southeastern USA, not being a Christian can still prevent you from having employment and make life difficult, which isn't very Christian of those folks, is it?
Don't you think China should have learned from our example? There is no excuse.
I bet they have, which is why their system is brutal, but less brutal than ours was. And a bad job is still better than no job, when your belly is empty.
Their manager class culture is just a dozen ways fucked up, and they make a shitty industrial revolution far more miserable than it has to be.
Once there are enough jobs for everyone that wants one, then it will change, as employees who have a choice will exercise that choice. Henry Ford figured it out that if you pay people more than minimum, and actually a decent wage with decent working conditions, they will tolerate the most boring job in the world. Of course, first he tried it the old fashioned way with goons and low pay, until he finally tired of paying so much to train new people and cover people out "sick" for the day.
Again, compare it to the American/European Industrial Revolution and it is easy to see that while it sucks, it sucks less. When I saw that photo, I was thinking, "Wow, at least they have decent lighting to do their work in.".
Prior restraint is something that is looked down upon in our judicial system, something that should only be used in the most extreme cases, and with damn good cause and serious consequences without the restraint. This treaty gives another point of authority for it, and justifies it under more moderate situations. MPAA/RIAA's life or liberty is not being threatened when someone infringes (so sue them), but when someone is restrained in this fashion, all too often their liberty is.
In the SCO case (and other potential future cases), prior restraint would have caused havok and great financial burden on many, many people, and in the end, the company/person making the claim LOST the case. Prior restraint can (and will) be used, not to prevent loss, but simply to put a chilling effect on free speech and fair use.
You are correct, we can already use prior restraint in the US where it is appropriate, and it is already abused enough as it is. The countries that don't, that is their decision. Make it easier to use it is NOT "a good thing", particularly for free speech.
This is why unions are so important, to help stop the type of treatment that RJR has subjected its employees to. And best of all, the unions only request a portion of your paycheck and that you vote for who they say to vote for.
We might also remember that we did the same thing in America (and Europe) during our Industrial Revolution, which is about the closest parallel you can draw to what is happening in China right now. The article states that the people working more than 12 hours a day are doing so voluntarily to earn more money, overtime isn't required. It is sad and painful in many ways, but the reality is that they are likely in less danger than the western sweatshop workers from the 1880s, from fire and other dangers. It isn't perfect, hell, it isn't even good, but it appears to be much better than what we did to our own people during a similar period in our industrialization.
Trademark != Patent != Copyright.
As I point out in a post below, just imagine if the judge in the SCO case used this treaty as a basis, then he could have enjoined anyone from distributing (or using) Linux that didn't already have an SCO license. It *was* specifically a copyright issue, just like this treaty covers.
Think about the SCO case: Perhaps SCO should have gotten an injuction to prevent anyone from distributing any version of Linux while the courts figured it all out. After all, they were claiming copyright infringement, exactly the type that would be covered in this treaty. SCO even brought the case to full fruition. This is 100% the type of case that can be subject to being enjoined. Imagine if that happened, and the judge decided that everyone that didn't have an SCO license also needed to take their Linux servers down for infringment.
The answer is to NOT have prior restraint, and sue for damages later if that is the case.
In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.
Don't the Brits already do something like this? ASBO? Some other acronym that reduces down to "punish you efore you commit a crime"?
At the very least Greorge Orwell wrote about this happening in Oceania. Did you hear? They are at war with Eastasia.
Lived in Dallas, Phoenix, now in the Triad area (over 1 million), so yes, I'm pretty familiar with "city".
How do you sue someone for "potential infringement"? This says they can be enjoined before they actually infringe anything. This is stomping over someone to make sure they don't do something that violates a copyright. Why not take away every teenagers computer, to prevent them from pirating in the first place?
"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."
Isn't that called "prior restraint"?
This reminds me of "processor affinity" or "affinity mask", whereby you assign software to a particular processor or core. If you want to setup your software so that only less cpu intensive software (cooler) runs on the questionable core, you can do this in Windows 7, and likely for at least some software in Linux (I'm really not sure here), then yes, in theory, you could do this so only Word runs on core #3.
But please remember the wisdom of Yogi Berra when trying to apply a theory like this: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
In other words, your mileage *will* vary.