"The Kylix Open Edition ships with CLX? libraries under the GPL license. As such, any applications that are built with a CLX library must make their sources freely available and distribute them under the terms of the GPL license as well."
Ouch. Is this saying that I have to make my twenty-seven different versions of "Hello, World!" publicly available for downloading?
Fine. I'll try and find some free webhosting or something. But you know what? The first person to submit a patch to me is going to get his ears boxed.
Compelling logic. If something's never happened before, it can't happen at any time in the future.
The machines have already won. We need them. We've got a planet carrying six billion people, and eighty percent of those people could not exist without the resources provided by the machines. Now Technological Progress(TM) is working its butt off to make these machines as intelligent as possible, and turn over as much decision-making as they can to the machines. I fail to see how you can claim that "humans are still on top." Sure, we still direct the machines, but we're still very much dependent on them.
Is the creation greater than the creator? Up until about the middle of the 19th century, that wouldn't even have been a meaningful question. So it helps to have a sense of perspective. When measured against the backdrop of recorded history, we're rolling through new terrain at a hundred miles an hour, and have our foot on the gas.
Now, I'm probably overstating my case in several important ways. I don't really think its likely that the 'droids will revolt. But I think your post amounts to "h00m4n5 r00l!! r0b0t5 5uxx0rz!!", and this issue requires closer scrutiny.
I guess that's a reasonable analysis for understanding how much computing power it would take to model the exact firing patterns of the neurons in a brain. But I think you could get a "human-equivalent" artificial intelligence with far, far less horsepower.
First, you can throw away the parts of the brain that are dedicated to regulating the body. Computers don't need them. Then realize that human beings probably aren't optimally wired for thinking. The processes which mold the brain from babyhood on do so through chemical processes and internal and external sensory stimuli, which can be rather crude tools. If nanobots went through our brains and rewired us synapse by synapse, we might see anything from a twofold to a millionfold increase in real intelligence. Or, if they screw up, we might end up with an appetite for shrubbery. But that's beside the point.
Also, looking at CAT scans, we see that at any given moment, a great deal of the human brain is not functioning at maximum capacity. This is especially true when the brain is being exposed to John Tesh or UPN programming.
More important than anything listed so far, we only have a vague idea of how ideas are stored in the brain, correlated, discarded, combined to produce interesting insights, and recognized as interesting. Until we have a better grasp of this process, there's no point in trying to draw a useful comparison between the brain and a computer. Simply due to the differences in architecture, these processes would have to proceed in radically different ways. It doesn't matter what the brain is theoretically capable of, if the bulk of its computing power is devoted to running print( "Hello, World!" ); in an infinite loop.
There are at least a few researchers in the AI field who believe that we've had the necessary computational power for a decade. The problem, in their minds, is the lack of fundamental understanding of intelligence, not more clock cycles.
Finally, approximately 80% of all brain calculations involve fantasizing about sex or trying to decide how best to obtain same. Presuming that neither function is integral to intelligence, this fact greatly lowers the bar separating human from computer.
Psst. . . Canada. You were adopted from gypsies.
on
ISS Airlock Installed
·
· Score: 1
Go ahead and whine about how we're always picking on you, and how you think Mom likes us best. But until you stop rubbing in the fact that you kicked our butts back in 1812 -- or at least give us a rematch -- we're going to continue in the arm-punching, and we may even start spreading rumors around school that you're in love with Suzy Lancaster. That'll teach ya.
My fellow Americans, please visit this site, download "The War of 1812", and see how our "friendly neighbors to the North" still desire to rule America, even as Starbucks and McDonalds rule Canada today.
Sorry about the triple/quadruple post. Every time I submitted it, I got some sort of "Invalid Key" error, and assumed the post didn't go through. No, I did not believe that any of my thoughts warrant such multiple repetitions.
Back off! I warn you, I've got moderator points, and I'm not afraid to use them!
"My point is simply that the Taliban may use Islamic teachings to justify what they do. That doesn't mean that those teachings are being interpreted and passed on correctly. From my experience, Islam is one of the most toleratent and accepting of religeons and it is about time that the western world woke up to that fact.
Unfortunately, "your experience" is that of a normal American, living inside the U.S. Here, Muslims are vastly in the minority (less than 1% of the population, IIRC). Living that far outside the mainstream gives one a great appreciation for the need for religious and cultural tolerance.
Many Middle-eastern Muslims have never had such an experience. They've grown up in a culture where practically everyone follows Islam, where [somebody's interpretations of] the edicts of the Koran are codified directly into secular law, and where there is little access to any ideas but those which support the current religious regime.
This isn't a flaw in Islam per se. I would say it's the danger of any culture where the vast majority hold the same ideas. It wouldn't matter if the countries in question were 95% Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or Wiccan. In any case, there's the danger that the majority will find minority opinions discomforting, and seek to suppress them.
So I cannot sign off on your opinion that Islam is "one of the most tolerant and accepting of religions"; certainly not if you're going to extrapolate your experience to countries outside the U.S. Truth is, power corrupts, and in countries such as Iran, Egypt, and Afghanistan, the Muslims have all the power.
I even get a small glimpse of this pattern just from living in Utah. You would find the protestant Christians around here are infinitely more tolerant and polite than anything you would find in the Bible Belt, where Baptists rule. The majority is always in danger of forgetting that the minority deserves the same rights and consideration that they receive.
I should point out that criticism of the Taliban's gross violations of human rights is not a criticism of Islam as a whole. Nor would much insight be gained into the Taliban's mindset by talking to American muslims. My impression is that most of them are as horrified by the Afghanistan situation as anyone else. Your comments are off-base on both counts.
Your criticism that we Americans need to learn about other cultures is in many ways correct. But it would be much more appropriately be directed towards the Taliban leadership themselves. After all, it was they who ordered 3000 year old statues demolished because of their unique and narrow-minded interpretation of what constitutes "idolatry."
Tolerance, understanding, and respect for other cultures is a wonderful thing, and should be cultivated at every opportunity. But if, in the name of those ideals, I'm supposed to stand by and watch as human rights are trampled in the name of religious fundamentalism, then I'll give them a miss. So allow me to be the first to stand up and proudly admit, "I am a narrow-minded bigot!"
You wanted to skip over the FMV and get back to "Yet Another T-rex Battle"? No wonder you didn't like the movie.
Personally, the first time I saw Squall jump into that convertible and go tearing off after the Sorceress, I immediately hit reset so that I could play through again.
Sigh. Some people just don't appreciate the finer things in life.
Perhaps the plot sucks every bit as badly as you say. Perhaps the movie will be a financial disaster. Square doesn't necessarily have a problem.
From what I gather, the main point of FF:TSW was to show what can be done with computers these days. More to the point, to show what Square can do with computers these days. So if the only people who end up watching the movie are the hundred Hollywood execs who are deciding whether to license their technology for future movies, Square can have ticket sales of $1000 and still make out like a bandit.
That would be a great thing. If this technology (or something similar) continues gaining acceptance among filmmakers, it gives us consumers/proles some great eye candy at rock-bottom prices.
I assumed you meant banning the Unix "finger" command, which is often used by malicious hackers to gain valuable information to assist them in compromising the target network.
Sad to say, my primary boxen is running Windows 95. I tried to get a dual boot system going, but I couldn't get RedHat to install (I'll take another stab at it, honest). I have a cheap computer running RedHat 6.2, but I don't turn it on much.
Having said that, I've got my Windows 95 box loaded up with Perl, the Apache http daemon, GCC, Mozilla, and all sorts of other goodness. If you haven't mastered Linux, I would encourage you to at least download other Win32-compatable binaries.
I do have to say that, once you tweak the themes, Gnome desktop looks way cooler than any of the WinXX's.
I guess it does leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Techie: Welcome to I-Opener Tech Support. What issue do you need resolved? Customer: Yeah, I'm trying to hypersurf the World Wide Net, but I can't seem to do it. Techie: Have you removed your I-Opener from the box? Customer: Yes. Techie: Have you plugged in your I-Opener? Customer: Yes. Techie:(realizing this is going to be one of his tougher calls) Okay, I need you to bring up your command line and type 'ping 204.221.202.11'. Customer: Okay. I did it. Techie: What does your screen say? Customer: 'ping 204.221.202.11' Techie:(groaning) Now press return, and tell me what it says. Customer: 'Packets sent: 4, Packets received, 4, zero percent packet loss.' Techie: Congratulations! You've just accessed the Internet! Thank you for calling I-Opener tech support. Customer: Wait a minute! Is that all this thing can do? Techie: Pretty much. Well, there is traceroute, but that one gets a bit complicated. Just stick with 'ping' for now. Have a nice day.
Okay, it's clear that they're just posting this story to get people to reveal their passwords. Cmdr. Taco didn't even have to kidnap this guy's daughter and threaten to give her back her original nose. I can't believe how many are falling for it!
Speaking of your sig (okay, so we weren't), does anyone know what the translation for "Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec" is supposed to be? Babelfish choked on it last time I tried. Fifty billion moderator points for anyone who tells me the answer (or invents a plausible-sounding one).
Frankly, I don't see how the "shared source" system can work. With open source, there's a high motivation for the programming-inclined to look through the guts of the source code. If the software user finds something he wants tweaked, he can tweak it, recompile, and suggest a patch.
With shared source, if the user finds something, he can suggest a patch, wait several months, and then try to figure out whether his fix was included in the service pack.
Following the source code of a major project can be a time-consuming process, and the shared source model gives little motivation for users to make the effort. Of course some large corporations may still devote people to examining the source and looking for bugs, but I honestly can't imagine too many people trudging through M$ code. For Microsoft, the legion of eyeballs will remain but a legend.
But what would be really cool is having a dozen cameras inside your refrigerator so that you can do Matrix-style view rotations on. . . a carton of milk?
I hope this doesn't mean we've run out of useful things for technology to do.
Here's another possible business model: Hostageware. You threaten not to release a software product under the GPL until you've received profits totalling some amount.
Then you kill the hostage by formatting the drive with the source code, take the money, and flee the country in an action-packed chase scene, with Cameron Diaz in tow. Or maybe I just saw it in a movie somewhere. Please ignore this paragraph.
The advantage is, you get paid for the work. Unfortunately, you couldn't use any GPL'ed code in such a product. Otherwise, it seems like a workable idea if the product was good enough to attract people.
The thing is, software doesn't have to be profitable in its own right. Software is valuable not because you can exchange copies of it to other people for money, but because it allows you to do things with a computer that you otherwise couldn't. So if you assume that a computer needs an operating system in order to function, an OS has to be created in order to turn your $2000 computer into more than just a paperweight. Somebody is going to build an OS, even if there was a law against selling software for money.
The same can be said for any application you could care to name. Someone is going to build an office productivity suite because it makes the secretaries of their company more productive. Someone is bound to implement the TCP/IP protocol because the computers become more valuable when they can talk to each other.
Finally, we would hope that people are going to release that software to the public under a GPL-style license. It's not generosity, but calculated self-interest. It's good to not have to shoulder the entire cost of developing an in-house application. It's good to have products out there that are free and compatable with other products. It's good when the forking process comes up with a better product. I fully believe in the Open Source movement's ability to create great software, even though the process would appear to be "voodoo economics" to any corporate accountant.
The point is, software doesn't have to be sellable in order to be valuable. Hence, it doesn't have to be sellable in order for people to be willing to create it.
Easy. As widespread pirating becomes common, movie studios are going to have to be a little more conservative during the planning stage. Tom Cruise will only do this movie for $22 million. Sucks to be us, but we'll have to get someone a little less in demand. Gertrude? Get on the phone and find out what Drew Carrey's schedule looks like.
The next phase will be to harness the power of Beowulf clustering to move more of the production process onto computers. Instead of having Tom Cruise do the movie, you get someone who kinda looks like him, scan him into a computer, and use a combination of voice talent and guys with ping-pong balls duct taped to their butts. Best of all, you don't have to deal with whiny actors.
Finally, twenty years down the road, when multi-gigabyte downloads are as quick as a megabyte download is today, they'll fire the motion capture guys (yep, "The Blue Group" will be out of work yet again), dump the Beowulfs, and sell the movie cameras to the pr0n industry. The directors will lock themselves in the archives, and all new movies will be created by splicing together old movies.
The American people, their brains having already been turned to mush by such intellectual endeavors as the XFL and an interminable string of Britney Spears clones, will fail to notice that anything has changed.
"Oh the humanity!! $10 for easy, one-click access to 2430 games/year plus playoffs. What are they thinking?
That's $.000457 an inning for crying outloud! "
Show me a guy who would watch all 2430 games a year, and I'll show you a guy who hasn't had a date since Gerald Ford left office. The average person is only going to want this service as a matter of last resort (i.e. when the game isn't being broadcasted or the cable is on the fritz). It would be extremely liberal to say a fan might watch twenty games a year.
Still only $.50, you say? But think of what you're really getting for your money: a lossy, jittery version of a product that is being given away to people fortunate enough to live in the right broadcast area. Giving the games away for free in the team's home market is valuable to MLB, despite the huge costs of production. Why not add just a little more effort to make this product available to a much wider audience. They might not be able to buy tickets, but they can always buy gear.
All right, this is where I'm supposed to stand up and give my "Give me streaming baseball or give me death" speech. I'll pass. Major League Baseball is hardly an inalienable right, and broadcasting the games does cost a good chunk of change. But I do think that this is a horrible plan, for the MLB as well as the fans.
Also, this might become popular all over the internet. In some cases, paid subscriptions make sense. But in other cases (and I believe MLB is one of them) it will happen because the PHBs see only the money brought in by subscriptions, and not the money and popularity they're denying themselves by not making it available to a wider audience.
A better plan might be to allow access to a low-bandwidth, ad-filled version for free. Paying subscribers would get higher-quality feeds where the ads are replaced by interviews with the stars, highlights from past games between the teams, blooper reels, and other fun stuff. I wouldn't pay for it, but then I'm more of a basketball person.
Actually, I think that these documents have all been made "public record" because they've all been entered into court transcripts in earlier cases. I wonder if it would be legal to put up the documents and claim to be citing case such-and-such. Of course, I'm not going to be the first to try.
There's a running joke among anti-$cientology folk called "Operation Footbullet". It pokes fun at Scientology's tendency to generate bad publicity whenever they try and silence their critics. They're "shooting themselves in the foot," so to speak.
The Mormon Church -- er, I mean, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"* -- once pulled a similar feat when they sued to get Jerald and Sandra Tanner (two of their most prominent critics) to remove several pages of copyrighted material. The material was from the General Handbook of Instruction, a book of procedures and policies used by LDS bishops, and it described how to get one's name removed from the records of the Church.
So the Mormon Church sued, the Tanners took down the material after a protracted legal battle, replacing it with a link and later with a summary of the material. Meanwhile, hits to their website tripled, and it became very popular in "anti-Mormon" circles for everyone to have their own electronic copy of the General Handbook of Instruction. The Tanners have a summary of the whole legal battle, for anyone interested. I think it's relevant to the discussion because they discovered that linking to the copyrighted material -- as/. has -- still opened them up to liability.
* Lately, "The Church" has been strangely obsessed with media outlets using its "proper name."
First, we know from the Cue:Cat debacle that the DMCA doesn't require the encryption mechanism to be difficult to defeat; it just has to have the intent of protecting copyrighted work. While the Aimster encryption scheme is really pushing the limits, it's up to the court to decide if it's "too stupid."
It would be more valid to argue that the Aimster program itself is illegal under the DMCA because it was designed to circumvent a copyright protection scheme. But there are non-circumventing uses for a program like this: slowing down hackers -- er, crackers, I mean -- who break into your system looking for files, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. I'll try and find some free webhosting or something. But you know what? The first person to submit a patch to me is going to get his ears boxed.
The machines have already won. We need them. We've got a planet carrying six billion people, and eighty percent of those people could not exist without the resources provided by the machines. Now Technological Progress(TM) is working its butt off to make these machines as intelligent as possible, and turn over as much decision-making as they can to the machines. I fail to see how you can claim that "humans are still on top." Sure, we still direct the machines, but we're still very much dependent on them.
Is the creation greater than the creator? Up until about the middle of the 19th century, that wouldn't even have been a meaningful question. So it helps to have a sense of perspective. When measured against the backdrop of recorded history, we're rolling through new terrain at a hundred miles an hour, and have our foot on the gas.
Now, I'm probably overstating my case in several important ways. I don't really think its likely that the 'droids will revolt. But I think your post amounts to "h00m4n5 r00l!! r0b0t5 5uxx0rz!!", and this issue requires closer scrutiny.
First, you can throw away the parts of the brain that are dedicated to regulating the body. Computers don't need them. Then realize that human beings probably aren't optimally wired for thinking. The processes which mold the brain from babyhood on do so through chemical processes and internal and external sensory stimuli, which can be rather crude tools. If nanobots went through our brains and rewired us synapse by synapse, we might see anything from a twofold to a millionfold increase in real intelligence. Or, if they screw up, we might end up with an appetite for shrubbery. But that's beside the point.
Also, looking at CAT scans, we see that at any given moment, a great deal of the human brain is not functioning at maximum capacity. This is especially true when the brain is being exposed to John Tesh or UPN programming.
More important than anything listed so far, we only have a vague idea of how ideas are stored in the brain, correlated, discarded, combined to produce interesting insights, and recognized as interesting. Until we have a better grasp of this process, there's no point in trying to draw a useful comparison between the brain and a computer. Simply due to the differences in architecture, these processes would have to proceed in radically different ways. It doesn't matter what the brain is theoretically capable of, if the bulk of its computing power is devoted to running print( "Hello, World!" ); in an infinite loop.
There are at least a few researchers in the AI field who believe that we've had the necessary computational power for a decade. The problem, in their minds, is the lack of fundamental understanding of intelligence, not more clock cycles.
Finally, approximately 80% of all brain calculations involve fantasizing about sex or trying to decide how best to obtain same. Presuming that neither function is integral to intelligence, this fact greatly lowers the bar separating human from computer.
My fellow Americans, please visit this site, download "The War of 1812", and see how our "friendly neighbors to the North" still desire to rule America, even as Starbucks and McDonalds rule Canada today.
Back off! I warn you, I've got moderator points, and I'm not afraid to use them!
Many Middle-eastern Muslims have never had such an experience. They've grown up in a culture where practically everyone follows Islam, where [somebody's interpretations of] the edicts of the Koran are codified directly into secular law, and where there is little access to any ideas but those which support the current religious regime.
This isn't a flaw in Islam per se. I would say it's the danger of any culture where the vast majority hold the same ideas. It wouldn't matter if the countries in question were 95% Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or Wiccan. In any case, there's the danger that the majority will find minority opinions discomforting, and seek to suppress them.
So I cannot sign off on your opinion that Islam is "one of the most tolerant and accepting of religions"; certainly not if you're going to extrapolate your experience to countries outside the U.S. Truth is, power corrupts, and in countries such as Iran, Egypt, and Afghanistan, the Muslims have all the power.
I even get a small glimpse of this pattern just from living in Utah. You would find the protestant Christians around here are infinitely more tolerant and polite than anything you would find in the Bible Belt, where Baptists rule. The majority is always in danger of forgetting that the minority deserves the same rights and consideration that they receive.
Your criticism that we Americans need to learn about other cultures is in many ways correct. But it would be much more appropriately be directed towards the Taliban leadership themselves. After all, it was they who ordered 3000 year old statues demolished because of their unique and narrow-minded interpretation of what constitutes "idolatry."
Tolerance, understanding, and respect for other cultures is a wonderful thing, and should be cultivated at every opportunity. But if, in the name of those ideals, I'm supposed to stand by and watch as human rights are trampled in the name of religious fundamentalism, then I'll give them a miss. So allow me to be the first to stand up and proudly admit, "I am a narrow-minded bigot!"
Personally, the first time I saw Squall jump into that convertible and go tearing off after the Sorceress, I immediately hit reset so that I could play through again.
Sigh. Some people just don't appreciate the finer things in life.
Perhaps the plot sucks every bit as badly as you say. Perhaps the movie will be a financial disaster. Square doesn't necessarily have a problem.
From what I gather, the main point of FF:TSW was to show what can be done with computers these days. More to the point, to show what Square can do with computers these days. So if the only people who end up watching the movie are the hundred Hollywood execs who are deciding whether to license their technology for future movies, Square can have ticket sales of $1000 and still make out like a bandit.
That would be a great thing. If this technology (or something similar) continues gaining acceptance among filmmakers, it gives us consumers/proles some great eye candy at rock-bottom prices.
Your way is even funnier.
Having said that, I've got my Windows 95 box loaded up with Perl, the Apache http daemon, GCC, Mozilla, and all sorts of other goodness. If you haven't mastered Linux, I would encourage you to at least download other Win32-compatable binaries.
I do have to say that, once you tweak the themes, Gnome desktop looks way cooler than any of the WinXX's.
Speaking of your sig (okay, so we weren't), does anyone know what the translation for "Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec" is supposed to be? Babelfish choked on it last time I tried. Fifty billion moderator points for anyone who tells me the answer (or invents a plausible-sounding one).
With shared source, if the user finds something, he can suggest a patch, wait several months, and then try to figure out whether his fix was included in the service pack.
Following the source code of a major project can be a time-consuming process, and the shared source model gives little motivation for users to make the effort. Of course some large corporations may still devote people to examining the source and looking for bugs, but I honestly can't imagine too many people trudging through M$ code. For Microsoft, the legion of eyeballs will remain but a legend.
I hope this doesn't mean we've run out of useful things for technology to do.
Then you kill the hostage by formatting the drive with the source code, take the money, and flee the country in an action-packed chase scene, with Cameron Diaz in tow. Or maybe I just saw it in a movie somewhere. Please ignore this paragraph.
The advantage is, you get paid for the work. Unfortunately, you couldn't use any GPL'ed code in such a product. Otherwise, it seems like a workable idea if the product was good enough to attract people.
The same can be said for any application you could care to name. Someone is going to build an office productivity suite because it makes the secretaries of their company more productive. Someone is bound to implement the TCP/IP protocol because the computers become more valuable when they can talk to each other.
Finally, we would hope that people are going to release that software to the public under a GPL-style license. It's not generosity, but calculated self-interest. It's good to not have to shoulder the entire cost of developing an in-house application. It's good to have products out there that are free and compatable with other products. It's good when the forking process comes up with a better product. I fully believe in the Open Source movement's ability to create great software, even though the process would appear to be "voodoo economics" to any corporate accountant.
The point is, software doesn't have to be sellable in order to be valuable. Hence, it doesn't have to be sellable in order for people to be willing to create it.
If anyone knows how to unlock /dev/null's Write-Only Memory, please tell me. It's where I have all my nightly backups archived.
The next phase will be to harness the power of Beowulf clustering to move more of the production process onto computers. Instead of having Tom Cruise do the movie, you get someone who kinda looks like him, scan him into a computer, and use a combination of voice talent and guys with ping-pong balls duct taped to their butts. Best of all, you don't have to deal with whiny actors.
Finally, twenty years down the road, when multi-gigabyte downloads are as quick as a megabyte download is today, they'll fire the motion capture guys (yep, "The Blue Group" will be out of work yet again), dump the Beowulfs, and sell the movie cameras to the pr0n industry. The directors will lock themselves in the archives, and all new movies will be created by splicing together old movies.
The American people, their brains having already been turned to mush by such intellectual endeavors as the XFL and an interminable string of Britney Spears clones, will fail to notice that anything has changed.
Still only $.50, you say? But think of what you're really getting for your money: a lossy, jittery version of a product that is being given away to people fortunate enough to live in the right broadcast area. Giving the games away for free in the team's home market is valuable to MLB, despite the huge costs of production. Why not add just a little more effort to make this product available to a much wider audience. They might not be able to buy tickets, but they can always buy gear.
All right, this is where I'm supposed to stand up and give my "Give me streaming baseball or give me death" speech. I'll pass. Major League Baseball is hardly an inalienable right, and broadcasting the games does cost a good chunk of change. But I do think that this is a horrible plan, for the MLB as well as the fans.
Also, this might become popular all over the internet. In some cases, paid subscriptions make sense. But in other cases (and I believe MLB is one of them) it will happen because the PHBs see only the money brought in by subscriptions, and not the money and popularity they're denying themselves by not making it available to a wider audience.
A better plan might be to allow access to a low-bandwidth, ad-filled version for free. Paying subscribers would get higher-quality feeds where the ads are replaced by interviews with the stars, highlights from past games between the teams, blooper reels, and other fun stuff. I wouldn't pay for it, but then I'm more of a basketball person.
I was thinking more along the lines of pre-salted popcorn. Just add butter.
Actually, I think that these documents have all been made "public record" because they've all been entered into court transcripts in earlier cases. I wonder if it would be legal to put up the documents and claim to be citing case such-and-such. Of course, I'm not going to be the first to try.
The Mormon Church -- er, I mean, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"* -- once pulled a similar feat when they sued to get Jerald and Sandra Tanner (two of their most prominent critics) to remove several pages of copyrighted material. The material was from the General Handbook of Instruction, a book of procedures and policies used by LDS bishops, and it described how to get one's name removed from the records of the Church.
So the Mormon Church sued, the Tanners took down the material after a protracted legal battle, replacing it with a link and later with a summary of the material. Meanwhile, hits to their website tripled, and it became very popular in "anti-Mormon" circles for everyone to have their own electronic copy of the General Handbook of Instruction. The Tanners have a summary of the whole legal battle, for anyone interested. I think it's relevant to the discussion because they discovered that linking to the copyrighted material -- as /. has -- still opened them up to liability.
* Lately, "The Church" has been strangely obsessed with media outlets using its "proper name."
It would be more valid to argue that the Aimster program itself is illegal under the DMCA because it was designed to circumvent a copyright protection scheme. But there are non-circumventing uses for a program like this: slowing down hackers -- er, crackers, I mean -- who break into your system looking for files, for example.
There. Now everyone can go home happy.