Unless whoever you're donating to is on one of the secret government terrorist lists, or a front for terrorists, or might possibly theoretically maybe help someone who turns out to be connected to a terrorist.
Then donating money is illegal and grounds for having your entire bank account seized.
Since I'm not insane, I predict that doing the exactly the same thing will wind up with exactly the same outcome: MPEG will come out demanding money from everything that touched the codec, everyone will ignore them, they'll pick on some little people to make examples out of, and Linux distributions will move the codecs to the super-sekrit repositories for lawbreakers, and instructions for enabling them will be left on obscure forums for googlers to find. And everyone will continue to ignore the patentholders.
So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever?
The government calls this "Civil Commitment". It's in the constitution, it's just in the part that nobody read until last year, so there's all sorts of pedos that nobody realized they could just leave locked up forever, even after their jail term ends.
Oh wait, now that I read TFA instead of trusting TFS, now I see that slashdot has a new definition of the word "both", and "Injun" will be replaced by "Indian", not "slave".
We also need to blanket cancel all of the existing patents that read "a means for [solving a problem]". Not only do they fail the basic test of containing the information required to render the patent into practice, they don't describe a specific invention, they only describe the problem. Any solution to that problem is patented.
And no, "a means for [solving a problem] using THE INTERNET!!!!" (or in this case, "using A DATABASE!!!!") isn't an improvement.
This "using an X" bullshit is doubly damned since if I create an online ranking system using a flat file for storage instead of a database, it's impossible for anyone to know that unless I give them my source code. With money-sucking patent trolls, how do I know that they're actually going to respect the secrecy of my code instead of monetizing it every which way that they can? An NDA? Who am I going to sue, Patent Shellcorp A whose sole assets are a telephone, a desk, my own sourcecode, and the single patent itself? After all, it costs Patent Shellcorp A a lot of money to hire that management corporation that they pay 100% of its profits to. At least with an honest-to-goodness competitor, they'd almost certainly respect the NDA since they actually have something to lose. Add to that the fact that by the time they've gotten to the "discovery" of my source code, I've already accrued probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees and charges. Add to that the fact that the patent troll's attorney will have been spending that time working 80 hour days at $5000000/hr and expecting me to pay that when I lose or settle.
The MAC address is only visible on the local network. The first router you hit strips it and adds its own (assuming that the router's uplink is ethernet or some other link protocol that has a MAC).
The idea behind anycast is that I can install hundreds of DNS servers around the world, and give them all the same address but make them return different results, with the idea that the DNS server that is "closest" to the user would return a (non-anycast) address for "download.example.com" that is also "close".
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
Funny, Merriam-Webster thinks it means what he thinks it means. And yes, if you suppress or delete anything considered objectionable so your kids don't see it, you're censoring it.
Amazon is fully within their rights to censor it, and we're fully within our rights to call them out on it.
Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
When you start trying to solve imaginary problems you can get really bad regulations, really fast.
As I implied, I doubt that we're going to get any kind of "good regulation" out of this. When you think of it as a "pre-emptive strike" (against SBC/AT&T's CEO's saber rattling over companies "using their network" "for free" which set the whole tempest off, teapot or not) it certainly does make a lot of sense: we'll go in with a lot of bullshit and get mired for years before everyone decides that it wasn't worth it in the beginning.
Is it possible? It's absolutely trivial: ban ISPs from billing anyone they do not have a direct connection to. That'd solve the issue of ISPs extorting content producers from the other side of the internet. It would allow content distribution companies like akamai who run direct connections into a lot of ISPs to continue to exist.
But don't try to pretend that engineering problems are intractable problems.
Don't try to pretend that capitalism problems are engineering problems. Replacing a 14 mile pipe costs money. Money you don't have if some company in China that just dumps the waste in the nearest ditch is undercutting you, but which might become available when the Chinese government tells their company to stop competing with you (by preventing it from exporting out of China).
Since there was no rule for it, they couldn't do it.
You mean "they couldn't be bothered to do it". This is what really bothers me about people against regulation: regulations are hurdles that companies must jump. Yes, some companies can't jump the hurdles and go out of business. The rest jump just barely high enough to clear the hurdle, and not a hair higher.
When the hurdles are taken away, who still expects the companies to jump? If "there was no rule for it" is an excuse now, what happens when there's no rules for anything?
"The YouCut Citizen Review will look at grants issued by the National Science Foundation and identify those that you consider wasteful"
We are launching an experiment - the first YouCut Citizen Review of a government agency. Together, we will identify wasteful spending that should be cut and begin to hold agencies accountable for how they are spending your money.
First, we will take a look at the National Science Foundation (NSF) - Congress created the NSF in 1950 to promote the progress of science. For this purpose, NSF makes more than 10,000 new grant awards annually, many of these grants fund worthy research in the hard sciences.
this is not an issue for your and my individual rights. We go to a store (or online) in the US and buy something, first sale applies same as ever this has nothing to do with it.
"Rights" may be too strong of a word, but it does mean I now have to pay American prices for stuff rather than finding a reseller who paid Chinese prices for it.
So if there's no local copyright holder, then it's OK? I can go buy obscure swiss novels and resell them in the US as long as the publisher doesn't have a branch in America? What constitutes a "local copyright holder"?
The only way people can get away with saying the constitution permitted it is equating blacks with property
I suppose you're breathing solely because I permit you to do so? Or would you say that perhaps my permission is unnecessary?
Most appropriately, it would be best phrased that I do not deny you your ability to breathe, and the Constitution did not deny people the ability to own slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but the FBI managed to get this done without stea^Wconfiscating all the servers and shutting down hundreds of sites.
Unless whoever you're donating to is on one of the secret government terrorist lists, or a front for terrorists, or might possibly theoretically maybe help someone who turns out to be connected to a terrorist.
Then donating money is illegal and grounds for having your entire bank account seized.
Funny, I was thinking of the MP3 patents.
Since I'm not insane, I predict that doing the exactly the same thing will wind up with exactly the same outcome: MPEG will come out demanding money from everything that touched the codec, everyone will ignore them, they'll pick on some little people to make examples out of, and Linux distributions will move the codecs to the super-sekrit repositories for lawbreakers, and instructions for enabling them will be left on obscure forums for googlers to find. And everyone will continue to ignore the patentholders.
I once made one with a scuba suit, fishbowl, oxygen tank and duct tape.
or you'll end up in Hell!
That's ok, I'll just tunnel back out.
"Cops spot James alone with a child on his farm and arrest him!"
So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever?
The government calls this "Civil Commitment". It's in the constitution, it's just in the part that nobody read until last year, so there's all sorts of pedos that nobody realized they could just leave locked up forever, even after their jail term ends.
Oh wait, now that I read TFA instead of trusting TFS, now I see that slashdot has a new definition of the word "both", and "Injun" will be replaced by "Indian", not "slave".
Well, it could have been an "Injun".
If they're going to "fix" it, they could have at least "fixed" it right and changed Injun to "Native American".
We also need to blanket cancel all of the existing patents that read "a means for [solving a problem]". Not only do they fail the basic test of containing the information required to render the patent into practice, they don't describe a specific invention, they only describe the problem. Any solution to that problem is patented.
And no, "a means for [solving a problem] using THE INTERNET!!!!" (or in this case, "using A DATABASE!!!!") isn't an improvement.
This "using an X" bullshit is doubly damned since if I create an online ranking system using a flat file for storage instead of a database, it's impossible for anyone to know that unless I give them my source code. With money-sucking patent trolls, how do I know that they're actually going to respect the secrecy of my code instead of monetizing it every which way that they can? An NDA? Who am I going to sue, Patent Shellcorp A whose sole assets are a telephone, a desk, my own sourcecode, and the single patent itself? After all, it costs Patent Shellcorp A a lot of money to hire that management corporation that they pay 100% of its profits to. At least with an honest-to-goodness competitor, they'd almost certainly respect the NDA since they actually have something to lose. Add to that the fact that by the time they've gotten to the "discovery" of my source code, I've already accrued probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees and charges. Add to that the fact that the patent troll's attorney will have been spending that time working 80 hour days at $5000000/hr and expecting me to pay that when I lose or settle.
The MAC address is only visible on the local network. The first router you hit strips it and adds its own (assuming that the router's uplink is ethernet or some other link protocol that has a MAC).
The idea behind anycast is that I can install hundreds of DNS servers around the world, and give them all the same address but make them return different results, with the idea that the DNS server that is "closest" to the user would return a (non-anycast) address for "download.example.com" that is also "close".
-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)
Funny, Merriam-Webster thinks it means what he thinks it means. And yes, if you suppress or delete anything considered objectionable so your kids don't see it, you're censoring it.
Amazon is fully within their rights to censor it, and we're fully within our rights to call them out on it.
Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?
-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)
Only if they looked at the dictionary and thought it was objectionable, which apparently you do.
When you start trying to solve imaginary problems you can get really bad regulations, really fast.
As I implied, I doubt that we're going to get any kind of "good regulation" out of this. When you think of it as a "pre-emptive strike" (against SBC/AT&T's CEO's saber rattling over companies "using their network" "for free" which set the whole tempest off, teapot or not) it certainly does make a lot of sense: we'll go in with a lot of bullshit and get mired for years before everyone decides that it wasn't worth it in the beginning.
We're currently in the "mired for years" stage.
Is it possible? It's absolutely trivial: ban ISPs from billing anyone they do not have a direct connection to. That'd solve the issue of ISPs extorting content producers from the other side of the internet. It would allow content distribution companies like akamai who run direct connections into a lot of ISPs to continue to exist.
Is that what we're going to get? Probably not.
But don't try to pretend that engineering problems are intractable problems.
Don't try to pretend that capitalism problems are engineering problems. Replacing a 14 mile pipe costs money. Money you don't have if some company in China that just dumps the waste in the nearest ditch is undercutting you, but which might become available when the Chinese government tells their company to stop competing with you (by preventing it from exporting out of China).
What's the difference between letting the radioactive wastes in the ground and putting them back in the ground after you get the ore out?
They weren't putting it back in the ground, they were pumping it 14 miles away to evaporative ponds, except for the 60-odd times the pipe broke over 14 years.
Since there was no rule for it, they couldn't do it.
You mean "they couldn't be bothered to do it". This is what really bothers me about people against regulation: regulations are hurdles that companies must jump. Yes, some companies can't jump the hurdles and go out of business. The rest jump just barely high enough to clear the hurdle, and not a hair higher.
When the hurdles are taken away, who still expects the companies to jump? If "there was no rule for it" is an excuse now, what happens when there's no rules for anything?
The obvious answer is to port it to Linux.
"The YouCut Citizen Review will look at grants issued by the National Science Foundation and identify those that you consider wasteful"
From http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm
Since the justice system ceased to serve the truth and became slaves to "the process".
this is not an issue for your and my individual rights. We go to a store (or online) in the US and buy something, first sale applies same as ever this has nothing to do with it.
"Rights" may be too strong of a word, but it does mean I now have to pay American prices for stuff rather than finding a reseller who paid Chinese prices for it.
So if there's no local copyright holder, then it's OK? I can go buy obscure swiss novels and resell them in the US as long as the publisher doesn't have a branch in America? What constitutes a "local copyright holder"?
The only way people can get away with saying the constitution permitted it is equating blacks with property
I suppose you're breathing solely because I permit you to do so? Or would you say that perhaps my permission is unnecessary?
Most appropriately, it would be best phrased that I do not deny you your ability to breathe, and the Constitution did not deny people the ability to own slaves.
Be ready for my once a week "go against the crowd" comment which will automatically get me a -1 no matter what
Works better if you post in a section more than 20 people read.