Well, I don't Sealand would work either, but not for the reasons you submit. Though it would be pretty trivial to block Sealand's IP addresses from the global Internet, I don't believe Sealand's internet pipe is prepared or able to withstand opening a Napster server on (yes, yes, I understand that the files do not get transferred to the Npaster server, etc, etc...) and millions logging on. I think everyone really knows this and so noone takes this threat seriously.
I'm afraid you misquote history. According to Sealand's homepage, the day before the UK extended it's territorial waters, Sealand extended there's as well. Not to mention the fact, that, according to international law/treaties/customs, you cannot claim another country just by extending your waters. I believe the only accepted way to claim another country is to invade it.
Actually the same man (and his wife) who ran that pirate radio station on Sealand are the ones who declared it a country. Fascinating history...though I suspect some parts may be a bit dramatized.
Sounds more like the Coast Guard overstepped their boundaries, and with no country behind the "pirates", who's going to complain? Not anything new.
But, Sealand/HavenCo is a different story. If Sealand/HavenCo allowed the US Government (or any other, for that matter) to shut down a server, it would be akin to committing suicide. HavenCo's whole purpose is to shield data and servers from government interference...bow to governemnt pressure once and nobody will trust them again.
Yes, it would be copyright infringement: but on the user's part (in reality, the same way it is now, but the courts refuse to see this). OffshoreNapster (OffNap?) would have no liability in this reagrd, as it's performing a legal act in its country.
As for seeling copies of CD's online and via mailorder:
1) People do this.
2) If it wasn't illegal in your chosen overseas haven, go for it.
3) Only the purchaser would be held liable for (c) infringement. (though US Customs can open your package and deny entry, in which case you'd have an irate customer...though in the spirit of Aimster, maybe you should encrypt the contents of the CD, thereby forcing anyone inspecting the contents to violate DMCA to see what it was. Then again, they could just force the receiver to give up the password. Perhaps you could only send the password (via PGP Encryption, of course) once the receiver has verified delivery...).
Whoa there Kahuna! You're way out of line. First off, by indicated by the:) emoticon, that comment was made tongue-in-cheek. Second of all, one of my main points was to point out to the previous poster, was that the Christian, Muslim, et al. religions he cited all have actual blood on their hands, Scientology (AFAIK) does not. So, let's keep this thing in perspective as far as religious fervor goes, OK?
Secondly, he was sued (not "beat up", "his house burned down", "abused", "threatened", "terrorized", or even "otherwise punished") which, no, I don't believe is "punishment". It's the way our "modern western culture" resolves differences of opinions. Relax, get off the Jolt! cola, and read the fscking comments next time before you spout off.
"Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. try to reach out to people and say: "Here, these are our religious documents. Use them and you'll be a better person." And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion."
Of course in older times (and, with some religions even now), if people disagreed...they just killed them. (see Spanish Inquisition, jihad, etc.)
I think I'll take the Scientology "punishment". =)
BTW, all religions are a sham as far as "true beliefs" go. But, they (most anyways) do serve a purpose in society so that people have something to believe in. Many people really wouldn't be able to fathom that their life has no other "higher meaning" (see heaven). Or that there really is no all powerful being to turn to when things go wrong (see prayer). These people may very well need some moral guidance in their lives (see 10 Commandments). And, in most cases, it really doesn't harm me, so I don't care. Wasn't it Nietzche who said that God is dead...but no one knows about it yet? (ie., the reasons that "God" was invented for [to explain the, at the time, "supernatural" has been taken over by science [which to some, is a religion], and so there was no longer a need for "God". But, people have yet to realize this, and still keep "Him" around. I disagree, saying that "God" was invented for much more complex reasons having to due with human emotions and social tendencies, and say there will always be a perceived "need" for "God". "God" will never be dead in the eyes of the majority of the world, but will continue to shift patterns based on their needs at the time [see Old Testament vs. New Testament, rise of so-called "cults", etc.]).
And of course, a lot of/.'ers could probably be classified as belonging to the Linux religion...
"I think it said that we'll be able to control the speed and orientation of several tons of potentially lethal metals at speeds up to 80 MPH around defenseless people while we surf, chat, and listen to the radio on the road.
Ummm...I surely hope you don't drive 80mph in a residential zone. I think those speeds are reserved for expressways (where there are no "defenseless people". Besides, my car goes 150.
"The logic is that if you were aware of the situation better, you could have kept the accident from occuring"
And I agree with that. If you're being an aware driver, you should be able to avoid someone who is not paying attention. It's called defensive driving, and, in most cases, it's extremely effective. I personally log between 35,000-50,000 miles per year and have never had an accident that wasn't my fault-however, I routinely dodge other cars and compensate for their poor driving. I don't let other drivers screw me into an accident (though I have screwed myself into one).
My father, who taught me to drive, is a truck driver and has over 1,000,000 accident-free miles. The moral? Pay attention to your driving better and you'll be able to avoid the ones who can't drive (hint: assume that nobody has a clue, and nobody can drive). And then we just wait for them to slam a tree or telephone pole, etc.
CloneCD anyone? Bit-to-bit copying=exact duplicate. Doesn't matter if it can be "read" by your CD drive, since, in your example, "read" should really be "opened/played". CloneCD will see it as just a bunch of 1's and 0's, and, obivously, the CD has to be "read" just to know what's in there!
Unless, of course, this is going to have support from MS Windows, that is. (With their whole secure-path audio crap-a-hola.)
Who says people will be moving when using this? Or that it won't interface with voice-activation? Regardless, this sort of thing can be done already with the 2-way satellite dishes. Granted, only an RV or a 18-wheeler can be used for this, but it's a great thing for my Dad-who is a truck driver. He carries a satellite dish in his cab, and when he parks for a while, runs it up on his side mirror, spends 5 minutes orienting it, and boom! he's got high-speed net access and satellite TV in the middle of nowhere.
I'd see this broadband2wireless application more in things like streaming radio/backseat video, driving directions, voice-read email, etc. In most jurisdictions, it's still illegal to have a video monitor within view of the driver.
Besides, people can't drive anyways. Perhaps if we give the bad drivers enough distractions, they'll qualify for a Darwin award.
I think the real point of this isn't to be able to download and print the new Pentium VIII 10.5 GHz CPU, but to allow hobbyists to quickly, easily, and cheaply design their own circuits. Sure, we're talking about the same stuff that you can go to Rat Shack and grab some solder and get it done, but it'll be cheaper and easier to print them out. And, if you screw it up, click-click-Save-Print again and again.
Or you could have followed the link from the original story and came up with a related article here.
And, for all those that think these desktop fabs will be able to produce CPU's, motherboards, and other fabs by themselves, you might want to take a look at that article. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible to print out everything on a motherboard, for instance. Not to mention the ridiculousness of thinking you could print out a fab that has moving parts!
>Crossgain is a startup that aims to "create a service that runs a company's big software programs over the Web" (in competition with "we know who").
Competition? with what? MS doesn't offer a service like that... IMO it's a pretty weak charge.
Two words for ya'...DOT NET (or.NET for those who prefer one word and some punctuation...)
I know of companies in my area who refuse to hire workers from other companies because of the known use of non-competes there. Most other companies will refuse to hire you if you tell them you're under a non-compete, though if they really want you they may have their lawyer take a look at the contract, or buy the contract from your previous employer.
Contracts do not have to be signed, nor written, for that matter. Contracts are "a meeting of the minds". Wrting them down simply helps clarifies the "meeting of the minds". There are plenty of implicit contracts, and they are as legally binding as the written ones.
The other posters who said they did not sign the non-competes could very well find themselves in the same position as if they had. The company's lawyer could (effectively, I might add) argue that by not actively objecting the non-compete, and by continuing employment for x months/years after knowing that the non-compete was in blanket force around the company, the worker implicitly agreed to the non-compete. There does not have to be a written or signed piece of paper to have a valid contract. Sure, having it written down/signed makes it a helluva lot easier to prove in court what exactly was agreed to, but there are other ways of proving that.
I think people have misconstrued this "employment-at-will" bit. IANAL, but I have studied a fair bit of contract law. "Employment-at-will" is nothing more than you can quit and/or be fired for any or no reason whatsoever (barring national/state/local protected discrimination groups (usu. race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, handicapped, and in some places sexual orientation) as long as they do not interfere with your ability to do your job). It does not have anything to do with non-compete contracts and/or NDA's.
That being said, Non-competes are usually found enforceable if they are specific. For example, a non-compete saying that you can't open a company/work for a company in the same industry within 50 miles of your previous employer. Or you can't go to work for a client of your consulting firm for 6 months, etc.
I freely admit that I'm an addict. But not just to cigarettes. I'm addicted to alot of things that I enjoy. And just like I enjoy my coffee and caffeine to make me feel more energized, I enjoy my cigarettes as a way for me to relax. Would you say that someone who was a vegetarian because it made them "feel better" was an addict? No, you'd say they made a choice. How about someone who enjoys chocolate? Or takes aspirin to rid themselves of a headache? Or someone who likes to eat steak? Or someone who sleeps with multiple partners? You seem to be nothing but a troll using stupid arguments to try and rationalize your decision to arbitrarily label people who have habits you find personally offensive the dreaded addict.
I don't need to rationalize my decision to smoke...it's just that: my decision. Why not just realize we all choose to be addicted to some things because they make us feel good. After all, IMO, that's what life's all about: feeling good.
"Heheh... Yea right. You smoke because you're an addict. There isn't a medical doctor in North America that would disagree with me"
You breathe because you're an addict. You drink because you're an addict. You eat because you're an addict. You sleep beacuse you're an addict. You fuck because you're an addict. You work because you're an addict (to money). You read Slashdot because you're an addict. You complain about smokers because you're an addict...with nothing better to do.
Get over it. Carcinogens are in just about every single fscking thing you eat, breathe, and drink. Do you really, honestly think that by eliminating smoking in restauraunts, you're magically going to add 10 years to your pathetic life?!?
Face it, the world is full of carcinogens. And I'm quite sure you get a helluva lot less from my 2 cigarettes across the restauraunt than you do when you walk across the fskcing parking lot with 15 year old cars whizzing by spewing your abhorred carcinogens. Not to mention that piece of meat you just ate, which was slightly charred. And, of course, the cement and power plants across the river spewing their smoke stacks in the sky. Oh yeah, we still have the interstate highway running 2 miles from your favorite restauraunt (that's so it's convenient for all the holier-than-thou's to get to...) with 100,000 cars fighting rush hour traffic.
The ONLY plausible reason you could have for bitching and moaning about cigarette smoke is that it annoys you.
Well, guess what. Your breath annoys me. And so does your whining and complaining. And bringing your punk-ass brat of a kid to the restauraunt in the first place so that he can run around, yell and scream, whine and complain (no doubt he learned that from you), and throw all of his carcinogen-laced food all over the floor so that the next people to sit at your table can be disgusted by the mess your offspring have left behind. These all annoy me. And, you know what? I exercise my right as a consumer by visiting restauraunts where snotty-faced bratty little kids and their stuck-up parents don't frequent. Why don't you do the same and either eat at home or go to a non-smoking restauraunt. You'll do us both a favor.
BTW, how much carcinogens do you think you and your minivan spewed into the air on the way over to the restauraunt in the first place? I've got to breathe that crap, you get to breathe my fscking smoke. Deal with it.
Signed,
-A Smoker Who's Had Enough of You Fucking Whiners!
"However when patents are awarded for anything and everything then we end up with problems like this one, where a company gets a patent on something with obvious prior art that is already ubiquitous"
I keep seeing this claim made over and over again on almost every patent story posted on/., but once the filing date is posted, it seems people actually have a hard time coming up with proof of prior art. So, I ask you now, can you give proof of prior art before this claim was filed? (not to say this isn't an obvious solution to the problem, but evidently not so obvious as to have someone else do it first and be known about. Besides, obviousness is a totally different argument than prior art...)
True, the 14th Amendment does mention it. Of course, if you included the context, it would look like this:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
I would argue that no State is making or enforcing laws to deprive any person of life. Even if you consider a fetus a person (a grey area, at best...), there is no law making abortion legal. At best, your only argument could come from a bit further down:
"nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since murder of a person is against the law, you could make an argument that the States were refusing to offer the protection of the laws to unborn persons. In that case, we'd have to, once again, define a "person". Back to the grey area....and when in the grey, I think it's always better to err on the side of less laws and more decision-making abilities for the people.
As for the federal government, your pointing out of the 14th amendment just adds weight to my claim that the US Constitution has nothing to say about the right "to not be killed". It says, the States have no right to kill you [without due process, anyway], but that's a very different animal.
I don't know about the "tap" recorder, but the tape recorder did indeed cause a fury. If I remember correctly, Sony and some others actually went to court on the issue. This would be where Section 1008 came into play. Basically, in exchnage for royalties from the hardware/media manafacturers, the RIAA agreed to Section 1008 which permits noncommercial recordings.
Of course, according to some (including the US Government, as pointed out here) Napster does not fall under the scope of Section 1008.
Personally, I disagree, and if you followed the above link, you can view my take on the situation here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't Sealand would work either, but not for the reasons you submit. Though it would be pretty trivial to block Sealand's IP addresses from the global Internet, I don't believe Sealand's internet pipe is prepared or able to withstand opening a Napster server on (yes, yes, I understand that the files do not get transferred to the Npaster server, etc, etc...) and millions logging on. I think everyone really knows this and so noone takes this threat seriously.
Hmmm...sounds a lot like Vietnam.
I'm afraid you misquote history. According to Sealand's homepage, the day before the UK extended it's territorial waters, Sealand extended there's as well. Not to mention the fact, that, according to international law/treaties/customs, you cannot claim another country just by extending your waters. I believe the only accepted way to claim another country is to invade it.
Actually the same man (and his wife) who ran that pirate radio station on Sealand are the ones who declared it a country. Fascinating history...though I suspect some parts may be a bit dramatized.
But, Sealand/HavenCo is a different story. If Sealand/HavenCo allowed the US Government (or any other, for that matter) to shut down a server, it would be akin to committing suicide. HavenCo's whole purpose is to shield data and servers from government interference...bow to governemnt pressure once and nobody will trust them again.
As for seeling copies of CD's online and via mailorder:
1) People do this.
2) If it wasn't illegal in your chosen overseas haven, go for it.
3) Only the purchaser would be held liable for (c) infringement. (though US Customs can open your package and deny entry, in which case you'd have an irate customer...though in the spirit of Aimster, maybe you should encrypt the contents of the CD, thereby forcing anyone inspecting the contents to violate DMCA to see what it was. Then again, they could just force the receiver to give up the password. Perhaps you could only send the password (via PGP Encryption, of course) once the receiver has verified delivery...).
Secondly, he was sued (not "beat up", "his house burned down", "abused", "threatened", "terrorized", or even "otherwise punished") which, no, I don't believe is "punishment". It's the way our "modern western culture" resolves differences of opinions. Relax, get off the Jolt! cola, and read the fscking comments next time before you spout off.
Of course in older times (and, with some religions even now), if people disagreed...they just killed them. (see Spanish Inquisition, jihad, etc.)
I think I'll take the Scientology "punishment". =)
BTW, all religions are a sham as far as "true beliefs" go. But, they (most anyways) do serve a purpose in society so that people have something to believe in. Many people really wouldn't be able to fathom that their life has no other "higher meaning" (see heaven). Or that there really is no all powerful being to turn to when things go wrong (see prayer). These people may very well need some moral guidance in their lives (see 10 Commandments). And, in most cases, it really doesn't harm me, so I don't care. Wasn't it Nietzche who said that God is dead...but no one knows about it yet? (ie., the reasons that "God" was invented for [to explain the, at the time, "supernatural" has been taken over by science [which to some, is a religion], and so there was no longer a need for "God". But, people have yet to realize this, and still keep "Him" around. I disagree, saying that "God" was invented for much more complex reasons having to due with human emotions and social tendencies, and say there will always be a perceived "need" for "God". "God" will never be dead in the eyes of the majority of the world, but will continue to shift patterns based on their needs at the time [see Old Testament vs. New Testament, rise of so-called "cults", etc.]).
And of course, a lot of /.'ers could probably be classified as belonging to the Linux religion...
Ummm...I surely hope you don't drive 80mph in a residential zone. I think those speeds are reserved for expressways (where there are no "defenseless people". Besides, my car goes 150.
And I agree with that. If you're being an aware driver, you should be able to avoid someone who is not paying attention. It's called defensive driving, and, in most cases, it's extremely effective. I personally log between 35,000-50,000 miles per year and have never had an accident that wasn't my fault-however, I routinely dodge other cars and compensate for their poor driving. I don't let other drivers screw me into an accident (though I have screwed myself into one).
My father, who taught me to drive, is a truck driver and has over 1,000,000 accident-free miles. The moral? Pay attention to your driving better and you'll be able to avoid the ones who can't drive (hint: assume that nobody has a clue, and nobody can drive). And then we just wait for them to slam a tree or telephone pole, etc.
Unless, of course, this is going to have support from MS Windows, that is. (With their whole secure-path audio crap-a-hola.)
I'd see this broadband2wireless application more in things like streaming radio/backseat video, driving directions, voice-read email, etc. In most jurisdictions, it's still illegal to have a video monitor within view of the driver.
Besides, people can't drive anyways. Perhaps if we give the bad drivers enough distractions, they'll qualify for a Darwin award.
Well, perhaps you should read it again...Crossgain is a startup that aims to... is the same thing as MS saying they will be doing .NET.
I think the real point of this isn't to be able to download and print the new Pentium VIII 10.5 GHz CPU, but to allow hobbyists to quickly, easily, and cheaply design their own circuits. Sure, we're talking about the same stuff that you can go to Rat Shack and grab some solder and get it done, but it'll be cheaper and easier to print them out. And, if you screw it up, click-click-Save-Print again and again.
And, for all those that think these desktop fabs will be able to produce CPU's, motherboards, and other fabs by themselves, you might want to take a look at that article. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible to print out everything on a motherboard, for instance. Not to mention the ridiculousness of thinking you could print out a fab that has moving parts!
Two words for ya'...DOT NET (or .NET for those who prefer one word and some punctuation...)
I know of companies in my area who refuse to hire workers from other companies because of the known use of non-competes there. Most other companies will refuse to hire you if you tell them you're under a non-compete, though if they really want you they may have their lawyer take a look at the contract, or buy the contract from your previous employer.
The other posters who said they did not sign the non-competes could very well find themselves in the same position as if they had. The company's lawyer could (effectively, I might add) argue that by not actively objecting the non-compete, and by continuing employment for x months/years after knowing that the non-compete was in blanket force around the company, the worker implicitly agreed to the non-compete. There does not have to be a written or signed piece of paper to have a valid contract. Sure, having it written down/signed makes it a helluva lot easier to prove in court what exactly was agreed to, but there are other ways of proving that.
IANAL, but I have studied business/contract law.
That being said, Non-competes are usually found enforceable if they are specific. For example, a non-compete saying that you can't open a company/work for a company in the same industry within 50 miles of your previous employer. Or you can't go to work for a client of your consulting firm for 6 months, etc.
I don't need to rationalize my decision to smoke...it's just that: my decision. Why not just realize we all choose to be addicted to some things because they make us feel good. After all, IMO, that's what life's all about: feeling good.
You breathe because you're an addict. You drink because you're an addict. You eat because you're an addict. You sleep beacuse you're an addict. You fuck because you're an addict. You work because you're an addict (to money). You read Slashdot because you're an addict. You complain about smokers because you're an addict...with nothing better to do.
Face it, the world is full of carcinogens. And I'm quite sure you get a helluva lot less from my 2 cigarettes across the restauraunt than you do when you walk across the fskcing parking lot with 15 year old cars whizzing by spewing your abhorred carcinogens. Not to mention that piece of meat you just ate, which was slightly charred. And, of course, the cement and power plants across the river spewing their smoke stacks in the sky. Oh yeah, we still have the interstate highway running 2 miles from your favorite restauraunt (that's so it's convenient for all the holier-than-thou's to get to...) with 100,000 cars fighting rush hour traffic.
The ONLY plausible reason you could have for bitching and moaning about cigarette smoke is that it annoys you.
Well, guess what. Your breath annoys me. And so does your whining and complaining. And bringing your punk-ass brat of a kid to the restauraunt in the first place so that he can run around, yell and scream, whine and complain (no doubt he learned that from you), and throw all of his carcinogen-laced food all over the floor so that the next people to sit at your table can be disgusted by the mess your offspring have left behind. These all annoy me. And, you know what? I exercise my right as a consumer by visiting restauraunts where snotty-faced bratty little kids and their stuck-up parents don't frequent. Why don't you do the same and either eat at home or go to a non-smoking restauraunt. You'll do us both a favor.
BTW, how much carcinogens do you think you and your minivan spewed into the air on the way over to the restauraunt in the first place? I've got to breathe that crap, you get to breathe my fscking smoke. Deal with it.
Signed,
-A Smoker Who's Had Enough of You Fucking Whiners!
I keep seeing this claim made over and over again on almost every patent story posted on /., but once the filing date is posted, it seems people actually have a hard time coming up with proof of prior art. So, I ask you now, can you give proof of prior art before this claim was filed? (not to say this isn't an obvious solution to the problem, but evidently not so obvious as to have someone else do it first and be known about. Besides, obviousness is a totally different argument than prior art...)
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
I would argue that no State is making or enforcing laws to deprive any person of life. Even if you consider a fetus a person (a grey area, at best...), there is no law making abortion legal. At best, your only argument could come from a bit further down:
"nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since murder of a person is against the law, you could make an argument that the States were refusing to offer the protection of the laws to unborn persons. In that case, we'd have to, once again, define a "person". Back to the grey area....and when in the grey, I think it's always better to err on the side of less laws and more decision-making abilities for the people.
As for the federal government, your pointing out of the 14th amendment just adds weight to my claim that the US Constitution has nothing to say about the right "to not be killed". It says, the States have no right to kill you [without due process, anyway], but that's a very different animal.
Of course, according to some (including the US Government, as pointed out here) Napster does not fall under the scope of Section 1008.
Personally, I disagree, and if you followed the above link, you can view my take on the situation here.