Why would you post as an AC now after admitting trolling for the fame before?;-)
Re:What goes around comes around..
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 3
True, but it could also become his employer's argument that his employment contract was to do what was in their best interest etc etc (the rule that states that a contract to do something illegal is null and void - withold changes - is invalid in this case as it is not illegal), and on that point they could be said to have reasonable grounds.
That's pathetic. Talk about out of context quoting.
eight CPUs on one server, 256 MB RAM blah blah... blah blah? Oh, I forget, this is the bit where he mentioned '8 GB', the bit that would destroy the argument you make in the next paragraph inflating your ego by the fact that it talks about a two gig machine.
I've had more than my fair share of "anguish" to be polite with NT. However, I've also been using Win 2000 for the last four months. It *is* stable, surprise. I have had it up for weeks on end as a desktop machine (endless games, most not even meant to be played under NT, some specifically warning against it), and all fine. My only problem was my fault, installing an incorrect driver. Safe mode, de install and life was okay again.
To save myself from the cries of "Microsoft apologist", I also run Linux and OpenBSD, extensively.
I'd suggest, again, not being a lawyer, that if you got a notice like this you explicitly stated on the site: "This skin removed pending review" rather than yanking it.
That way, if things got ugly, you can state "We removed the file for a review, based on which we reinstated it", rather than their legal team saying "They knew it wasn't meant to be there, yanked it, and then, when they thought we weren't looking, put it back up".
Actually, I know mp3.com is legal. And that they don't provide pirate mp3's. I was talking more about how *visible* it was to the world in general, and how it doesn't take much extrapolation from there.
That's kind of what I was trying to get at, though I went at it from a different aspect. The sheer blatency of mp3s (sites like www.mp3.com, mp3.lycos.com etc - without getting into the arguments about providing links) is stunning.
I'd agree with the fact that the industry probably "lost" more due to analog copying, and may still for a time, but I would think that MP3 is rapidly catching up.
I also think that their efforts are pretty futile at this point. They let it go on *far* too long without kicking up the royal fuss that they have now.
But one could apply (and here I expect some angry replies) the same arguments of "Just because it can be 'stolen' doesn't give you that right"...
I use OBSD 2.6, and subscribe to a lot of OBSD lists.
Was just curious about the NetBSD thing. I do know he can be rather brusque at times on the mailing lists, but shrug:) He doesn't pretend the system is for newbies/cluebies/doesn't have time for people asking FAQ'ed questions.
Analogue dubbing was always rife, but remember how in school you might have got a third or fourth generation tape and the quality was terrible? Obviously digital recording is perfect (compression issues aside).
MP3's are rampant though. Never before has something come along on this scale. Software piracy is an issue, but not like this. There are billions of songs out there, and that's almost literal. People dispute claims of software piracy, saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". I know people who suck entire CDs down off the web. CDs they *would* have bought.
I don't think the "I have a right to evaluate a song" argument holds up. I have NEVER seen someone download an mp3, think "I like that, I'll go buy it now" and delete the mp3. To clarify, of course I (and many others) have bought CD's after hearing mp3s, but this argument really doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny.
Scapegoat? Sure. I don't think anyone here needs reminding of how mass media plays on the "terrorists, p0rn mongers and spammers" image.
But I think the issue of MP3s is actually quite legitimate, and worthy of some 'action', though no idea what.
One could also be slightly more pessimistic and say that Dan Rather's is playing CYA. Covering his ass and reputation, so he doesn't get known as "the guy who was right in that faked Millenium broadcast"
Ahh maybe you should talk to the paranoid people who run the terminals where I live and tell them that I am sure they wouldn't even care. I have never even heard of a stand alone news station in my life (not that it isn't possible).
The people where you live/work won't do it for you. Ergo, it is your god-given right to have someone else do it for you? Or you to dictate to other businesses that "you have a full and legal right" to their resources?
That was the other thought I had, after I got to bed. That whenever you do such a thing you note on the site that "skin has been made unavailable due to review" - something ambiguous, not saying it's illegal or thought to be in any way (I'm not arguing the point on whether it's based-on or a byte-by-byte copy in this case), but clear that it has been removed.
Unfortunately, it's behaviour like this that somewhat validates the people who say that some people who rant "free speech" are really saying "give me something for nothing" and really just doing that because it is easier than 'subversive' methods.
They might want to be careful, I don't know US law, but could their initial removal of the material (offending or not) be seen as implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing? (A la the reason why most discussion boards are fully censored or not at all - you censor one and effectively take responsibility for the rest)
Slashdot Mirror
Look-and-feel lawsuits get thrown out too, otherwise they'd be in the shit too... That thing is almost a replica of myplay.com :-\
You'd think it'd be easy (easier) finding a story, living 16 hrs ahead of the states ;)
Even were said script kiddie able to professionally evaluate. :)
Why would you post as an AC now after admitting trolling for the fame before? ;-)
True, but it could also become his employer's argument that his employment contract was to do what was in their best interest etc etc (the rule that states that a contract to do something illegal is null and void - withold changes - is invalid in this case as it is not illegal), and on that point they could be said to have reasonable grounds.
eight CPUs on one server, 256 MB RAM blah blah ... blah blah? Oh, I forget, this is the bit where he mentioned '8 GB', the bit that would destroy the argument you make in the next paragraph inflating your ego by the fact that it talks about a two gig machine.
What in particular "sucks" about it?
To save myself from the cries of "Microsoft apologist", I also run Linux and OpenBSD, extensively.
Those banner ad things? The ones people view. They're what pays. And indirectly, us.
... on the moderator who marked this troll.
valid - how so?
proven - by whom?
ontopic - where is Win2000 mentioned in the article?
That way, if things got ugly, you can state "We removed the file for a review, based on which we reinstated it", rather than their legal team saying "They knew it wasn't meant to be there, yanked it, and then, when they thought we weren't looking, put it back up".
Actually, I know mp3.com is legal. And that they don't provide pirate mp3's. I was talking more about how *visible* it was to the world in general, and how it doesn't take much extrapolation from there.
I'd agree with the fact that the industry probably "lost" more due to analog copying, and may still for a time, but I would think that MP3 is rapidly catching up.
I also think that their efforts are pretty futile at this point. They let it go on *far* too long without kicking up the royal fuss that they have now.
But one could apply (and here I expect some angry replies) the same arguments of "Just because it can be 'stolen' doesn't give you that right"...
My 0.02 cents anyway.
I own *one* pre-recorded VHS tape (The Rock, one of only two movies that Sean Connery swears in, I believe).
Was just curious about the NetBSD thing. I do know he can be rather brusque at times on the mailing lists, but shrug :) He doesn't pretend the system is for newbies/cluebies/doesn't have time for people asking FAQ'ed questions.
Analogue dubbing was always rife, but remember how in school you might have got a third or fourth generation tape and the quality was terrible? Obviously digital recording is perfect (compression issues aside).
MP3's are rampant though. Never before has something come along on this scale. Software piracy is an issue, but not like this. There are billions of songs out there, and that's almost literal. People dispute claims of software piracy, saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". I know people who suck entire CDs down off the web. CDs they *would* have bought.
I don't think the "I have a right to evaluate a song" argument holds up. I have NEVER seen someone download an mp3, think "I like that, I'll go buy it now" and delete the mp3. To clarify, of course I (and many others) have bought CD's after hearing mp3s, but this argument really doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny.
Scapegoat? Sure. I don't think anyone here needs reminding of how mass media plays on the "terrorists, p0rn mongers and spammers" image.
But I think the issue of MP3s is actually quite legitimate, and worthy of some 'action', though no idea what.
I think he could afford to pay/run a 1,000 employee company out of his own pocket for the rest of his life without blinking.
"This show is rated M(ALSV DM). It contains Adult themes, strong Language, Sex scenese, Violence and is Digitally Modified in parts".
One could also be slightly more pessimistic and say that Dan Rather's is playing CYA. Covering his ass and reputation, so he doesn't get known as "the guy who was right in that faked Millenium broadcast"
Australia would probably have around 1.5gbps of bandwidth coming in :P
The people where you live/work won't do it for you. Ergo, it is your god-given right to have someone else do it for you? Or you to dictate to other businesses that "you have a full and legal right" to their resources?
Clue check: You don't.
That was the other thought I had, after I got to bed. That whenever you do such a thing you note on the site that "skin has been made unavailable due to review" - something ambiguous, not saying it's illegal or thought to be in any way (I'm not arguing the point on whether it's based-on or a byte-by-byte copy in this case), but clear that it has been removed.
Unfortunately, it's behaviour like this that somewhat validates the people who say that some people who rant "free speech" are really saying "give me something for nothing" and really just doing that because it is easier than 'subversive' methods.
They might want to be careful, I don't know US law, but could their initial removal of the material (offending or not) be seen as implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing? (A la the reason why most discussion boards are fully censored or not at all - you censor one and effectively take responsibility for the rest)