I figured, as long as the US is arresting Russians for breaking US laws in Russia, maybe we can get the EU to jail American Spammers that affect EU internet users.
Who wants to help organize a Spamming Conference in Brussels so we can nab the asshole who's been sending me the porn spam labeled "Bin Laden Captured"???
What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance...
You are unilaterally, and retroactively, putting words and motive into Eric's proverbial mouth.
Here's something that DID come out of his mouth. "I did not expect to get paid for fixing cocoa, but I felt bad that I helped Apple to write a interface library."
Can you quote anything that would suggest Eric retroactively imposed a bargain??? I can't.
AND... All he did was point out it was ironic that he did something nice for them, and they in turn piss all over him.
Irony - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
It is IRONIC because most people expect a little common courtesy. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept...
Not your comment but the suggestion all together but...
Who would even imagine the blame going to Canada for THIER immigration policy, when Jerry Falwell clearly pointed out it was because of gays, abortionists and the ACLU ???
No wait, shouldn't we be blaming encryption? Left-wing tree-huggers? Right-wing oppressers?
Let's blame those non-partisan people for sitting on the fence. No-wing apathetics? The media-industrial-military complex?
I'm sorry for the satire, but it's really needed when the rediculous gets rediculous.
But Jesus man, chill out. Worst-case scenario, everyone gets it memorized and drilled into their heads and maybe, just maybe, they'll begin to actually believe it. Even worse case scenario... Everyone gets it memorized and drilled into thier heads to the point to where they don't even question the validity and limits of its meaning...
Ideas are only as good as thier ability to apply to reality...
Next thing you know it's the wolves calling the shots and the wolves not going to give a shit about liberty.
Of course, let's not trade our ESSENTIAL liberties for a policy that ACTUALLY expects criminals to use an encryption scheme that gives the government a back door???
I think maybe this debate is getting a little overbroad, maybe we should start addressing specific security precautions. I find that when you begin to apply these vague arguments to specific instances, they begin to fall apart.
Ex: I think the cabin door should impervious from an attack, and under no circumstances should a co-pilot open the door.
1. This doesn't really affect the freedoms of passengers.
2. This doesn't really affect the convenience of passengers.
3. This would prevent anyone from further using a plane as a missle.
Maybe we can keep our debates in perspective by running them through various scenerios.
Personally, I think we can achieve A LOT of security without infringing on too much freedom and convenience.
What security precautions do you think we need to take?
If we hadn't spent the last 30 years pissing off the smaller nations of the world, they wouldn't have motive to do this.
People are plenty capable of inadvertantly dreaming up scapegoats to need a real motive to attack a group of people (Neo-Nazi's, the KKK)
All you need is ignorance and very little critical (skeptical) thinking...
How do you remove the motivation from kamazis?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
It seems the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups don't want you capitalize thier country so they can enjoy the latest DVD player. Otherwise the Taliban wouldn't have banned any music and TVs and other frivilous sources of western entertainment.
I agree we should attack the source of the problem when we have the opportunity, but what do we honestly do now? What can we do with 60 billion dollars? I know we can't secure this country 100% from terrorists, but can we secure it from 80% of terrorists?
They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
If I was evil, I'd use the exact same analogy to the anti-DMCA sentiment come off as petty liberal sticklers.
I appreciate anything that vindicates my apathy for your petty little freedom to write compatable software. Who are you to tell me what you can do with my copyrighted material? It's my right to be able to securly distribute my copyrighted material without the fear it's going to be Napsterized.
Try playing the Devil's advocate and see how easy it is to not give a shit about details when you're trying to manipulate the public.
Which is roughly equivalent to saying they have their religious liberty in their own lands, but not in the United States in general. This is kind of like saying you have the right to copy eBooks under US Law, as long as you do it in Russia.
Might as well nick some pits
Reservations are subjected to Federal law and are not considered independant nations. They are essentially nations within nations, so your analogy doesn't work either...
Conceptually this doesn't sound like a big problem... Implementing it is a different story...
Imagine a Visio like diagram where the visual elements consist of small iconic like forms where this iconic form would represent a task to be called: Ex: Cat (concatonate)
These iconic forms would allow you to specify parameters using text, combo, and other selection widgets, while input and output connected via drag-drop from one iconic form to another.
You could even take it a step further and allow input and output to be connected to the parameters themselves.
Of course, the killer feature would be if could work along-side your favorite command line tool without mangling it, much like a good SQL visual editor.
Basically in this case, the judge applied the "effects test" set forth in the Supreme Court case Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)(reporter and editor, both Florida residents, were subject to personal jurisdiction in California for a defamatory article they had written in a national magazine about Shirley Jones, who lived and worked in California, on the grounds that the allegedly tortious actions were "expressly aimed at California")
The reasononing is, if the defandants actions are not "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" the court reasons they can exercise it's jurisdiction.
In Pavlovich's case, he was guiltly of targeting California because he held the common knowledge that the major studios are located in Holywood, and that Silicon Valley is considered to be a software and hardware center.
Have fun reading the rest...:)
"Q. . . . Are you aware -- do you have any understanding where the major motion pictures studios [sic] are located?
"A. [by Pavlovich]. By 'major' I'm just going to go out on a limb here in that you mean some of the larger motion picture producers or production companies.
"Q. That's correct. The sort of plaintiffs that were the plaintiffs in the matter that you were just an expert witness in.
"A. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, they make a lot of movies in California, Hollywood, yeah.
"Q. Right. So what's your understanding of the term 'Hollywood'?
"A. Hollywood is the big area in California where they make a lot of movies and a lot of movie stars live and whatnot.
"Q. Is it fair to say that Hollywood, California is the center of the motion picture industry?
"A. I wouldn't know. Whether or not like all their offices and buildings are there, I don't know specifically, but I guess the general common idea is that Hollywood is the area for that . . .."
As to California's dominance in the computer industry, Pavlovich testified in the same deposition, as follows:
"Q. Do you have any understanding of whether or not a significant number of hardware manufacturers are located in California?
"A. [by Pavlovich]. I believe . . . there is a lot of technology companies out in California . . . . Yeah, there's several hardware manufacturers located in California.
"Q. Have you ever heard of Silicon Valley?
"A. Yes.
"Q. What does that refer to?
"A. That's an area where there is a lot of technology-related companies, software writers, hardware manufacturers, programmers.
"Q. And that's in California; is that correct?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Based on your expertise in the computer industry, is there another state besides California that you could name has more or a higher concentration of hardware manufacturers?
"A. I don't know the exact numbers that are in the Silicon Valley. You know, I do know there is a lot now in Texas. We have got the Silicon Triangle is what we call it. There's three major cities in Texas with a lot of technology and telecommunications companies. Whether or not - I don't know the numbers between the areas, but there is a lot of technology hot spots around the world.
"Q. What would you describe as the top three technology hot spots in the United States?
"A. Silicon Valley, Texas, and - I have no idea where I'd get the third one from.
"Q. And as far as - for lack of a better term, hot spot of technology, is Silicon Valley - it's your understanding that Silicon Valley is such a hot spot of technology with respect to hardware or software and programmers? Is that the things you identified before; is that correct?
"A. Yeah."
Because Pavlovich knew that California is commonly known as the center of the movie industry, and knew that Silicon Valley in California is one of the top three technology "hot spots" in the country, he knew, or should have known, that the DVD republishing and distribution activities he was illegally doing and allowing to be done through the use of his Web site, while benefiting him, were injuriously affecting the motion picture and computer industries in California. The question is whether Pavlovich's lack of physical and personal presence in California incapacitates California courts from jurisdictionally reaching him through its long-arm statute. We hold it does not.
Instant access provided by the Internet is the functional equivalent of personal presence of the person posting the material on the Web at the place from which the posted material is accessed and appropriated. It is as if the poster is instantaneously present in different places at the same time, and simultaneously delivering his material at those different places. In a sense, therefore, the reach of the Internet is also the reach of the extension of the poster's presence.
The argument is not that Gatoring or whatever is violating copyright laws and should be illegal. The argument is that it is immoral, and should be frowned upon, and that companies advertising using this method should be informed that they are alienating customers, thus convincing them not to advertise by that method.
Moreover, the main issue is that programs like Gator and Toptext are being installed in the background by the installers of random freeware or commercial programs without making it absolutely clear to the user what, exactly, is being installed, or what it does. This is immoral, and may be illegal; even if it is not illegal, it is important to discuss and be aware of these things. I don't particularly think it's a terribly good idea to take legal action against gator, but i personally think that the slashdot community should try to push education of the Great Unwashed to the point where they understand a few basic points of Computer Safety. People should understand "carefully read over the contents of software you install for advertising trojans" the way they understand "don't run programs sent from people you don't know without running a virus check on it first". Education, and nonlitigous activist pressure (letterwriting campaigns, etc) on companies that install trojans like Gator, is the best way to deal with the problem, and i don't think promoting user education makes an anti-DMCA fanatic particularly hypocritical at all.
how long will it be... instead of ads just popping up you'll be redirected to a competitor's site?
I'm all for keeping the net legislation free, but heres a place where only a law can help.
Do you REALLY want to support the basic arguments for even more frivilous trademark disputes like the one below?
In 1999, Playboy filed suit against Excite.com and Netscape in an attempt to prohibit them from delivering adult ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." The suit charged that the alleged practice violated its trademark. Although the court dismissed the case earlier this year, Playboy has appealed the decision, and a hearing is scheduled in a Los Angeles federal district court in September.
As far as your redirection concern: You do have options.
1. Don't use the plug-in or service.
2. Don't use the plug-in or service.
3. Don't use the plug-in or service.
Just as rest of us should have rights to develop any piece of software that does not intentionally inflict damage, Gator should have this right too.
Those who give up a freedom for a little security
deserve neither freedom nor security" -Thomas Jefferson
With all the rants on patents, trademark disputes, and other monopolistic disputes do we really want to set a precident barring a company from advertising the competition when another companies trademark is involved???
This isn't a problem. It's clearly within a content provider's right to provide whatever advertisment they want and under whatever conditions they want.
Clearly this is in the consumers best interest if they opt to use a service that employs gatoring in the first place.
In 1999, Playboy filed suit against Excite.com and Netscape in an attempt to prohibit them from delivering adult ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." The suit charged that the alleged practice violated its trademark. Although the court dismissed the case earlier this year, Playboy has appealed the decision, and a hearing is scheduled in a Los Angeles federal district court in September.
I can't see how anybody would want to support anti-gatoring, especially with frivilous suits like the one above from Playboy.
While we're at it, I'd like the take the time to quote Larry Flint regarding playboy.
Its like if you don't make over $20,000 a year, you don't jerk off. Gentlemen, Playboy is mocking you!
It pointed out that the genius behind Microsoft's plans with Passport and Hailstorm involved controlling the schema of the data. Sure, anyone can reimplement the software behind these services. However, each industry will standardize on Microsoft-written schemas relating to their communications and authentication needs.
Wait a minute, before we assert that each industry will standardize on a schema copyrighted by Microsoft, can you explain the incentive for the participating companies to do this?
For example: Travel booking companies, why would they agree, by default, to establishing a standard schema, give the copyright for the schema to Microsoft, and then submit themselves to paying a royalty for using a service they helped define?
Where is the incentive for a company to agree to a shoddy deal like this when someone else is willing to do it cheaper and without copyrighting your schema?
Personally, I see technologies like Passport and Hailstorm as value added technologies which credit card authentication companies, portals (Yahoo, AOL), and services providers would offer to new/existing customers to use thier service.
Keep in mind that Yahoo, AOL, Amazon, and other companies have already established relationships and have already gained a majority of marketshare in these types of services. They can just as easily offer these services as SOAP webservices, provide authentication and personal information like they already have been doing. Heck, Amazon is the only one who can license these services plus OneClick(tm) shopping thanks to the US Patent Office.
The clever part is, Microsoft will copyright those schemas. They can't be cloned legally, so you're still stuck with MS control. MS knows that almost nobody is going to write and test a service twice with different schemas just to interoperate with some second-tier implementations. At the end of they day, they're still in the driver's seat.
You'll have to elaborate a bit on the limitations of schema copyrighting, because I know there are a lot of people who will get the impression a schema copyright is like a patent.
1. How does a schema copyright limit a competitor?
2. Can't this be circumvented using a clean room approach, much like the clones did with IBM BIOS in the early days?
I'd really like to hear you address my issues, and you may even be able to clear up some of my questions and assertions, but you have to admit can't blame me for being skeptical in believing Microsoft is going to get away with screwing over all of these corporations without offering a competitive service.
Personally, I think a lot of people have been giving Passport and Hailstorm too much credit. These webservices essentially add very little value to most applications, websites, and other webservices.
These technologies don't provide nearly the functionality or the vision that Windows and Office provided to establish Microsoft as a monopoly.
Remember, Office and Windows were a big deal in the early 90's as it allowed many of us to network offices, printers, databases and user friendly applications running on commidity hardware. The functionality that these two suites provided were considerable remarkable giving what was available before.
What does Passport and Hailstorm do to get everybody jump on the bandwagon? Provide authenication services and store your contacts on an MS server?
1. A lot of people don't need these services and don't feel compelled to use them. (Over time it will change)
2. Any company can build thier own Passport and Hailstorm clones. I would be surprised if a lot of companies don't provide thier own Hailstorm like services like Lotus, Act, Yahoo, AOL and other company who want to retain thier large user base.
3. Websites can use zero or 10 of these authenication services if they so elect.
If anything, I see webservices becoming a commodity, which is what Microsoft is gambling on in the first place. They've spent the last 4-5 years developing a platform which is aimed to compete against Java, and the angle Microsoft has been touting is that.NET is RAD for the server (webservices, web apps, etc.)
My prediction, webservices are going to become commidities, especially authenication and personal information management services.
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." -Robert Oppenheimer
Robert Moody from the Department Mathematical Sciences, University of Alberta illustrates the importance of curiosity based research in his paper using lasers as an example of why curiosity based research is necessary.
Carl Sagan in his book, The Demon Haunted World, also stresses the importance of curiosity based research using James Clark Maxell's discoveries as an example of how it effects our lives today by providing the necessary building blocks for radio, television, computers, lasers, etc.
It may be a while before we can find any spectacular applications with this new knowledge of pi, or we may not find any spectacular applications before we dissapear in the cosmos.
The point is: We'll never know if there are any spectacular or even merely useful applications if it isn't shared, discussed and debated throughout the community.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're really despirate for free anon web browsing and are not offended by endless references to Clam Lapping...
Moderating Pornolized Slashdot comments is always fun too...
Slashdot: News for charvers, stuff that titty fucks
I figured, as long as the US is arresting Russians for breaking US laws in Russia, maybe we can get the EU to jail American Spammers that affect EU internet users.
Who wants to help organize a Spamming Conference in Brussels so we can nab the asshole who's been sending me the porn spam labeled "Bin Laden Captured"???
What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance...
You are unilaterally, and retroactively, putting words and motive into Eric's proverbial mouth.
Here's something that DID come out of his mouth. "I did not expect to get paid for fixing cocoa, but I felt bad that I helped Apple to write a interface library."
Can you quote anything that would suggest Eric retroactively imposed a bargain??? I can't.
AND... All he did was point out it was ironic that he did something nice for them, and they in turn piss all over him.
Irony - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
It is IRONIC because most people expect a little common courtesy. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept...
Not your comment but the suggestion all together but...
Who would even imagine the blame going to Canada for THIER immigration policy, when Jerry Falwell clearly pointed out it was because of gays, abortionists and the ACLU ???
No wait, shouldn't we be blaming encryption? Left-wing tree-huggers? Right-wing oppressers?
Let's blame those non-partisan people for sitting on the fence. No-wing apathetics? The media-industrial-military complex?
I'm sorry for the satire, but it's really needed when the rediculous gets rediculous.
But Jesus man, chill out. Worst-case scenario, everyone gets it memorized and drilled into their heads and maybe, just maybe, they'll begin to actually believe it.
Even worse case scenario... Everyone gets it memorized and drilled into thier heads to the point to where they don't even question the validity and limits of its meaning...
Ideas are only as good as thier ability to apply to reality...
Is like letting sheep graze amonst wolves...
Next thing you know it's the wolves calling the shots and the wolves not going to give a shit about liberty.
Of course, let's not trade our ESSENTIAL liberties for a policy that ACTUALLY expects criminals to use an encryption scheme that gives the government a back door???
BTW, Did Ben Franklin even say that???
I think maybe this debate is getting a little overbroad, maybe we should start addressing specific security precautions. I find that when you begin to apply these vague arguments to specific instances, they begin to fall apart.
Ex: I think the cabin door should impervious from an attack, and under no circumstances should a co-pilot open the door.
1. This doesn't really affect the freedoms of passengers.
2. This doesn't really affect the convenience of passengers.
3. This would prevent anyone from further using a plane as a missle.
Maybe we can keep our debates in perspective by running them through various scenerios.
Personally, I think we can achieve A LOT of security without infringing on too much freedom and convenience.
What security precautions do you think we need to take?
If we hadn't spent the last 30 years pissing off the smaller nations of the world, they wouldn't have motive to do this.
People are plenty capable of inadvertantly dreaming up scapegoats to need a real motive to attack a group of people (Neo-Nazi's, the KKK)
All you need is ignorance and very little critical (skeptical) thinking...
It seems the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups don't want you capitalize thier country so they can enjoy the latest DVD player. Otherwise the Taliban wouldn't have banned any music and TVs and other frivilous sources of western entertainment.
I agree we should attack the source of the problem when we have the opportunity, but what do we honestly do now? What can we do with 60 billion dollars? I know we can't secure this country 100% from terrorists, but can we secure it from 80% of terrorists?
They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
If I was evil, I'd use the exact same analogy to the anti-DMCA sentiment come off as petty liberal sticklers.
I appreciate anything that vindicates my apathy for your petty little freedom to write compatable software. Who are you to tell me what you can do with my copyrighted material? It's my right to be able to securly distribute my copyrighted material without the fear it's going to be Napsterized.
Try playing the Devil's advocate and see how easy it is to not give a shit about details when you're trying to manipulate the public.
If I had only known then what I know now...
Which is roughly equivalent to saying they have their religious liberty in their own lands, but not in the United States in general. This is kind of like saying you have the right to copy eBooks under US Law, as long as you do it in Russia.
Might as well nick some pits
Reservations are subjected to Federal law and are not considered independant nations. They are essentially nations within nations, so your analogy doesn't work either...
When the GUI supports pipes, I'll believe you.
Conceptually this doesn't sound like a big problem... Implementing it is a different story...
Imagine a Visio like diagram where the visual elements consist of small iconic like forms where this iconic form would represent a task to be called: Ex: Cat (concatonate)
These iconic forms would allow you to specify parameters using text, combo, and other selection widgets, while input and output connected via drag-drop from one iconic form to another.
You could even take it a step further and allow input and output to be connected to the parameters themselves.
Of course, the killer feature would be if could work along-side your favorite command line tool without mangling it, much like a good SQL visual editor.
???
Sorry... Had to do it...
Thanks for the quote...
I'll try to get a lot of milage out of that one...
It gets a lot worse...
:)
."
The Long Long Arm of the Low
Basically in this case, the judge applied the "effects test" set forth in the Supreme Court case Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)(reporter and editor, both Florida residents, were subject to personal jurisdiction in California for a defamatory article they had written in a national magazine about Shirley Jones, who lived and worked in California, on the grounds that the allegedly tortious actions were "expressly aimed at California")
The reasononing is, if the defandants actions are not "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" the court reasons they can exercise it's jurisdiction.
In Pavlovich's case, he was guiltly of targeting California because he held the common knowledge that the major studios are located in Holywood, and that Silicon Valley is considered to be a software and hardware center.
Have fun reading the rest...
"Q. . . . Are you aware -- do you have any understanding where the major motion pictures studios [sic] are located?
"A. [by Pavlovich]. By 'major' I'm just going to go out on a limb here in that you mean some of the larger motion picture producers or production companies.
"Q. That's correct. The sort of plaintiffs that were the plaintiffs in the matter that you were just an expert witness in.
"A. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, they make a lot of movies in California, Hollywood, yeah.
"Q. Right. So what's your understanding of the term 'Hollywood'?
"A. Hollywood is the big area in California where they make a lot of movies and a lot of movie stars live and whatnot.
"Q. Is it fair to say that Hollywood, California is the center of the motion picture industry?
"A. I wouldn't know. Whether or not like all their offices and buildings are there, I don't know specifically, but I guess the general common idea is that Hollywood is the area for that . . .
As to California's dominance in the computer industry, Pavlovich testified in the same deposition, as follows:
"Q. Do you have any understanding of whether or not a significant number of hardware manufacturers are located in California?
"A. [by Pavlovich]. I believe . . . there is a lot of technology companies out in California . . . . Yeah, there's several hardware manufacturers located in California.
"Q. Have you ever heard of Silicon Valley?
"A. Yes.
"Q. What does that refer to?
"A. That's an area where there is a lot of technology-related companies, software writers, hardware manufacturers, programmers.
"Q. And that's in California; is that correct?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Based on your expertise in the computer industry, is there another state besides California that you could name has more or a higher concentration of hardware manufacturers?
"A. I don't know the exact numbers that are in the Silicon Valley. You know, I do know there is a lot now in Texas. We have got the Silicon Triangle is what we call it. There's three major cities in Texas with a lot of technology and telecommunications companies. Whether or not - I don't know the numbers between the areas, but there is a lot of technology hot spots around the world.
"Q. What would you describe as the top three technology hot spots in the United States?
"A. Silicon Valley, Texas, and - I have no idea where I'd get the third one from.
"Q. And as far as - for lack of a better term, hot spot of technology, is Silicon Valley - it's your understanding that Silicon Valley is such a hot spot of technology with respect to hardware or software and programmers? Is that the things you identified before; is that correct?
"A. Yeah."
Because Pavlovich knew that California is commonly known as the center of the movie industry, and knew that Silicon Valley in California is one of the top three technology "hot spots" in the country, he knew, or should have known, that the DVD republishing and distribution activities he was illegally doing and allowing to be done through the use of his Web site, while benefiting him, were injuriously affecting the motion picture and computer industries in California. The question is whether Pavlovich's lack of physical and personal presence in California incapacitates California courts from jurisdictionally reaching him through its long-arm statute. We hold it does not.
Instant access provided by the Internet is the functional equivalent of personal presence of the person posting the material on the Web at the place from which the posted material is accessed and appropriated. It is as if the poster is instantaneously present in different places at the same time, and simultaneously delivering his material at those different places. In a sense, therefore, the reach of the Internet is also the reach of the extension of the poster's presence.
Someone replied to my post with this:
...and he made a good point
The argument is not that Gatoring or whatever is violating copyright laws and should be illegal. The argument is that it is immoral, and should be frowned upon, and that companies advertising using this method should be informed that they are alienating customers, thus convincing them not to advertise by that method.
Moreover, the main issue is that programs like Gator and Toptext are being installed in the background by the installers of random freeware or commercial programs without making it absolutely clear to the user what, exactly, is being installed, or what it does. This is immoral, and may be illegal; even if it is not illegal, it is important to discuss and be aware of these things. I don't particularly think it's a terribly good idea to take legal action against gator, but i personally think that the slashdot community should try to push education of the Great Unwashed to the point where they understand a few basic points of Computer Safety. People should understand "carefully read over the contents of software you install for advertising trojans" the way they understand "don't run programs sent from people you don't know without running a virus check on it first". Education, and nonlitigous activist pressure (letterwriting campaigns, etc) on companies that install trojans like Gator, is the best way to deal with the problem, and i don't think promoting user education makes an anti-DMCA fanatic particularly hypocritical at all.
how long will it be... instead of ads just popping up you'll be redirected to a competitor's site?
I'm all for keeping the net legislation free, but heres a place where only a law can help.
Do you REALLY want to support the basic arguments for even more frivilous trademark disputes like the one below?
In 1999, Playboy filed suit against Excite.com and Netscape in an attempt to prohibit them from delivering adult ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." The suit charged that the alleged practice violated its trademark. Although the court dismissed the case earlier this year, Playboy has appealed the decision, and a hearing is scheduled in a Los Angeles federal district court in September.
As far as your redirection concern: You do have options.
1. Don't use the plug-in or service.
2. Don't use the plug-in or service.
3. Don't use the plug-in or service.
Just as rest of us should have rights to develop any piece of software that does not intentionally inflict damage, Gator should have this right too.
Those who give up a freedom for a little security
deserve neither freedom nor security" -Thomas Jefferson
All trademarks should be pornolized
Pornolize it today!
With all the rants on patents, trademark disputes, and other monopolistic disputes do we really want to set a precident barring a company from advertising the competition when another companies trademark is involved???
This isn't a problem. It's clearly within a content provider's right to provide whatever advertisment they want and under whatever conditions they want.
Clearly this is in the consumers best interest if they opt to use a service that employs gatoring in the first place.
In 1999, Playboy filed suit against Excite.com and Netscape in an attempt to prohibit them from delivering adult ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." The suit charged that the alleged practice violated its trademark. Although the court dismissed the case earlier this year, Playboy has appealed the decision, and a hearing is scheduled in a Los Angeles federal district court in September.
I can't see how anybody would want to support anti-gatoring, especially with frivilous suits like the one above from Playboy.
While we're at it, I'd like the take the time to quote Larry Flint regarding playboy.
Its like if you don't make over $20,000 a year, you don't jerk off. Gentlemen, Playboy is mocking you!
My boss just asked me if I could look into directing traffic to our website.
Knowing this, I could index all of our pages with porn keywords and redirect users to our page selling Office Furniture!!!
I'll be sure I send out OfficeFurniture.vbs just in case Lycos fixes this hole before I get a chance at a promotion.
I saw an article a couple of months ago (I don't remember where).
Is this it?
Hailstorm: Open Web Services Controlled by Microsoft
It pointed out that the genius behind Microsoft's plans with Passport and Hailstorm involved controlling the schema of the data. Sure, anyone can reimplement the software behind these services. However, each industry will standardize on Microsoft-written schemas relating to their communications and authentication needs.
Wait a minute, before we assert that each industry will standardize on a schema copyrighted by Microsoft, can you explain the incentive for the participating companies to do this?
For example: Travel booking companies, why would they agree, by default, to establishing a standard schema, give the copyright for the schema to Microsoft, and then submit themselves to paying a royalty for using a service they helped define?
Where is the incentive for a company to agree to a shoddy deal like this when someone else is willing to do it cheaper and without copyrighting your schema?
Personally, I see technologies like Passport and Hailstorm as value added technologies which credit card authentication companies, portals (Yahoo, AOL), and services providers would offer to new/existing customers to use thier service.
Keep in mind that Yahoo, AOL, Amazon, and other companies have already established relationships and have already gained a majority of marketshare in these types of services. They can just as easily offer these services as SOAP webservices, provide authentication and personal information like they already have been doing. Heck, Amazon is the only one who can license these services plus OneClick(tm) shopping thanks to the US Patent Office.
The clever part is, Microsoft will copyright those schemas. They can't be cloned legally, so you're still stuck with MS control. MS knows that almost nobody is going to write and test a service twice with different schemas just to interoperate with some second-tier implementations. At the end of they day, they're still in the driver's seat.
You'll have to elaborate a bit on the limitations of schema copyrighting, because I know there are a lot of people who will get the impression a schema copyright is like a patent.
1. How does a schema copyright limit a competitor?
2. Can't this be circumvented using a clean room approach, much like the clones did with IBM BIOS in the early days?
I'd really like to hear you address my issues, and you may even be able to clear up some of my questions and assertions, but you have to admit can't blame me for being skeptical in believing Microsoft is going to get away with screwing over all of these corporations without offering a competitive service.
Personally, I think a lot of people have been giving Passport and Hailstorm too much credit. These webservices essentially add very little value to most applications, websites, and other webservices.
.NET is RAD for the server (webservices, web apps, etc.)
These technologies don't provide nearly the functionality or the vision that Windows and Office provided to establish Microsoft as a monopoly.
Remember, Office and Windows were a big deal in the early 90's as it allowed many of us to network offices, printers, databases and user friendly applications running on commidity hardware. The functionality that these two suites provided were considerable remarkable giving what was available before.
What does Passport and Hailstorm do to get everybody jump on the bandwagon? Provide authenication services and store your contacts on an MS server?
1. A lot of people don't need these services and don't feel compelled to use them. (Over time it will change)
2. Any company can build thier own Passport and Hailstorm clones. I would be surprised if a lot of companies don't provide thier own Hailstorm like services like Lotus, Act, Yahoo, AOL and other company who want to retain thier large user base.
3. Websites can use zero or 10 of these authenication services if they so elect.
If anything, I see webservices becoming a commodity, which is what Microsoft is gambling on in the first place. They've spent the last 4-5 years developing a platform which is aimed to compete against Java, and the angle Microsoft has been touting is that
My prediction, webservices are going to become commidities, especially authenication and personal information management services.
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." -Robert Oppenheimer
Robert Moody from the Department Mathematical Sciences, University of Alberta illustrates the importance of curiosity based research in his paper using lasers as an example of why curiosity based research is necessary.
Carl Sagan in his book, The Demon Haunted World, also stresses the importance of curiosity based research using James Clark Maxell's discoveries as an example of how it effects our lives today by providing the necessary building blocks for radio, television, computers, lasers, etc.
It may be a while before we can find any spectacular applications with this new knowledge of pi, or we may not find any spectacular applications before we dissapear in the cosmos.
The point is: We'll never know if there are any spectacular or even merely useful applications if it isn't shared, discussed and debated throughout the community.
I guess that leaves us with .NET. Can .NET run a program such as an applet without giving that program full control over the user's system?
It's designed to do that...