Because Hollywood/TV/Music industry gave $21,480,772 in soft money during 2002 to keep it there...
Lawyers aint cheap and when the court orders someone to pay for the damages/legal costs, it aint cheap.
Lawyers gave $12,074,762 in soft money during 2002 to make sure these disputes can't be settled without them...
This public service announcement was brought to you by Open Secrets
People who truely believe in free market economies would never let the government regulate technology like this, or sanction a virtual monopoly to the Baby Bells, or give the FCC the powers it has to stifle communications.
A Little History on yelling "Fire" and much more!!
on
Sklyarov Case Opens Today
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The History of Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre
As long as we're talking about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech, let's learn a little about the context, especially considering it's been invoked by so many people in so many contexts.
The analogy came from the Schneck v. United States in which Schneck was being prosecuted for causing subordination among soldiers who had been drafted in WWI. He and others had circulated leaflets asking draftees to not "submit to intimidation". The leaflets did not encourage draftees to break the law, rather it encourage them to consider their rights.
Justice Holmes opinion was that the constitution protects these leaflets during peace time, and that wartime deserved special circumstances.
In order to support his special circumstances opinion, he illustrated his opinion with the famous "Fire in a Theatre" analogy.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.
Justice Holmes upheld his convictions that the leaflets presented "A Clear and Present Danger"
Of course, when the founder father drafted the Bill of Rights, they must of forgot about their own "Clear and Present Danger" that they presented to His Majesty's Empire.
Oh wait, If the founding fathers were hung up on this "Clear and Present Danger" exception, why didn't they write it down, but rather write the Second Amendment and Third Amendments instead?
Source Code - A Precise Mathematical Notation?
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Pornography, Video Games
They're all Intellectual Works protected by copyright law!!!
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Arm Bands, Middle Fingers, Flag Diapers
They're all protected by the First Amendment!!!
What does Copyright Law Consider Expression?
According the US Copyright Office, in order for a work to be copyrighted, it must be a work that is a fixed in a tangible form of expression. Therefore, ALL copyrighted materials are tangible forms of expression!
What does the Law Say?
Title 17, Circular 92, Chapter 1, Section 102 Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
Is Software Really a form of Expression?
I like working with extremes myself, so let's start with Video Games. They seem to be the most expressive form of all expression. A great Video Game mixes and blends all sorts of art, music, and literary work and combines it all with an intelligent engine, which is a mathematical art form in itself. If one wanted to be an artist that truly affects and influences people, wouldn't it be logical to blend many art forms into one cohesive form of immersive art?
What about Source Code
If you're going to describe what source code is to someone who's never seen it, it can be best describe as a very precise mathematical notation. A program is almost always a mathematical model representing real object or phenomenon. A Database is a mathematical model of an index filing system, while a Word Processor is a mathematical model of type setting machine. When these models are executed on a computer, they may behave just like the physical device, but it is still only a model of that device, expressed in a mathematical notation.
If it's copyrightable, it's expression. You can't have it both ways...
Intellectual Property Rights vs. Innovation Rights
In this case it can be argued that Dmitry Sklyarov is a hacker who hacked together and conspired to traffic a digital crowbar that disables the lock Adobe's eBook.
- OR -
Dmitry Sklyarov is just a mere employee who wrote software for his employer to enable the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats.
The irony this dichotomy is: THERE IS NO DICHOTOMY. Both Statements are correct.
The real question is: Should ElcomSoft be criminally convicted for writing a very legitimate software? It's legitmate in Russia. It was a legitimate and common type of software in the US not too long ago. It only allows the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats. It has many valid uses....but in the US, it's against the law...
Nope... Doesn't seem like a Conservative vs. Liberal Issue to me...
As far as his reason is concerned, it sounds like he we trying to explain the ontology of neurons and synapses by using the path of a ball as an example.
You should seriously check out some neural network demos written by students where they use simple neurons and perceptron configurations to essentially solve complex algebraic equations.
Lastly, you were very ready to pin these political students as short-sighted and narrow-minded, yet it seems like you put little to no effort to consider thier ideas. A person with an open-mind would have at least have asked someone if this tactic is going to do more harm than good. let alone give someone the opportunity to defend/explain it.
You might have some really good objections for not bundling politics and software licenses, so let us know what they are...
Reread your post, inform us WHY it's short-sighted. Explain WHY somethings need to be free from politics. Explain WHY these politics do more harm than good. Don't just flame with recycled ideas. Rationally explain it so even the biggest human rights hippie considers your ideas.
NOTE: I also like software when it's free from politics, but that doesn't keep me from appreciating both commercial and GNU software alike.
And what guarantees does anyone have they won't turn around and sue anyway?
This sort of "blackmail" is nothing new. It's the same sort of "blackmail" that patent holders use to extract money from patent infringers.
Here's a hint: If you want to make sure they won't sue anyway, make sure you have something in writing.. Even if it's only an invoice (stating they wont' sue if you pay), they are still implicitly offering a contract, and therefore bound by that offer (giving accept the contract's conditions), which a judge will most likely rule in your favor (unless you live in a backwards country).
EVERYBODY TRIED it (before lunch, many times) and EVERYBODY was complaining. HENCE all the complaints.
You come along, try it, after it's been fixed, and it works...
Do you think our friend CmdrTaco or the WSJ, just MIGHT have made a mistake with the URL, or granted slashdot users access to THIS story after EVERYBODY complained???
Because there are hundreds if not thousands of categories and subcategories, which may need to be added or dropped by someone non-technical, I would doubt they hardcoded it into bitfield attributes.
Rather, I would have assumed they have a seperate preferences table in thier database, layed out similar to my example below:
UserID - Linking to the User Table CategoryID - Linking to the Category Table PreferenceWeight - A Number Indicating how much they like this material.
This could easily allow for someones profile to show preferences for both pro-homosexual and anti-homosexual literaterure. (And for people who debate these issues, buy these two opposing categories isn't mutally exclusive)
I know the original saying is "Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidendence", but in your case, you're leaving the rest of us scratching our heads. You're assuming we know too much, so I've listed some questions to help you elaborate.
1. Are you partly saying because Sony manufactures hardware and the copy protection, it will be picked up and implemented?
2. Which SPECIFIC horizontal markets are you talking about, and WHY are they the way to go?
3. If Microsoft supports everything off of Windows sales, are you saying Sony will support everything off thier CD sales???
4. What does your Conglomo link mean? It looks like a fan website. HOW does this tie into Sony?
The key to making this work is to make sure that this new Wi-Fi is SELLABLE, meaning anybody, with minimal capital, can set up thier own wireless broadband ISP.
Once there is an industry, with a lot of consumers, then you'll get a big push to open more spectrum for unregulated wireless broadband to meet consumer demand.
Now THAT's capitalism kicking the government's ass. (Rather than pandering to the FCC's auction process...)
I know you're skeptical, but what these people are proposing is just a simple expansion of Wi-Fi, by getting more radio spectrum and limiting it's use for data services.
It's just 802.11 with better range and a smarter protocol.
You get Linksys, D-Link, Engenuis, Proxim, and all the other wireless devices guys in a room, and it won't take them long to agree on a standard, especially if it means selling lots of units.
What trivial about unregulated radio being used for broadband?
How the fuck is this new spectrum supposed to get put to use without private investment?
Oh, now I remember.... Socialism is the answer!
This will work just like 802.11 and the Internet is working NOW.
Since the radio spectrum is available for ANYONE to use, the private investments come from the equipment manufacturers, users, smaller ISPs, bigger ISPs who want a slice of the market, etc.
This is actually very similar to how the Internet got started. Sprint, T-Mobile, and commercial wireless carriers are like the old AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Along came the Internet (A cooperative system started by the government), which allowed ANYONE to set up thier own ISP and become thier own AOL, CompuServer, and Prodigy.
You see young capitalist: Sometimes the government is nessecary to get people to cooperate initially. The trick is to bring everybody at the table, and THEN let the market regulate themselves. Just like the Internet!
I know that you're a young capitalist, but you have to remember that UNREGULATED radio is a capitalist's friend.
You wrote: Ah yes, it would be much better for the government to make that space available and then not sell it to a private corpration. That way, we can all sit around and think to ourselves, "I'm glad that spectrum is open for broadband..... IT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T USE IT!!!"
First of all, I think the rest of us are wondering how YOU got modded up?
Do you even understand how the basics of FCC spectrum licensing, or are you trying to suggest (Very incoherantly) that unregulated radio, like that being used by 802.11, isn't usable because it's unregulated?
You do understand that the success behind 2.4ghz (802.11) was that is was given to the public and not auctioned to a single corporation.
It's funny, because everybody else is excited about more unregulated public radio spectrums! Almost the ENTIRE tech industry loves it. Why don't you like unregulated public radio?
Please tell us, WHY DO YOU THINK UNREGULATED RADIO, like 2.4ghz (802.11), IS UNUSEABLE???
In some geographic areas, there exist only two high-speed ISPs: the cable company (cable Internet) and the phone company (DSL). If both are listed on SPEWS, what is a fellow to do?
Let me know when it happens...
I live in heart of Northern NJ (20 minutes from NYC), and I can only get Cable (Verizon doesn't provide DSL in my town)
I seriously doubt that my cable/DSL provider or any other cable/DSL provider is going to risk thier bread and butter to host a few spammers. (Hosting spammers isn't a very lucritive business)
IF/WHEN it happens, I'm sure they'll get a LOT of complaining from thier customers when they can't email the rest of the world, and they'll quickly change thier policy.
Now, If it was the only dialup access (as is the case in many rural areas), and they were blocked by SPEWS, I'm sure thier customers will convince them to change thier policy (Many might cancel because email is thier only application)
The people who are doing the most complaining are the ones who host thier servers/websites with some shady ISP hosting spammers, who feel it's ok to risk thier legitimate customers as collateral damage.
In the trite words of a screaming Chris Tucker, "Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
Here's what typically happens.
1. SPAMMER gets account on your ISP 2. SPAMMER SPAMS from your ISP 3. Someone reports SPAMMER 4. SPEWS sends warning to your ISP 5. ISP does nothing 6. SPEWS blocks small IP range, sends second warning 7. ISP does nothing 8. SPEWS blocks larger IP range, sends third warning 9. YOU get blocked (It's obvious your ISP doesn't care about your connection) 10. ISP finally takes appropriate action, SPEWS unblocks ISP
If SPEWS didn't follow that procedure, then shame on SPEWS. If you're ISP didn't respond to SPEWS, then shame on your ISP.
Either way, Sounds like you need to get another ISP that actually cares about keeping the connection up for its legitimate customers.
Would your ISP have terminated their spammer if SPEWS hadn't escalated their listing to the whole/16?
Read what he said first. He clearly stated that SPEWS starts by blocking smaller IPs and notifies the ISP. If the ISP doesn't response, they block a larger range, until the ISP feels compelled to terminate the spammer's account.
If you're an ISP and want to avoid being blocked by SPEWS, it seems like all you really have to do is reply to abuse reports and terminate the offending account. See, Was THAT so hard?
How's that for a brilliant plan?
Jesus, I'd hate to see how you blow your personal problems out of proportion.
1. You get 100% compatibility when you need it. 2. You'll reduce the backlash by not forcing an OS that might not do everything THEY want it to do. 3. It's the perfect way to demonstrate, "Windows is Linux's bitch." 4. Giving enough HD space available, you could give each of them thier own Virtual Machine that they can trash with all the unsafe software they want. 5. Virtual Machines rule!!!
I bet I know a lot more about politics than you do.
I bet I'm a lot more willing to learn what I don't know.
I also bet I'm more willing to explore what works rather than dwell on unlikely potentials (Passing a law to hang corrupt bureaucrats)
I admire your convictions, and I think people should be reminded that we have the power to pass laws to hang corrupt bureaucrats, but I'm not going make all my hopes contingent on the unlikely possibility.
Not everybody has been voting since 1976, but I also noticed you didn't flaunt your experience working/volunteering for elected officials, organzing opposition against laws, bills, policy, etc.
Secondly, I wasn't targeting you, I was trying to advise anyone who read my post to learn as much as they can about how the system REALLY works as a way to channel thier rage against these assholes.
It reminds me of that Onion, Point-Pounterpoint, "We must retaliate with blind rage." vs. "We must retaliate with measured, focused rage."
Any act of aggression intended to alter the government policy pretty much makes you a terrorist.
Yes, Even if it's a policy of facilitating unfettered corruption.
Here's a suggestion for you and other irate Slashdot readers: LEARN as much as you can about politics. Aspire to know the top 50 lobbiests, where they get thier money and what they are getting in return. Find out what issues people really care about, and learn how to leverage thier concerns to care about your concerns. Go beyond hypothesis and speculation, and get the facts. Share your findings, make your findings compelling, share them with everybody.
When the terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, there were hundreds of millions of Muslims who understood why...
We're about as understood as those radical enviromentalists, yet our issues are non-partisan that mainly address plain-vanilla corruption.
Nope, it's still fine, as long as you can't make copies of the thing. If your device doesn't allow copying or weaken the protection, you're fine. It's just another playback device.
You're STILL circumventing the copy protection device, and the law STILL criminalizes technology. What if Sony decides to add copying features, could Philips add those same copying features? Why should the government mandate the limit our industry's innovation to protect one that's becoming increasing irrelevant?
This misconception has been overused to death. He was involved in the writing, but he was certainly not the main author. He just happened to be the only one dumb enough to take credit for it. DeCSS was not a Linux program, and not a player. It's purpose was to let Windows users rip DVDs. Now, I'll grant that it helped along the Linux DVD playback world, but it's hardly the innocent lamb that you're portraying it as.
DeCSS was the source code used to decrypt a DVD, WHO'S PURPOSE was to play DVD's on Linux. It wasn't a digital lockpick, and CSS wasn't a digital lock. CSS was a system designed to get license revenues from electronics manufacturers who wanted to make DVD players. DVD's were being copied long before DeCSS. The MPAA got pissed when they realized:
A) Someone made a player bypassing paying the CSS license.
B) DeCSS could also be used to convert DVD's to smaller formats (Allowing DVD's to be Napsterized).
It was THEN, when the MPAA started publicizing CSS as a copy-protection scheme.
You may want to read back a little...
Again, pretty much bogus. Yes, this *would* let eBook users convert their eBooks to other formats. There were some legitimate issues. However, this is a fricking Russian software company -- the point of the thing was to let people make copies of eBooks. Sure, *after* the accusations all sorts of innocent, wonderful-sounding applications were waved around.
Explain this to me: 1. How is it supposed to convert the eBook without making a copy? Do you really want your software to delete your original eBook so you can read it in Word? 2. If this was the big pirating tool you're suggesting, why would such a pirating tool restrict the user from only converting *THIER* eBooks? 3. Being a fricking Russian software company, where they don't have these crazy copy-protection laws, don't you think they have the RIGHT to make this software in thier own country? 4. Just where should US law stop anyway? 5. Considering thier company is under NO legal obligation to abide by our laws, don't you think they should DESERVE SOME CREDIT for restricting thier software so as it only converts legally purchased eBooks?
Libertarians would be much more appealing if they'd stick to straighforward things like free speech infringements, and knock off lame issues like drug legalization, IMHO. (Another great example of an area where people's primary goal is to abuse something, but they can come up with corner cases of something being useful "those poor, poor glaucoma sufferers". Christ. Why do 90% of libertarian arguments sound like this?)
* Why do 90% of Republicans sound like naive Christians who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier economic opportunies, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
* Why do 90% of Democrats sound like naive Hippies who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier welfare, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the heck does it still exist?
Because Hollywood/TV/Music industry gave $21,480,772 in soft money during 2002 to keep it there...
Lawyers aint cheap and when the court orders someone to pay for the damages/legal costs, it aint cheap.
Lawyers gave $12,074,762 in soft money during 2002 to make sure these disputes can't be settled without them...
This public service announcement was brought to you by Open Secrets
People who truely believe in free market economies would never let the government regulate technology like this, or sanction a virtual monopoly to the Baby Bells, or give the FCC the powers it has to stifle communications.
The History of Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre
As long as we're talking about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech, let's learn a little about the context, especially considering it's been invoked by so many people in so many contexts.
The analogy came from the Schneck v. United States in which Schneck was being prosecuted for causing subordination among soldiers who had been drafted in WWI. He and others had circulated leaflets asking draftees to not "submit to intimidation". The leaflets did not encourage draftees to break the law, rather it encourage them to consider their rights.
Justice Holmes opinion was that the constitution protects these leaflets during peace time, and that wartime deserved special circumstances.
In order to support his special circumstances opinion, he illustrated his opinion with the famous "Fire in a Theatre" analogy.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.
Justice Holmes upheld his convictions that the leaflets presented "A Clear and Present Danger"
Of course, when the founder father drafted the Bill of Rights, they must of forgot about their own "Clear and Present Danger" that they presented to His Majesty's Empire.
Oh wait, If the founding fathers were hung up on this "Clear and Present Danger" exception, why didn't they write it down, but rather write the Second Amendment and Third Amendments instead?
Source Code - A Precise Mathematical Notation?
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Pornography, Video Games
They're all Intellectual Works protected by copyright law!!!
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Arm Bands, Middle Fingers, Flag Diapers
They're all protected by the First Amendment!!!
What does Copyright Law Consider Expression?
According the US Copyright Office, in order for a work to be copyrighted, it must be a work that is a fixed in a tangible form of expression. Therefore, ALL copyrighted materials are tangible forms of expression!
What does the Law Say?
Title 17, Circular 92, Chapter 1, Section 102
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
Is Software Really a form of Expression?
I like working with extremes myself, so let's start with Video Games. They seem to be the most expressive form of all expression. A great Video Game mixes and blends all sorts of art, music, and literary work and combines it all with an intelligent engine, which is a mathematical art form in itself. If one wanted to be an artist that truly affects and influences people, wouldn't it be logical to blend many art forms into one cohesive form of immersive art?
What about Source Code
If you're going to describe what source code is to someone who's never seen it, it can be best describe as a very precise mathematical notation. A program is almost always a mathematical model representing real object or phenomenon. A Database is a mathematical model of an index filing system, while a Word Processor is a mathematical model of type setting machine. When these models are executed on a computer, they may behave just like the physical device, but it is still only a model of that device, expressed in a mathematical notation.
If it's copyrightable, it's expression. You can't have it both ways...
Let's call this what it is:
...but in the US, it's against the law...
Intellectual Property Rights vs. Innovation Rights
In this case it can be argued that Dmitry Sklyarov is a hacker who hacked together and conspired to traffic a digital crowbar that disables the lock Adobe's eBook.
- OR -
Dmitry Sklyarov is just a mere employee who wrote software for his employer to enable the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats.
The irony this dichotomy is: THERE IS NO DICHOTOMY. Both Statements are correct.
The real question is: Should ElcomSoft be criminally convicted for writing a very legitimate software? It's legitmate in Russia. It was a legitimate and common type of software in the US not too long ago. It only allows the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats. It has many valid uses.
Nope... Doesn't seem like a Conservative vs. Liberal Issue to me...
...and it's pronounced - Sklee-yar-ov
The yolk's on you...
As far as his reason is concerned, it sounds like he we trying to explain the ontology of neurons and synapses by using the path of a ball as an example.
You should seriously check out some neural network demos written by students where they use simple neurons and perceptron configurations to essentially solve complex algebraic equations.
Lastly, you were very ready to pin these political students as short-sighted and narrow-minded, yet it seems like you put little to no effort to consider thier ideas. A person with an open-mind would have at least have asked someone if this tactic is going to do more harm than good. let alone give someone the opportunity to defend/explain it.
You might have some really good objections for not bundling politics and software licenses, so let us know what they are...
Reread your post, inform us WHY it's short-sighted. Explain WHY somethings need to be free from politics. Explain WHY these politics do more harm than good. Don't just flame with recycled ideas. Rationally explain it so even the biggest human rights hippie considers your ideas.
NOTE: I also like software when it's free from politics, but that doesn't keep me from appreciating both commercial and GNU software alike.
And what guarantees does anyone have they won't turn around and sue anyway?
:)
This sort of "blackmail" is nothing new. It's the same sort of "blackmail" that patent holders use to extract money from patent infringers.
Here's a hint: If you want to make sure they won't sue anyway, make sure you have something in writing.. Even if it's only an invoice (stating they wont' sue if you pay), they are still implicitly offering a contract, and therefore bound by that offer (giving accept the contract's conditions), which a judge will most likely rule in your favor (unless you live in a backwards country).
Oh yeah, IANAL, but I watch Judge Mathis...
EVERYBODY TRIED it (before lunch, many times) and EVERYBODY was complaining. HENCE all the complaints.
You come along, try it, after it's been fixed, and it works...
Do you think our friend CmdrTaco or the WSJ, just MIGHT have made a mistake with the URL, or granted slashdot users access to THIS story after EVERYBODY complained???
Asshole
Because there are hundreds if not thousands of categories and subcategories, which may need to be added or dropped by someone non-technical, I would doubt they hardcoded it into bitfield attributes.
Rather, I would have assumed they have a seperate preferences table in thier database, layed out similar to my example below:
UserID - Linking to the User Table
CategoryID - Linking to the Category Table
PreferenceWeight - A Number Indicating how much they like this material.
This could easily allow for someones profile to show preferences for both pro-homosexual and anti-homosexual literaterure. (And for people who debate these issues, buy these two opposing categories isn't mutally exclusive)
Of course! ... Wait... You do know you're meant to get consent first, right?
To which the Frenchman replied:
"But of course I got her cunscent! I got her cunscent on my fingers! I got cunscent on my mustache! I got her cunscent everywhere!"
* Don't be a douche and mod it down *
I know the original saying is "Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidendence", but in your case, you're leaving the rest of us scratching our heads. You're assuming we know too much, so I've listed some questions to help you elaborate.
1. Are you partly saying because Sony manufactures hardware and the copy protection, it will be picked up and implemented?
2. Which SPECIFIC horizontal markets are you talking about, and WHY are they the way to go?
3. If Microsoft supports everything off of Windows sales, are you saying Sony will support everything off thier CD sales???
4. What does your Conglomo link mean? It looks like a fan website. HOW does this tie into Sony?
5. A Record label offers them more? What's them?
6. What's the blank before "Profit. Massively."?
The key to making this work is to make sure that this new Wi-Fi is SELLABLE, meaning anybody, with minimal capital, can set up thier own wireless broadband ISP.
Once there is an industry, with a lot of consumers, then you'll get a big push to open more spectrum for unregulated wireless broadband to meet consumer demand.
Now THAT's capitalism kicking the government's ass. (Rather than pandering to the FCC's auction process...)
I know you're skeptical, but what these people are proposing is just a simple expansion of Wi-Fi, by getting more radio spectrum and limiting it's use for data services.
It's just 802.11 with better range and a smarter protocol.
You get Linksys, D-Link, Engenuis, Proxim, and all the other wireless devices guys in a room, and it won't take them long to agree on a standard, especially if it means selling lots of units.
What trivial about unregulated radio being used for broadband?
How the fuck is this new spectrum supposed to get put to use without private investment?
Oh, now I remember.... Socialism is the answer!
This will work just like 802.11 and the Internet is working NOW.
Since the radio spectrum is available for ANYONE to use, the private investments come from the equipment manufacturers, users, smaller ISPs, bigger ISPs who want a slice of the market, etc.
This is actually very similar to how the Internet got started. Sprint, T-Mobile, and commercial wireless carriers are like the old AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Along came the Internet (A cooperative system started by the government), which allowed ANYONE to set up thier own ISP and become thier own AOL, CompuServer, and Prodigy.
You see young capitalist: Sometimes the government is nessecary to get people to cooperate initially. The trick is to bring everybody at the table, and THEN let the market regulate themselves. Just like the Internet!
I know that you're a young capitalist, but you have to remember that UNREGULATED radio is a capitalist's friend.
You wrote:
Ah yes, it would be much better for the government to make that space available and then not sell it to a private corpration. That way, we can all sit around and think to ourselves, "I'm glad that spectrum is open for broadband..... IT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T USE IT!!!"
First of all, I think the rest of us are wondering how YOU got modded up?
Do you even understand how the basics of FCC spectrum licensing, or are you trying to suggest (Very incoherantly) that unregulated radio, like that being used by 802.11, isn't usable because it's unregulated?
You do understand that the success behind 2.4ghz (802.11) was that is was given to the public and not auctioned to a single corporation.
It's funny, because everybody else is excited about more unregulated public radio spectrums! Almost the ENTIRE tech industry loves it. Why don't you like unregulated public radio?
Please tell us, WHY DO YOU THINK UNREGULATED RADIO, like 2.4ghz (802.11), IS UNUSEABLE???
We're all waiting for your brilliant insight!
Shit, I'm usually pretty good about that...
On a similar note: Did you know that consistantly switching your yours with your you'res adds a lot of color to trolls?
In some geographic areas, there exist only two high-speed ISPs: the cable company (cable Internet) and the phone company (DSL). If both are listed on SPEWS, what is a fellow to do?
Let me know when it happens...
I live in heart of Northern NJ (20 minutes from NYC), and I can only get Cable (Verizon doesn't provide DSL in my town)
I seriously doubt that my cable/DSL provider or any other cable/DSL provider is going to risk thier bread and butter to host a few spammers. (Hosting spammers isn't a very lucritive business)
IF/WHEN it happens, I'm sure they'll get a LOT of complaining from thier customers when they can't email the rest of the world, and they'll quickly change thier policy.
Now, If it was the only dialup access (as is the case in many rural areas), and they were blocked by SPEWS, I'm sure thier customers will convince them to change thier policy (Many might cancel because email is thier only application)
The people who are doing the most complaining are the ones who host thier servers/websites with some shady ISP hosting spammers, who feel it's ok to risk thier legitimate customers as collateral damage.
In the trite words of a screaming Chris Tucker, "Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
Here's what typically happens.
1. SPAMMER gets account on your ISP
2. SPAMMER SPAMS from your ISP
3. Someone reports SPAMMER
4. SPEWS sends warning to your ISP
5. ISP does nothing
6. SPEWS blocks small IP range, sends second warning
7. ISP does nothing
8. SPEWS blocks larger IP range, sends third warning
9. YOU get blocked (It's obvious your ISP doesn't care about your connection)
10. ISP finally takes appropriate action, SPEWS unblocks ISP
If SPEWS didn't follow that procedure, then shame on SPEWS. If you're ISP didn't respond to SPEWS, then shame on your ISP.
Either way, Sounds like you need to get another ISP that actually cares about keeping the connection up for its legitimate customers.
Would your ISP have terminated their spammer if SPEWS hadn't escalated their listing to the whole /16?
Read what he said first. He clearly stated that SPEWS starts by blocking smaller IPs and notifies the ISP. If the ISP doesn't response, they block a larger range, until the ISP feels compelled to terminate the spammer's account.
If you're an ISP and want to avoid being blocked by SPEWS, it seems like all you really have to do is reply to abuse reports and terminate the offending account. See, Was THAT so hard?
How's that for a brilliant plan?
Jesus, I'd hate to see how you blow your personal problems out of proportion.
Just run Windows under VM-Ware
That way, they can use whatever they want without having to boot back and forth.
It's also the perfect way of saying, "Windows is my bitch."
1. You get 100% compatibility when you need it.
2. You'll reduce the backlash by not forcing an OS that might not do everything THEY want it to do.
3. It's the perfect way to demonstrate, "Windows is Linux's bitch."
4. Giving enough HD space available, you could give each of them thier own Virtual Machine that they can trash with all the unsafe software they want.
5. Virtual Machines rule!!!
I bet I know a lot more about politics than you do.
I bet I'm a lot more willing to learn what I don't know.
I also bet I'm more willing to explore what works rather than dwell on unlikely potentials (Passing a law to hang corrupt bureaucrats)
I admire your convictions, and I think people should be reminded that we have the power to pass laws to hang corrupt bureaucrats, but I'm not going make all my hopes contingent on the unlikely possibility.
Not everybody has been voting since 1976, but I also noticed you didn't flaunt your experience working/volunteering for elected officials, organzing opposition against laws, bills, policy, etc.
Secondly, I wasn't targeting you, I was trying to advise anyone who read my post to learn as much as they can about how the system REALLY works as a way to channel thier rage against these assholes.
It reminds me of that Onion, Point-Pounterpoint, "We must retaliate with blind rage." vs. "We must retaliate with measured, focused rage."
Point-CounterPoint
Any act of aggression intended to alter the government policy pretty much makes you a terrorist.
Yes, Even if it's a policy of facilitating unfettered corruption.
Here's a suggestion for you and other irate Slashdot readers: LEARN as much as you can about politics. Aspire to know the top 50 lobbiests, where they get thier money and what they are getting in return. Find out what issues people really care about, and learn how to leverage thier concerns to care about your concerns. Go beyond hypothesis and speculation, and get the facts. Share your findings, make your findings compelling, share them with everybody.
When the terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, there were hundreds of millions of Muslims who understood why...
We're about as understood as those radical enviromentalists, yet our issues are non-partisan that mainly address plain-vanilla corruption.
Nope, it's still fine, as long as you can't make copies of the thing. If your device doesn't allow copying or weaken the protection, you're fine. It's just another playback device.
You're STILL circumventing the copy protection device, and the law STILL criminalizes technology. What if Sony decides to add copying features, could Philips add those same copying features? Why should the government mandate the limit our industry's innovation to protect one that's becoming increasing irrelevant?
This misconception has been overused to death. He was involved in the writing, but he was certainly not the main author. He just happened to be the only one dumb enough to take credit for it. DeCSS was not a Linux program, and not a player. It's purpose was to let Windows users rip DVDs. Now, I'll grant that it helped along the Linux DVD playback world, but it's hardly the innocent lamb that you're portraying it as.
DeCSS was the source code used to decrypt a DVD, WHO'S PURPOSE was to play DVD's on Linux. It wasn't a digital lockpick, and CSS wasn't a digital lock. CSS was a system designed to get license revenues from electronics manufacturers who wanted to make DVD players. DVD's were being copied long before DeCSS. The MPAA got pissed when they realized:
A) Someone made a player bypassing paying the CSS license.
B) DeCSS could also be used to convert DVD's to smaller formats (Allowing DVD's to be Napsterized).
It was THEN, when the MPAA started publicizing CSS as a copy-protection scheme.
You may want to read back a little...
Again, pretty much bogus. Yes, this *would* let eBook users convert their eBooks to other formats. There were some legitimate issues. However, this is a fricking Russian software company -- the point of the thing was to let people make copies of eBooks. Sure, *after* the accusations all sorts of innocent, wonderful-sounding applications were waved around.
Explain this to me:
1. How is it supposed to convert the eBook without making a copy? Do you really want your software to delete your original eBook so you can read it in Word?
2. If this was the big pirating tool you're suggesting, why would such a pirating tool restrict the user from only converting *THIER* eBooks?
3. Being a fricking Russian software company, where they don't have these crazy copy-protection laws, don't you think they have the RIGHT to make this software in thier own country?
4. Just where should US law stop anyway?
5. Considering thier company is under NO legal obligation to abide by our laws, don't you think they should DESERVE SOME CREDIT for restricting thier software so as it only converts legally purchased eBooks?
Libertarians would be much more appealing if they'd stick to straighforward things like free speech infringements, and knock off lame issues like drug legalization, IMHO. (Another great example of an area where people's primary goal is to abuse something, but they can come up with corner cases of something being useful "those poor, poor glaucoma sufferers". Christ. Why do 90% of libertarian arguments sound like this?)
* Why do 90% of Republicans sound like naive Christians who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier economic opportunies, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
* Why do 90% of Democrats sound like naive Hippies who actually believe thier politician's goal is to protect thier welfare, and not giving exclusive lucritive deals to thier corporate sponsers.
Who makes YOUR political affiliation look bad?
...but Mr. Nissan has been running Nissan Computers from before Datsun Motors changed its name to Nissan Motors.