To me the answers to all of those questions is clear: none of them are stealing. But breaking a window that someone else owns is costing the owner money, and the "breaker" owes him/her for it.
It would be better to have owners of SMTP servers do more to prevent spam. I would rather not see a new law specifically aimed at spam if it can be prevented at the source. Granted, this wouldn't completely solve the problem, but would eliminate a lot of it without forcing yet another law on people.
I have a fundamental problem with the article: since when are we undergoing a revolution? Revolution implies taking away something old and replacing it with something new. What are we replacing? What are we revolting against?
The industrial revolution changed the landscape of the planet, how and where we live, and came about mostly by a single invention. Other revolutions changed governments.
Is the internet more of an evolution? The internet is an evolution of computers and electronics. It's barely changed how anyone lives. It's drastically changed the thinking and knowledge of many, but that hardly qualifies as a revolution. The reason there are so many problems comparing this to other revolutions is that this isn't a revolution.
I've been reading for a while that the more popular home pages are the specialized ones, rather than the general Yahoos and AltaVistas. People who use the net a lot for sports will use a sports page for home. Doctors might prefer a medical site, etc. While specialized sites are preferred by users, I think many investors were looking for the Home Depot or Wal-mart of the internet, the big place where you can do everything. But, as usual, turns out the little guys can do a better job by specializing, keeping a more loyal user base.
Of course, there's also many users who don't know how to change their default site for IE away from MSN.
Does anyone think this'll prevent the general population from wanting to get a PS2 later this year? And what about/. users? Will you not buy these DNA-S games? I'm wondering if this plan will hurt Sony.
In the section of the article on "Lessons and Guidelines for P2P Developers" is a section on using open source to remain safe. Being open source will drastically reduce your chances of becoming a target of litigation: hard to prove financial benefit and impossible to control use of users since code can be modified. Plus, non-open source components that don't involve copyright infringement can be used for profitability of the p2p product. Very interesting.
You're assuming your situation is common. Your hardware configuration is relatively unique since there are so many possible configurations. One NT server and one W2K server do not make for a good review of the OSs. Your success with them may or may not be typical. MS products still have really shoddy stability. Every product they release has more documented bugs than the prior version. Do some research and find that non-MS OSs are almost always more stable. But then you probably use their servers because of their monopoly and wouldn't see much of the competition anyway...
They can only move on to dominate other fields using their monopolistic powers. I agree that their user interface is one of the best out there for those not into computers. A UI is a compliated thing to write. But, and this is a big but, much money is spent on training users on their interface. What was the last training class you saw advertised for the Palm OS?
They have an ongoing threat with computer manufacturers and chip makers: Help us do what we want or we will push support of your competition. That's not news, it was directly stated by M$ in their gov't trial.
Having the same GUI all around assumes that one GUI can please everyone. That's never possible. What would be best are GUIs that anyone could walk up to without ever seeing before and understand it intuitively. I'm talking a GUI with no windows at all. Alternatives have been invented, but none implemented on any platform that I've seen. It's a difficult task, but I feel an exteremly simplified GUI should exist on small, single-purpose machines.
Microsoft should patent the blue screen of death, stating they invented it first and no one outside the company is supposed to reproduce it. Then they could sue all of their users each time they produce a BSOD. They should also patent its specific use on embedded systems.
I just feel like blending some of the sad corporate news together into even more amusing tales.
He's not a reporter so he doesn't have to live up to any moral or ethical standard.
What's forcing "real" reporters from living up to any moral or ethical standards? Do they take an oath? Are they part of a religious faction? Everyone has to live up to moral and ethical standards within their own mind.
You don't have to come here if you don't like it.
And you don't have to read the news of "real" reporters either. It's silly to think they have some ethical obligation higher than anyone else.
I realize this is off-topic, going on a tangent, but I have to ask: how do you find Win2K to be stable? Two of my co-workers swear by it, but for me it blue-screens all the time, and on a relatively new machine. It's completely random. I can have the machine up for a month, then sitting in front of it one day, browsing the net, and poof. Some driver is probably failing, but that should never ever crash an OS, especially a server OS. It's even blue-screened while shutting down! I went back to Win98 on that pc and it's much more stable. No problems with their older OS which has had 5,000,000 patches put out over the years.
W2K is the least stable OS I've ever used. Point being, I can't trust an OS that was out for less than a month when it had to get a major "service pack" in order to function at all.
And I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to set up a linux router with SecureDNS. If they wait for it to be added to their server software they'll have this problem for at least a few more years...
The Dubya administration had better make privacy an issue. If they do what they're expected to do with corporations, we'll probably have our lives more controlled by corporations than ever before.
I think this should just be another reminder to read the fine print on web sites. Don't give out private information unless you read a site's fine print and you're willing to have that information shared with many people.
This goes for offline privacy as well. Don't give out your SS#. If a company asks for your phone number and you they don't really need it, say you don't have a phone...
1) What's the stupidity of the question? 2) What's the answer? 3) What's the "gimme, gimme" being asked for? It's a question of rights, not attainment. 4) I'm barely a member of the "Slashdot crew," but if you don't like this "bunch of spoiled children" then don't read the posts. 5) Where's your highly intelligent, intellectual question which would obviously be beyond our simpleton minds?
Not where I live. The signal is coming into my home, and I've never been a cable customer. Same with the last house I lived in. Only the "premium" channels are being scrambled by CableVision in my city, so you need a descrambler only for those channels, even though the signal is fed into homes without my asking for it.
If a company chooses to send a digital or analog signal into my home, whatever the method, shouldn't I have the right to do whatever I wish with the signal? Cable descramlers, for instance; if a cable signal is flowing from a wire into my home, where I own the wire, don't I own the signal coming into my home, and therefore should have the right to descrable it if I please? The same goes for DeCSS, or encrypted data over the internet. If it leads to my computer, should the basic rule be: "If it's on your property, such as in your home or on your computer, a corporation can't tell you what you can do with it."?
It's economically viable and sensible to the companies because most of the mail is discarded by potential customers, some is returned with a positive response, and even less is returned angrily. If everyone who angrily threw out the mailings sent them back, companies would definitely cut back.
What's the heaviest thing that will fit into one of those small envelopes? The post office can't open it unless it's suspicious, like extra bulky. They can't claim it's not for its intended purpose if it fits neatly into the return envelope. So other than a chunk of thin metal, what else could be put into the envelope?
Would *you* want to rely on 50 year old pictures before you set your ass down on a planet millions of miles from home?
Yes I would. Do you think the craters will move? The mountains will shift much? The polar caps will melt and you'll accidentally land in water? The fundamental landscape of Mars hasn't changed much since the telescope was invented and people looked at it.
If you landed on Earch based on 50 year old pictures, the worst that would happen is you'd land on someone's house or a building where there wasn't one before. The deserts and forrests are in the same places. And I don't think we need to worry about landing on a newly biult martian house.
They are. Try reading and maybe you'll learn something. A competition is completing between corporations inventing the best new launch vehicle. Nasa has their own design and is comparing it to some new radical ideas from private companies. Inventing from scratch would defeat the purpose of the initial costs of the old but current vehicle. The shuttle's been enhanced over the years to include new technology, but starting over again is very costly.
And who do you think approves their budgets? The politicians you (assuming you're an American) vote into office. You can always volunteer to work for them you know. They do a lot more than you see on TV. When you voluntarily design a new launch vehicle better than anything they're working on, let everyone at/. know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
To me the answers to all of those questions is clear: none of them are stealing. But breaking a window that someone else owns is costing the owner money, and the "breaker" owes him/her for it.
It would be better to have owners of SMTP servers do more to prevent spam. I would rather not see a new law specifically aimed at spam if it can be prevented at the source. Granted, this wouldn't completely solve the problem, but would eliminate a lot of it without forcing yet another law on people.
Wouldn't it only have to cost someone something, not necessarily break it? Stealing is itself a crime.
I have a fundamental problem with the article: since when are we undergoing a revolution? Revolution implies taking away something old and replacing it with something new. What are we replacing? What are we revolting against?
The industrial revolution changed the landscape of the planet, how and where we live, and came about mostly by a single invention. Other revolutions changed governments.
Is the internet more of an evolution? The internet is an evolution of computers and electronics. It's barely changed how anyone lives. It's drastically changed the thinking and knowledge of many, but that hardly qualifies as a revolution. The reason there are so many problems comparing this to other revolutions is that this isn't a revolution.
I've been reading for a while that the more popular home pages are the specialized ones, rather than the general Yahoos and AltaVistas. People who use the net a lot for sports will use a sports page for home. Doctors might prefer a medical site, etc. While specialized sites are preferred by users, I think many investors were looking for the Home Depot or Wal-mart of the internet, the big place where you can do everything. But, as usual, turns out the little guys can do a better job by specializing, keeping a more loyal user base.
Of course, there's also many users who don't know how to change their default site for IE away from MSN.
Does anyone think this'll prevent the general population from wanting to get a PS2 later this year? And what about /. users? Will you not buy these DNA-S games? I'm wondering if this plan will hurt Sony.
In the section of the article on "Lessons and Guidelines for P2P Developers" is a section on using open source to remain safe. Being open source will drastically reduce your chances of becoming a target of litigation: hard to prove financial benefit and impossible to control use of users since code can be modified. Plus, non-open source components that don't involve copyright infringement can be used for profitability of the p2p product. Very interesting.
You're assuming your situation is common. Your hardware configuration is relatively unique since there are so many possible configurations. One NT server and one W2K server do not make for a good review of the OSs. Your success with them may or may not be typical. MS products still have really shoddy stability. Every product they release has more documented bugs than the prior version. Do some research and find that non-MS OSs are almost always more stable. But then you probably use their servers because of their monopoly and wouldn't see much of the competition anyway...
Didn't notice if this link was posted by anyone else, but RMS has submitted a response to Microsoft on ZDNet news.
They can only move on to dominate other fields using their monopolistic powers. I agree that their user interface is one of the best out there for those not into computers. A UI is a compliated thing to write. But, and this is a big but, much money is spent on training users on their interface. What was the last training class you saw advertised for the Palm OS?
They have an ongoing threat with computer manufacturers and chip makers: Help us do what we want or we will push support of your competition. That's not news, it was directly stated by M$ in their gov't trial.
Having the same GUI all around assumes that one GUI can please everyone. That's never possible. What would be best are GUIs that anyone could walk up to without ever seeing before and understand it intuitively. I'm talking a GUI with no windows at all. Alternatives have been invented, but none implemented on any platform that I've seen. It's a difficult task, but I feel an exteremly simplified GUI should exist on small, single-purpose machines.
Microsoft should patent the blue screen of death, stating they invented it first and no one outside the company is supposed to reproduce it. Then they could sue all of their users each time they produce a BSOD. They should also patent its specific use on embedded systems.
I just feel like blending some of the sad corporate news together into even more amusing tales.
He's not a reporter so he doesn't have to live up to any moral or ethical standard.
What's forcing "real" reporters from living up to any moral or ethical standards? Do they take an oath? Are they part of a religious faction? Everyone has to live up to moral and ethical standards within their own mind.
You don't have to come here if you don't like it.
And you don't have to read the news of "real" reporters either. It's silly to think they have some ethical obligation higher than anyone else.
I realize this is off-topic, going on a tangent, but I have to ask: how do you find Win2K to be stable? Two of my co-workers swear by it, but for me it blue-screens all the time, and on a relatively new machine. It's completely random. I can have the machine up for a month, then sitting in front of it one day, browsing the net, and poof. Some driver is probably failing, but that should never ever crash an OS, especially a server OS. It's even blue-screened while shutting down! I went back to Win98 on that pc and it's much more stable. No problems with their older OS which has had 5,000,000 patches put out over the years.
W2K is the least stable OS I've ever used. Point being, I can't trust an OS that was out for less than a month when it had to get a major "service pack" in order to function at all.
And I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to set up a linux router with SecureDNS. If they wait for it to be added to their server software they'll have this problem for at least a few more years...
Did anyone happen to notice that one of the ads on Slashdot, AltaVista Search Engive v3, is a link to ad.doubleclick.net?
The Dubya administration had better make privacy an issue. If they do what they're expected to do with corporations, we'll probably have our lives more controlled by corporations than ever before.
I think this should just be another reminder to read the fine print on web sites. Don't give out private information unless you read a site's fine print and you're willing to have that information shared with many people.
This goes for offline privacy as well. Don't give out your SS#. If a company asks for your phone number and you they don't really need it, say you don't have a phone...
1) What's the stupidity of the question?
2) What's the answer?
3) What's the "gimme, gimme" being asked for? It's a question of rights, not attainment.
4) I'm barely a member of the "Slashdot crew," but if you don't like this "bunch of spoiled children" then don't read the posts.
5) Where's your highly intelligent, intellectual question which would obviously be beyond our simpleton minds?
Not where I live. The signal is coming into my home, and I've never been a cable customer. Same with the last house I lived in. Only the "premium" channels are being scrambled by CableVision in my city, so you need a descrambler only for those channels, even though the signal is fed into homes without my asking for it.
If a company chooses to send a digital or analog signal into my home, whatever the method, shouldn't I have the right to do whatever I wish with the signal? Cable descramlers, for instance; if a cable signal is flowing from a wire into my home, where I own the wire, don't I own the signal coming into my home, and therefore should have the right to descrable it if I please? The same goes for DeCSS, or encrypted data over the internet. If it leads to my computer, should the basic rule be: "If it's on your property, such as in your home or on your computer, a corporation can't tell you what you can do with it."?
It's economically viable and sensible to the companies because most of the mail is discarded by potential customers, some is returned with a positive response, and even less is returned angrily. If everyone who angrily threw out the mailings sent them back, companies would definitely cut back.
What's the heaviest thing that will fit into one of those small envelopes? The post office can't open it unless it's suspicious, like extra bulky. They can't claim it's not for its intended purpose if it fits neatly into the return envelope. So other than a chunk of thin metal, what else could be put into the envelope?
Would *you* want to rely on 50 year old pictures before you set your ass down on a planet millions of miles from home?
Yes I would. Do you think the craters will move? The mountains will shift much? The polar caps will melt and you'll accidentally land in water? The fundamental landscape of Mars hasn't changed much since the telescope was invented and people looked at it.
If you landed on Earch based on 50 year old pictures, the worst that would happen is you'd land on someone's house or a building where there wasn't one before. The deserts and forrests are in the same places. And I don't think we need to worry about landing on a newly biult martian house.
They are. Try reading and maybe you'll learn something. A competition is completing between corporations inventing the best new launch vehicle. Nasa has their own design and is comparing it to some new radical ideas from private companies. Inventing from scratch would defeat the purpose of the initial costs of the old but current vehicle. The shuttle's been enhanced over the years to include new technology, but starting over again is very costly.
Nasa is about politics, not science.
/. know about it.
And who do you think approves their budgets? The politicians you (assuming you're an American) vote into office. You can always volunteer to work for them you know. They do a lot more than you see on TV. When you voluntarily design a new launch vehicle better than anything they're working on, let everyone at