If they're firing you, get a job at a real competitor. They've decided that they don't need you anymore. If they can't realize that loyalty goes both ways and extends beyond quarterly reports, screw 'em. If those "authorized" companies were such a good match, why doesn't HR get together with their HRs for a little placement? Oh, because McDonald's and Wal-Mart are at the top of the list, right?
I'm pointing out that in this one case, you've got a nation-state building something it plans to distribute freely that will compete with products that private market workers and investors are making a living from.
It will "compete" with "products" that aren't products at all. Software is an idea. MS came up with (bought/stole/strongarmed all competitors away from) an idea that forces just about every computer user in the world to rent their computers from MS.
The German government (and the Mexican, Peruvian, Californian (and some other states that only sue), et al) is tired of itself and its constituents being held hostage by a foreign company. If the "product" were reliable and secure it would still rankle. Nothing MS has produced has been either. Other than calendar sharing and games (written for, not by MS), the only thing MS can offer is "compatibility" with other comanies' networks and documents. Note that by ignoring standards, MS makes this compatibility artificially scarce.
No industry has an inherent right to profit or, indeed, to survival. Or are you exactly the kind of socialist you seem to hate? Any government's use of MS products is a pure subsidy, something stupid if you're not in Washington (DC or state). They are paying big bucks for shoddy craftsmanship when better, cheaper alternatives exist. I'm sorry to see that you can't see the economic reasons for keeping government out of private markets whenever possible.
People are finally starting to vote with their feet.
what? it sounds like a national government doing public-good.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It almost makes you cry, doesn't it? We started 175 years before them and they're ahead of us.
Being a lawyer, I think this guy's real goal is to get some kind of law passed or legal precident set. Without that, a technological solution has little power behind it if it's bypassed.
That line makes you the lawyer (I know you were referring to him being one). Without a technological leg to stand on, no law has any power behind it. There are already laws against accessing a computer without authorization, fraud and unsolicited commercial email. Now we need a fourth law to cover this activity? Get real.
but isn't it a bit harsh way of putting it to say that the reason for aimster's existence was facilitation of copyright infringement?
No. We all know that. From a legal standpoint, the judge is declaring Madster guilty before the trial starts, though.
To be fair, guns' very raison d'etre appears to be the facilitation of and contribution to killing people on a massive scale. Except that big business makes them, too. Only a few crackpots try to claim that those companies are in any way responsible for your or my choice to commit a crime.
Oh, right- I had forgotten that the world of computers is somehow different. Then why isn't MS in trouble for all the spam that Outlook is used to send? Say it could be proven that the vast majority of spam was sent via Outlook. Then Outlook's very raison d'etre appears to be the facilitation of and contribution to spam on a massive scale, doesn't it? "No," MS would claim. "Our software is intended for peer to peer communication and we have no control over what is sent via it. The individual spammers are breaking the law, not us. Our software has a legitimate purpose." Except that because the big corp's. haven't figured out how to wring out enough profit from P2P to drop their old business models, they bought laws making it illegal. Not the infringement itself (which was already illegal), but the software that has a legitimate purpose but gets perverted buy self serving users. Wait- that sounds kind of like our Constitution, doesn't it?
Linux is great because you can run it on just about ANY THING.. and you have CHOICE.. something you don't have much of in Windows or Mac.
Even my wife forgets the reason we laughed at Mac people from time immemorial: the monopoly. MS is evil because of theirs, but Apple is somehow kinder? Okay, their upgrade schedule isn't as fast as MS' but you also have to buy all their hardware. I resent the idea of Winmodems, but at least the money doesn't stay with MS. Open hardware is important for consumers, too.
Actually, I think the FTC has hired a consultant to handle it. Guy from Chicago named Bernard Schifman. I'm pretty sure the guy knows his way around the spam. The FTC wasn't even thinking of hiring anybody to handle it but they got this resume emailed to them...
Cell phones lower the bar of inconvenience in commnuication. Nextels are worse. Radios are scary. Emails suck, and don't even mention "text messages" (isn't that what an email is?).
Because all of these are so convenient, the message is sent before it is even thought out at all, much less thought out fully. Convenience is good. As long as I'm at my computer and thinking about someone, I can mail them. No getting paper or a stamp or walking to the mailbox. Email is so easy that today's kids (the few that actually know how) rarely bother to spell anything correctly. With a phone's address book, 3 or 4 buttons are all that stand between one and a rambling, meaningless conversation.
What it boils down to is this: the inability to complete a thought is stupidity.
All of our wonderful commo toys make it too easy to concentrate on the act of communicating even when we have nothing at all to say. They are making us more stupid even before you look at the dangerous driver/ pedestrian problems.
I have had tests before where I had to write an essay in the alloted time in the computer lab, and if you don't know how to use word then you are screwed.
Just what kind of an essay are you going to write in a timed environment that requires more than typing? Are you graded on inserting Excel graphs? Do you need to use an Essay Wizard?
Wake up. Unless you keep your shoes on with velcro, you don't need to know how to use word. What you need to know is how to write an essay- if you don't know that, then you are screwed. Not "knowing" Word is a pathetic whine. I don't know how to use Word. It's never stopped me from turning out what I want to in Word. If my home network were a little more sane, I'd be able to do my printing from Linux and I could kiss MS goodbye.
I really liked Word 6.0, though. It was great, and you didn't need to know it.
Just nitpicking here, but metric IS english units. The issue was with American Vs. The-rest-of-the-world units.
Gimme a "T!" Gimme an "R!" Gimme an "O!" Gimme an "L!" Gimme an "L!"
Um, Metric is actually French. English units came to America with the English themselves. We kept using them and find that they work quite nicely, thank you.
Americans...don't seem to WANT to know whats going on outside their borders on the rest of this planet.
If it were filled with brighter people than you, we might care. Half the reason most people hate us so much is that we don't care that they hate us at all.
BT (the dominant landline company) charged about 20p a minute for calls to the US, whereas Orange charged something like 15p...
So that's why they suck as a racing team sponsor! If they charged more, maybe Verstappen would have had a car that was worth a damn. Maybe there would still be a team...
I'm with you. Yes, Verisign sucks. Yes, they are also victims of the forgery, but the incompetence exhibited in the caser is bad enough that they are not innocent victims. Businesses with a lot less at stake do a lot more to prevent fraud.
You killed them! I clicked through and clicked the huntingdon.com link, and it was refused. I suspected what you said, so I tried to get to it through Google. Clicking on huntingdon.com at Google was refused also. So I tried what you said, typing http://www.huntingdon.com into my location bar, and it was also refused.
I think what happened might have been a disruption in service due to too many unauthorized links to http://www.huntingdon.com. As a concerned internet user, I'm going to have to ask you to please follow Huntingdon's apparent policy against linking to http://www.huntingdon.com in any way. I say apparent policy because, unable to find any working links to, or even directly reach http://www.huntingdon.com, I am unable to verify the existance of this policy.
What i don't understand is how people can get up-in-arms when organizations attempt to prevent people from linking to their site, yet at the same time lament the increase of spam in their inboxes.
Let's examine this. Often links to websites - and the manner in which they are linked - imply a relationship...
The link itself does not. There are many links here on/., and the ones that have a relationship are clearly separated from the ones that don't. Going after links that inappropriately imply a relationship is actually a job for the lawyers.
And moreover, unauthorized links - again, as from Slashdot - can force users to incur not-insubstantial bandwidth costs.
Bandwidth costs from spam don't relate to this. An email user has to download all of his email before finding out that 9/10 of it is spam. A webmaster is putting up pages for public viewing, understanding that this wiewing will affect his bandwidth.
The NYT can't expect to control the way that I read their paper, can it? They get just as much credit for their content it I go through their front page as if I jump to the story from/.'s front page. Why does it matter?
I thought ibm was implementing a new plan of getting out of anything hardware related and concentrating in proving "services" (ie the recent purchase of a major company, cant remember its name). Maybe im just confused.
No, they're doing MS one better. Software being a service is just so 90s. In the coming century, hardware itself will be a service.
IBM knew that they couldn't come up with this hardware plan alone, so they bought a phone company. Remember when you had to rent your phone and it was illegal to connect a phone that they didn't own to their lines? I mean, forget about activiating your OS. Can you see an automatic deduction from checking every time you boot up?
Wait, then why is IBM pushing Linux? If they were really going with a pay-per-boot plan, they'd be pushing MS. Either they didn't think this plan through all the way, or I'm reading it incorrectly.
It wasn't entrapment; it was standing around waiting for someone to attack him. While his lawbreaking was quite minor, a jury found him civilly liable for $43 million. They found that Goetz acted recklessly and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on one of the muggers. What's reckless, did he miss with one of his shots?
If the RIAA were to sue IWT in New York City, they'd become our newest ISP. That'll make you shudder.
A request by the RIAA to be able to attack.
This is not an attack in the past, but it is a public statement that they intend to do so. It is always better to secure yourself after a warning instead of ignoring it and waiting to be victimized.
webcasting sites are NOT "end users".
End users listen to webcasters. They see no difference between webcast and radio. Forcing webcasters out of business is an attack on webcasters' fans, the end users. Do you really think that end users aren't hurt if their providers are actively hunted down?
mere speculation that the RIAA is the culprit
Yeah, but it filled out the sentence of URLs nicely.
My point is that the RIAA, long satisfied with limiting themselves to fucking the artists, has been at the forefront of attacking end users for some time. They victimize all of us by buying lawmakers and bullying hardware producers. All that aside, their stated intent to break into end users' computers is all the precedent I need.
Re:As requested
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I will misuse law
To make up for one lacking.
Still not enforceable.
Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network.
See? IWT isn't being evil, they are simply keeping their network secure.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a bad idea to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs.
Now there's a news flash. Tell that to the RIAA. If they believe you, maybe they'll drop their lawsuit trying to force the ISPs to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs that the RIAA doesn't like.
The internet is giving the RIAA a taste of its own medicine. I just wish the ISPs being sued were smart enough to come up with this first.
Slashdot Mirror
It will "compete" with "products" that aren't products at all. Software is an idea. MS came up with (bought/stole/strongarmed all competitors away from) an idea that forces just about every computer user in the world to rent their computers from MS.
The German government (and the Mexican, Peruvian, Californian (and some other states that only sue), et al) is tired of itself and its constituents being held hostage by a foreign company. If the "product" were reliable and secure it would still rankle. Nothing MS has produced has been either. Other than calendar sharing and games (written for, not by MS), the only thing MS can offer is "compatibility" with other comanies' networks and documents. Note that by ignoring standards, MS makes this compatibility artificially scarce.
No industry has an inherent right to profit or, indeed, to survival. Or are you exactly the kind of socialist you seem to hate? Any government's use of MS products is a pure subsidy, something stupid if you're not in Washington (DC or state). They are paying big bucks for shoddy craftsmanship when better, cheaper alternatives exist. I'm sorry to see that you can't see the economic reasons for keeping government out of private markets whenever possible.
People are finally starting to vote with their feet.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It almost makes you cry, doesn't it? We started 175 years before them and they're ahead of us.
That line makes you the lawyer (I know you were referring to him being one). Without a technological leg to stand on, no law has any power behind it. There are already laws against accessing a computer without authorization, fraud and unsolicited commercial email. Now we need a fourth law to cover this activity? Get real.
No. We all know that. From a legal standpoint, the judge is declaring Madster guilty before the trial starts, though.
To be fair, guns' very raison d'etre appears to be the facilitation of and contribution to killing people on a massive scale. Except that big business makes them, too. Only a few crackpots try to claim that those companies are in any way responsible for your or my choice to commit a crime.
Oh, right- I had forgotten that the world of computers is somehow different. Then why isn't MS in trouble for all the spam that Outlook is used to send? Say it could be proven that the vast majority of spam was sent via Outlook. Then Outlook's very raison d'etre appears to be the facilitation of and contribution to spam on a massive scale, doesn't it? "No," MS would claim. "Our software is intended for peer to peer communication and we have no control over what is sent via it. The individual spammers are breaking the law, not us. Our software has a legitimate purpose." Except that because the big corp's. haven't figured out how to wring out enough profit from P2P to drop their old business models, they bought laws making it illegal. Not the infringement itself (which was already illegal), but the software that has a legitimate purpose but gets perverted buy self serving users. Wait- that sounds kind of like our Constitution, doesn't it?
Even my wife forgets the reason we laughed at Mac people from time immemorial: the monopoly. MS is evil because of theirs, but Apple is somehow kinder? Okay, their upgrade schedule isn't as fast as MS' but you also have to buy all their hardware. I resent the idea of Winmodems, but at least the money doesn't stay with MS. Open hardware is important for consumers, too.
Because all of these are so convenient, the message is sent before it is even thought out at all, much less thought out fully. Convenience is good. As long as I'm at my computer and thinking about someone, I can mail them. No getting paper or a stamp or walking to the mailbox. Email is so easy that today's kids (the few that actually know how) rarely bother to spell anything correctly. With a phone's address book, 3 or 4 buttons are all that stand between one and a rambling, meaningless conversation.
What it boils down to is this: the inability to complete a thought is stupidity.
All of our wonderful commo toys make it too easy to concentrate on the act of communicating even when we have nothing at all to say. They are making us more stupid even before you look at the dangerous driver/ pedestrian problems.
Just what kind of an essay are you going to write in a timed environment that requires more than typing? Are you graded on inserting Excel graphs? Do you need to use an Essay Wizard?
Wake up. Unless you keep your shoes on with velcro, you don't need to know how to use word. What you need to know is how to write an essay- if you don't know that, then you are screwed. Not "knowing" Word is a pathetic whine. I don't know how to use Word. It's never stopped me from turning out what I want to in Word. If my home network were a little more sane, I'd be able to do my printing from Linux and I could kiss MS goodbye.
I really liked Word 6.0, though. It was great, and you didn't need to know it.
Gimme a "T!" Gimme an "R!" Gimme an "O!" Gimme an "L!" Gimme an "L!"
Um, Metric is actually French. English units came to America with the English themselves. We kept using them and find that they work quite nicely, thank you.
Americans...don't seem to WANT to know whats going on outside their borders on the rest of this planet.
If it were filled with brighter people than you, we might care. Half the reason most people hate us so much is that we don't care that they hate us at all.
So that's why they suck as a racing team sponsor! If they charged more, maybe Verstappen would have had a car that was worth a damn. Maybe there would still be a team...
I think what happened might have been a disruption in service due to too many unauthorized links to http://www.huntingdon.com. As a concerned internet user, I'm going to have to ask you to please follow Huntingdon's apparent policy against linking to http://www.huntingdon.com in any way. I say apparent policy because, unable to find any working links to, or even directly reach http://www.huntingdon.com, I am unable to verify the existance of this policy.
Let's examine this. Often links to websites - and the manner in which they are linked - imply a relationship... /., and the ones that have a relationship are clearly separated from the ones that don't. Going after links that inappropriately imply a relationship is actually a job for the lawyers.
The link itself does not. There are many links here on
And moreover, unauthorized links - again, as from Slashdot - can force users to incur not-insubstantial bandwidth costs.
Bandwidth costs from spam don't relate to this. An email user has to download all of his email before finding out that 9/10 of it is spam. A webmaster is putting up pages for public viewing, understanding that this wiewing will affect his bandwidth.
The NYT can't expect to control the way that I read their paper, can it? They get just as much credit for their content it I go through their front page as if I jump to the story from /.'s front page. Why does it matter?
No, they're doing MS one better. Software being a service is just so 90s. In the coming century, hardware itself will be a service.
IBM knew that they couldn't come up with this hardware plan alone, so they bought a phone company. Remember when you had to rent your phone and it was illegal to connect a phone that they didn't own to their lines? I mean, forget about activiating your OS. Can you see an automatic deduction from checking every time you boot up?
Wait, then why is IBM pushing Linux? If they were really going with a pay-per-boot plan, they'd be pushing MS. Either they didn't think this plan through all the way, or I'm reading it incorrectly.
Which brings another thought: how many complaints of "your customer cracked my box" will it take for the RIAA's current provider to boot them?
It wasn't entrapment; it was standing around waiting for someone to attack him. While his lawbreaking was quite minor, a jury found him civilly liable for $43 million. They found that Goetz acted recklessly and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on one of the muggers. What's reckless, did he miss with one of his shots?
If the RIAA were to sue IWT in New York City, they'd become our newest ISP. That'll make you shudder.
This is not an attack in the past, but it is a public statement that they intend to do so. It is always better to secure yourself after a warning instead of ignoring it and waiting to be victimized.
webcasting sites are NOT "end users".
End users listen to webcasters. They see no difference between webcast and radio. Forcing webcasters out of business is an attack on webcasters' fans, the end users. Do you really think that end users aren't hurt if their providers are actively hunted down?
mere speculation that the RIAA is the culprit
Yeah, but it filled out the sentence of URLs nicely.
My point is that the RIAA, long satisfied with limiting themselves to fucking the artists, has been at the forefront of attacking end users for some time. They victimize all of us by buying lawmakers and bullying hardware producers. All that aside, their stated intent to break into end users' computers is all the precedent I need.
To make up for one lacking.
Still not enforceable.
Don't like to read, do you?
Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network.
See? IWT isn't being evil, they are simply keeping their network secure.
Now there's a news flash. Tell that to the RIAA. If they believe you, maybe they'll drop their lawsuit trying to force the ISPs to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs that the RIAA doesn't like.
The internet is giving the RIAA a taste of its own medicine. I just wish the ISPs being sued were smart enough to come up with this first.
Tell that to Bernard Goetz.
#@*&$% juries.
Isn't that also a public service? "Did you really want that Backstreet Boys song? Tough. You'll have to try again."