...then the 100 million citizens (or whatever the number is) using P2P would have some impact on the laws of the land.
100 million people vs. a single industry association, and who is in charge? Who are the "representatives of the people" listening too? Certainly not the people.
But, the people^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrones have no one to blame but themselves, they who are to busy buying what they are told and patting themselves on the back for being good little radical activists and tuning into NPR twice a day.
Welcome to United States of Corporate Fascist Amerika! Consumerists muster! Submit your $4 for that latte and move the fuck along.
Wrong. The article says that the ISP will prevent its customers from accessing the RIAA's web site (outbound traffic), in addition to taking other measures. This isn't much different than being asked by the MPAA to prevent customer's from accessing freemovies.com.
Why would a company need any sensitive information for more than N minutes? Or in the Verizon Wireless case however long it takes to conduct a credit check.
While this isn't a permanent solution (in the future authentication systems should or will obviate the need to ever give over sensitive personal information), it seems like a very reasonable policy for the present.
While the discussion may not change Micrsoft's mind on matters, that isn't necessarily the point.
It is still important to fight Microsoft's FUD campaign with rationale thought and discussion (you don't seem to disagree).
Microsoft may still delude many, but participants like Bruce can still make a difference with careful application of reason and logic.
(1) Post your questions or comments in this thread/article.
(2) Moderators, mod up the most salient comments.
(3) CmdrTaco or someone else from Slashdot should send in the highest rated comments to SV.com or another party for inclusion in the Roundtable discussion.
At no point does the quoted text refer to software created with the Software
You really are slow.
From the EULA:
(1)(c)(ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
Yes it most certainly does refer to software created with the Software when it says Recipient software. Again, note the capital 'R' and the lack of a capital 'S'.
Are you really that daft?
In summary, you are severely uniformed and no, this story is not a troll.
Jamie, the poster of this article, is misrepresenting the text of the law.
The law text:
Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction, with the specific intent that the statement... is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of
actually carrying it out
What jamie and a little creative paraphrasing produced:
Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction [including] by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out...
Key phrase, missing from Jamie's post:
with the specific intent that the statement... is to be taken as a threat
That being said, those prosecuting this case are misrepresenting the law as well.
The defense should be quite simple, the fictional narrative is just that and as such should pass rational tests against the law. The problem? Earth has always experienced a shortage of rational persons.
I missed it, did anyone else find any mention of where the astronomers plan to find a large 100km asteriod with just the right trajectory/orbit to perform this orbital transfer?
Oh right, just call the A-Team, or McGyver, one of these chaps always seem to have just the right tools to do the trick.
"But that's the extent to which the two cases should be compared [note: Sony vs. Connectix & the DeCSS case], because each contains some important distinctions, says Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association, a trade association of about 1,200 software and information companies based in Washington, D.C."
What kaosmunkee was saying is that there is *no* distinction between Sony vs. [bleem,Connectix] and the DeCSS case.
Note: kaosmunkee was comparing bleem and DeCSS while the article was comparing the Connectix and DeCSS cases, however his point still stands.
I like your idea, in fact, I admit to doing something similar:
cccsd0000@domain.name.com
ccc=user-initials (supports multiple users) and sd=spam-drop. Once the S/N ratio gets to low, I just create 'cccsd0001@domain.name.com' and drop the 'cccsd0000' alias. So on and so forth.
I like your idea of a unique address for each potential spammer as it provides a greater level of control over filtering. However, I think that it may be a bit too much trouble for me.
Either way, it's a hack. What we need are more jail terms for spammers!
When 20 of the first 25 posts to a slashdot article contains lucid discussion regarding a misrepresentation within the posted article, then
you know for certain that there really must be a problem.
The poster, and/or submitter, of the Egghead blurb obviously neglected to read the memo that Egghead (most admirably) sent out their customers.
As others have already pointed out, the sentences immediately following the one containing the 7,500 figure state:
"This is a very small fraction --
less than two tenths of one percent -- of the approximately three million credit cards registered with Egghead.com. At this point it is difficult to determine whether any fraudulent activity on this relatively small number of credit cards can be traced back to the attack on our system, or whether it may be the result of credit card theft elsewhere. At this point, the evidence we have gathered to-date suggests that these credit card numbers were NOT obtained from our site.
Editors, be responsible, update the Egghead slashback item.
Uhm, not exactly. This would not be like giving your GnuCash balance sheets to RMS and the public on demand. That is not a very good analogy.
Rather, this would be equivalent to saying that if you tweaked the GnuCash source to specially format or handle content/output you would be on the hook to distribute the GnuCash source to anyone who receives a print/electronic report formatted by your cutom version of GnuCash.
Equally ridiculous and I agree that the GPL makes no such restrictions. Hrmm.. I just looked at other posts in this thread, and others have made the same point a bit more succintly.
In an interview with The Washington Post yesterday, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson urged the parties to "swallow their own reluctance to compromise and reach a remedy that both sides, if not elated by, nevertheless are willing to extend."
The exhortation was not new for the judge. "I've always tried to nudge them in that direction," Jackson said. "That's one of the reasons I asked and was fortunate to get Judge [Richard] Posner to mediate. I thought if anyone could bring them to a consensus, he would be able to do it."
Anyone recall what the DOJ is calling for in the settlement?
Slashdot Mirror
Well done.
...then the 100 million citizens (or whatever the number is) using P2P would have some impact on the laws of the land.
100 million people vs. a single industry association, and who is in charge? Who are the "representatives of the people" listening too? Certainly not the people.
But, the people^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrones have no one to blame but themselves, they who are to busy buying what they are told and patting themselves on the back for being good little radical activists and tuning into NPR twice a day.
Welcome to United States of Corporate Fascist Amerika! Consumerists muster! Submit your $4 for that latte and move the fuck along.
Wrong. The article says that the ISP will prevent its customers from accessing the RIAA's web site (outbound traffic), in addition to taking other measures. This isn't much different than being asked by the MPAA to prevent customer's from accessing freemovies.com.
This poster nailed it.
Why would a company need any sensitive information for more than N minutes? Or in the Verizon Wireless case however long it takes to conduct a credit check.
While this isn't a permanent solution (in the future authentication systems should or will obviate the need to ever give over sensitive personal information), it seems like a very reasonable policy for the present.
Even after reading the article, my initial reaction was that this was a farce.
"chusssh chusssh chusssh"
sounds a lot to me like "shush shush shush", which in turn is a variation of "shut the hell up" or "turn off your [expletive] [device]".
While the discussion may not change Micrsoft's mind on matters, that isn't necessarily the point.
It is still important to fight Microsoft's FUD campaign with rationale thought and discussion (you don't seem to disagree).
Microsoft may still delude many, but participants like Bruce can still make a difference with careful application of reason and logic.
A modest proposal:
/. story.
(1) Post your questions or comments in this thread/article.
(2) Moderators, mod up the most salient comments.
(3) CmdrTaco or someone else from Slashdot should send in the highest rated comments to SV.com or another party for inclusion in the Roundtable discussion.
Not much different than a pre-interview
Cheers.
You really are slow.
(1)(c)(ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
Yes it most certainly does refer to software created with the Software when it says Recipient software . Again, note the capital 'R' and the lack of a capital 'S'.
Are you really that daft?
In summary, you are severely uniformed and no , this story is not a troll.
You know, it's called Group Think.
Stupid crack whore.- Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction, with the specific intent that the statement
... is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of
actually carrying it out
What jamie and a little creative paraphrasing produced:- Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction [including] by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out
...
Key phrase, missing from Jamie's post:- with the specific intent that the statement
... is to be taken as a threat
That being said, those prosecuting this case are misrepresenting the law as well. The defense should be quite simple, the fictional narrative is just that and as such should pass rational tests against the law. The problem? Earth has always experienced a shortage of rational persons.This is the MPAA (Motion Picture Assoc. of America?) going after Gnutella users who are swapping digital video.
I believe that it was the RIAA (Recording Industry Assoc. of America?) that went after Napster for music swapping.
I missed it, did anyone else find any mention of where the astronomers plan to find a large 100km asteriod with just the right trajectory/orbit to perform this orbital transfer?
Oh right, just call the A-Team, or McGyver, one of these chaps always seem to have just the right tools to do the trick.
"But that's the extent to which the two cases should be compared [note: Sony vs. Connectix & the DeCSS case], because each contains some important distinctions, says Keith Kupferschmid, intellectual property counsel at the Software and Information Industry Association, a trade association of about 1,200 software and information companies based in Washington, D.C."
What kaosmunkee was saying is that there is *no* distinction between Sony vs. [bleem,Connectix] and the DeCSS case.
Note: kaosmunkee was comparing bleem and DeCSS while the article was comparing the Connectix and DeCSS cases, however his point still stands.
obviously,
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/17/153
I like your idea, in fact, I admit to doing something similar:
cccsd0000@domain.name.com
ccc=user-initials (supports multiple users) and sd=spam-drop. Once the S/N ratio gets to low, I just create 'cccsd0001@domain.name.com' and drop the 'cccsd0000' alias. So on and so forth.
I like your idea of a unique address for each potential spammer as it provides a greater level of control over filtering. However, I think that it may be a bit too much trouble for me.
Either way, it's a hack. What we need are more jail terms for spammers!
- "This is a very small fraction --
less than two tenths of one percent -- of the approximately three million credit cards registered with Egghead.com. At this point it is difficult to determine whether any fraudulent activity on this relatively small number of credit cards can be traced back to the attack on our system, or whether it may be the result of credit card theft elsewhere. At this point, the evidence we have gathered to-date suggests that these credit card numbers were NOT obtained from our site.
Editors, be responsible, update the Egghead slashback item.Thanks for pointing out the full article.
...
However, what is even stranger, on each page, the index numbers appear to be decreasing, e.g.:
page1: stinwenws02039.html
page2: stinwenws02038.html
page3: stinwenws02037.html
Just the loony British and their custom CMS? Or is this also a secret message? <grin>
Uhm, not exactly. This would not be like giving your GnuCash balance sheets to RMS and the public on demand. That is not a very good analogy.
Rather, this would be equivalent to saying that if you tweaked the GnuCash source to specially format or handle content/output you would be on the hook to distribute the GnuCash source to anyone who receives a print/electronic report formatted by your cutom version of GnuCash.
Equally ridiculous and I agree that the GPL makes no such restrictions. Hrmm.. I just looked at other posts in this thread, and others have made the same point a bit more succintly.