The FCC has mandated all digital, more specifically, HDTV formatted broadcast television by the year 2006. The stations that aren't on that bandwagon by then get their licenses pulled.
HDTV is actually more spectrally efficient than analog, in spite of the increased resolution because of MPEG2 and they plan on auctioning off much of the old analog spectrum (which has appealing propagation characteristics (which is WHY they used it for TV)).
I sent one, with a well-thought-out argument that led to the connection of the Universal vs. Sony decision. Simply put, the FCC apparently thinks that, it too, is completely above the law.
"I'm not sure it gets any clearer than that. The software is not the Linux kernel. The software is not under the GPL. The software doesn't even do anything on it's own! It's an API!"
Well, I'd agree with the "doesn't even do anything on it's own", the "It's an API!", or even the "not the Linux kernel". However, you've obviously NOT looked into the matter as it is most definitely GPLed:
(From the file, readme.txt, that's inside winjukebox_v_1_0.zip)
Compaq Personal Jukebox
Example Filesystem Code
Copyright (C) 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
NOTE: The Personal Jukebox is not a Compaq product. It was developed
by Compaq Corporate Research and was licensed to Remote Solution.
You can read a little more about the research effort for the PJB
by visiting: http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/pjb
You can purchase a Personal Jukebox by contacting Remote
Solution, or by visiting the web site at http://www.pjbox.com
This kit is released under the GNU Public License. There should be
a file 'gpl.txt' containing this license. You can read more about
the GPL by visiting http://www.gnu.org
The software license upon unpacking the ZIP (why, oh, why, Compaq?.tar.gz or.tar.bz take up less space by far!) is revealed to be version 2 of the GPL. The click-through license is due to a clueless suit insisting on putting the thing available for download on that maze of a download site instead of doing something sensible.
It's not quite a violation, since they wrote the software themselves- but the license that they make you agree to on the site is incompatible with the actual software license...
Here's a link to a mirror to the official sources:
I think I've seen this mentioned somewhere in Phrack while I was doing searches on something else. Nobody, however, has bothered to "officially" implement this sort of tunnel (but with Ethertaps and PPP tunneling, I'm surprised that someone hasn't...)
There was this little item in Bugtraq that I stumbled across while trying to hit thier site (doing a Google search for "DNS tunnel")- seems someone previously did a demo of this exploit with the intents of putting in Phrack, deciding to put it up in Bugtraq instead.
Uh, the development kernel set's numbered 2.5 (which would be the next "unstable" version of the kernel).
Well, if you count WWII a "USian" thing...
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
After all, December 7th is when the Japanese bombed Perl Harbor in a surprise attack while we were in treaty negotiations with the Japanese.
I don't think it's a good idea, not because it's a "USian" thing, but because of the parallels- the Japanese attacked us under a flag of truce while we were negotiating a peace treaty with them.
Frankly speaking, I'm not sure about the "strike" day either. It almost seems like we're stooping to their level- I'd almost like to see something better if we could pull it off.
(Oh, BTW, that "USian" thing makes you look like a three year old- you might want to give it up...)
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
Allowed the DMCA to become a law? Allowed my ass. The frigging thing was quietly done- not unlike the crap that they tried (and mostly succeeded) to pull with making all performer's work for the recording companies a work for hire in the US. It was snuck in and almost nobody heard about it until it was too damned late to do much of anything about it. If they'd done it publicly, the politicians would not have gotten the legislation through and they'd look like they'd been bought (which, would be just about right...).
The only thing we "allowed" in this country was to somehow turn into a country by and for the corporations instead of by and for the people.
I know for a fact that many companies do not use the H1-B correctly. Just because the INS "requires" proper compensation, doesn't mean it happens. Several jobs back, I had an employer that was trading stock options for decent salaries- and it looked like a good deal, up until they blew their IPO all to hell. This company also had several H1-B visa employees. I don't think all of them had stock options (though they were appropriately entitled to them...). One of my good friends left as soon as he had his green card to work in a better work environment for dramatically more pay. Don't believe everything that the people are telling you about it. There's no real shortage of workers- just that the companies whining about a shortage have unrealistic expectations (Such as number of years of experience that imply a lack of understanding of how long something has been in existance, etc.) and can't fill the positions because of the same.
I'm not against H1-B, only it's gross misuse- which, is what is going on here!
NTLug's one of the largest LUGs in the world. In Dallas, you probably can throw a rock in any direction and hit a Linux user of some sort. Many don't think their home tinkering is applicable in the workforce- traditionally, it isn't. So, they usually don't mention it on their resume (I always do so. I know it- why can't I mention it? Just because I didn't have formal training in college or at a training firm? HMPH! I learned more outside of my classes than in them!) Combine that with the fact that Bynari probably didn't do an advertising blitz or go with any major placement agencies that would have gave the positions they were trying to fill exposure. Not that I blame them for that- it's ferociously expensive to do just that. I only find a problem when they complain that there's a lack of skilled Linux developers. If they were using this as an excuse for getting H1-B visa employees; I'd be livid about it.
Realize that you see maybe $0.50US of the purchase price of that CD. Realize that they're selling it for anywhere from $10-20US and it cost them no more than $1.50US to make the damn thing, in a jewel box with inserts. If you're relying on the "royalties" from CD sales to make you money, you're a fool because only the mega hits make a performer any money at all. Performances are about the only way a musician makes money these days- and depending on the contract with the recording company, you might not make much there either.
This is not to say I condone the copying- it's just that I don't believe for one moment that any artist is really getting much in the way of compensation for that CD I'd buy. (So, I've pretty much quit buying CDs and have stuck to what's already in my library of music and listening to the radio.)
Either they're up for being nailed like MS is in the process thereof...
...or, they're open for a big, nasty RICO suit.
They're certainly guilty of both.
I'm thinking it may be because nobody's been complaining until recently (when the DOJ and States started taking RIAA and it's member orgs for price fixing on CDs...).
It was given to me and a lot of other people. As much as they'd like to claim that it's leased, they screwed up when they shipped it out to all those Forbes subscribers. Postal regulations take precedence over any agreements and anything sent without the consent of the recipient is thier property not the senders at that point. The Rat Shack stuff may be a different story, but I don't think so, based on how they're doing the transactions. I've got this little reciept for a catalog/CueCat that I paid $0.00 for. Since it's material goods, they can't "license" it- the contract for the goods in question was set in stone at the time of "purchase". Since it was not said that it was a loan of the CueCat at the time of the transaction, it can't be one (Otherwise they're dabbling in fraud at the interstate level... Not a good thing for them.).
Now, having established that these things are likely to be the people who have them's property, who needs permission? I don't. The law allows me to do whatever I please with the thing.
If there's ambiguities, etc. that either invalidate or otherwise, they can't claim that the interpretation that is most favorable is the one that's the correct interpretation. Legally speaking, they have to be explicit in everything or it causes a loophole. Since they weren't explicit on the packaging, a claim on the WWW site doesn't give them footing in this regard.
(Just because it's in the boilerplate at any location, doesn't mean it's legit- loads of companies alike try to pull fast ones all the time!)
The federal court's area of jurisdiction determines how much impact the decision has on things. It's only applicable in Kaplan's jurisdiction (Which, I'm pretty sure is only on the East Coast, covering just the area around New York state.). Outside, another judge or the circuit or supreme court must make a decision on the situation before it's binding in those jurisdictions.
Slashdot Mirror
The FCC has mandated all digital, more specifically, HDTV formatted broadcast television by the year 2006. The stations that aren't on that bandwagon by then get their licenses pulled.
HDTV is actually more spectrally efficient than analog, in spite of the increased resolution because of MPEG2 and they plan on auctioning off much of the old analog spectrum (which has appealing propagation characteristics (which is WHY they used it for TV)).
I sent one, with a well-thought-out argument that led to the connection of the Universal vs. Sony decision. Simply put, the FCC apparently thinks that, it too, is completely above the law.
Something about ZIP, there's some overhead somewhere because .tar.gz's almost invariably end up being smaller than .zip's.
"I'm not sure it gets any clearer than that. The software is not the Linux kernel. The software is not under the GPL. The software doesn't even do anything on it's own! It's an API!"
- ----------------------
- ----------------------
:-)
Well, I'd agree with the "doesn't even do anything on it's own", the "It's an API!", or even the "not the Linux kernel". However, you've obviously NOT looked into the matter as it is most definitely GPLed:
(From the file, readme.txt, that's inside winjukebox_v_1_0.zip)
Compaq Personal Jukebox
Example Filesystem Code
Copyright (C) 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
NOTE: The Personal Jukebox is not a Compaq product. It was developed
by Compaq Corporate Research and was licensed to Remote Solution.
You can read a little more about the research effort for the PJB
by visiting: http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/pjb
You can purchase a Personal Jukebox by contacting Remote
Solution, or by visiting the web site at http://www.pjbox.com
-----------------------------------------------
This kit is released under the GNU Public License. There should be
a file 'gpl.txt' containing this license. You can read more about
the GPL by visiting http://www.gnu.org
-----------------------------------------------
Next time, do a little better job of getting the facts before posting...
Xoom changed how they operate (yet again...)
Arrgh! Go to my web pages listed in the URL. Xoom's changed how they operate (again!).
http://members.xoom.com/svartal f/winjukebox_v_1_0.zip
.tar.gz or .tar.bz take up less space by far!) is revealed to be version 2 of the GPL. The click-through license is due to a clueless suit insisting on putting the thing available for download on that maze of a download site instead of doing something sensible.
The software license upon unpacking the ZIP (why, oh, why, Compaq?
It's not quite a violation, since they wrote the software themselves- but the license that they make you agree to on the site is incompatible with the actual software license...
Here's a link to a mirror to the official sources:
http://members.xoom.com/svartal f/winjukebox_v_1_0.zip
I think if you gently remind them that they're not allowed to make the claims they do on the link that they'll correct the whole mixup.
I think I've seen this mentioned somewhere in Phrack while I was doing searches on something else. Nobody, however, has bothered to "officially" implement this sort of tunnel (but with Ethertaps and PPP tunneling, I'm surprised that someone hasn't...)
There was this little item in Bugtraq that I stumbled across while trying to hit thier site (doing a Google search for "DNS tunnel")- seems someone previously did a demo of this exploit with the intents of putting in Phrack, deciding to put it up in Bugtraq instead.
Look here for the info in question.
Letsee now...
HTTP Tunnel.
Mail Tunnel.
Now, DNS Tunnel.
Wonder what wonders they'll come up with next.
I wondered when some of the midwestern states would come up with this idea.
Uh, the development kernel set's numbered 2.5 (which would be the next "unstable" version of the kernel).
After all, December 7th is when the Japanese bombed Perl Harbor in a surprise attack while we were in treaty negotiations with the Japanese.
I don't think it's a good idea, not because it's a "USian" thing, but because of the parallels- the Japanese attacked us under a flag of truce while we were negotiating a peace treaty with them.
Frankly speaking, I'm not sure about the "strike" day either. It almost seems like we're stooping to their level- I'd almost like to see something better if we could pull it off.
(Oh, BTW, that "USian" thing makes you look like a three year old- you might want to give it up...)
Allowed the DMCA to become a law? Allowed my ass. The frigging thing was quietly done- not unlike the crap that they tried (and mostly succeeded) to pull with making all performer's work for the recording companies a work for hire in the US. It was snuck in and almost nobody heard about it until it was too damned late to do much of anything about it. If they'd done it publicly, the politicians would not have gotten the legislation through and they'd look like they'd been bought (which, would be just about right...).
The only thing we "allowed" in this country was to somehow turn into a country by and for the corporations instead of by and for the people.
I know for a fact that many companies do not use the H1-B correctly. Just because the INS "requires" proper compensation, doesn't mean it happens. Several jobs back, I had an employer that was trading stock options for decent salaries- and it looked like a good deal, up until they blew their IPO all to hell. This company also had several H1-B visa employees. I don't think all of them had stock options (though they were appropriately entitled to them...). One of my good friends left as soon as he had his green card to work in a better work environment for dramatically more pay. Don't believe everything that the people are telling you about it. There's no real shortage of workers- just that the companies whining about a shortage have unrealistic expectations (Such as number of years of experience that imply a lack of understanding of how long something has been in existance, etc.) and can't fill the positions because of the same.
I'm not against H1-B, only it's gross misuse- which, is what is going on here!
NTLug's one of the largest LUGs in the world. In Dallas, you probably can throw a rock in any direction and hit a Linux user of some sort. Many don't think their home tinkering is applicable in the workforce- traditionally, it isn't. So, they usually don't mention it on their resume (I always do so. I know it- why can't I mention it? Just because I didn't have formal training in college or at a training firm? HMPH! I learned more outside of my classes than in them!) Combine that with the fact that Bynari probably didn't do an advertising blitz or go with any major placement agencies that would have gave the positions they were trying to fill exposure. Not that I blame them for that- it's ferociously expensive to do just that. I only find a problem when they complain that there's a lack of skilled Linux developers. If they were using this as an excuse for getting H1-B visa employees; I'd be livid about it.
Realize that you see maybe $0.50US of the purchase price of that CD. Realize that they're selling it for anywhere from $10-20US and it cost them no more than $1.50US to make the damn thing, in a jewel box with inserts. If you're relying on the "royalties" from CD sales to make you money, you're a fool because only the mega hits make a performer any money at all. Performances are about the only way a musician makes money these days- and depending on the contract with the recording company, you might not make much there either.
This is not to say I condone the copying- it's just that I don't believe for one moment that any artist is really getting much in the way of compensation for that CD I'd buy. (So, I've pretty much quit buying CDs and have stuck to what's already in my library of music and listening to the radio.)
I've been wondering about that lately.
Either they're up for being nailed like MS is in the process thereof...
...or, they're open for a big, nasty RICO suit.
They're certainly guilty of both.
I'm thinking it may be because nobody's been complaining until recently (when the DOJ and States started taking RIAA and it's member orgs for price fixing on CDs...).
I think we need to start complaining loudly.
It was made into existence by way of an Ammendment (that was subsequently repealed by another one...)
Income tax, is also Constitutional- but not in the form we know of it today.
There's so many things that just aren't Constitutional- it's a shame that people don't have the right things in their heads in that regard.
Patents can be enforced or not enforced; it's up to the holder therof to determine if they're actually being infringed.
It was given to me and a lot of other people. As much as they'd like to claim that it's leased, they screwed up when they shipped it out to all those Forbes subscribers. Postal regulations take precedence over any agreements and anything sent without the consent of the recipient is thier property not the senders at that point. The Rat Shack stuff may be a different story, but I don't think so, based on how they're doing the transactions. I've got this little reciept for a catalog/CueCat that I paid $0.00 for. Since it's material goods, they can't "license" it- the contract for the goods in question was set in stone at the time of "purchase". Since it was not said that it was a loan of the CueCat at the time of the transaction, it can't be one (Otherwise they're dabbling in fraud at the interstate level... Not a good thing for them.).
Now, having established that these things are likely to be the people who have them's property, who needs permission? I don't. The law allows me to do whatever I please with the thing.
If there's ambiguities, etc. that either invalidate or otherwise, they can't claim that the interpretation that is most favorable is the one that's the correct interpretation. Legally speaking, they have to be explicit in everything or it causes a loophole. Since they weren't explicit on the packaging, a claim on the WWW site doesn't give them footing in this regard.
(Just because it's in the boilerplate at any location, doesn't mean it's legit- loads of companies alike try to pull fast ones all the time!)
Advogato's showing you to be an apprentice. Seems several people went over and certified you.
Go and knock yourself out!
The federal court's area of jurisdiction determines how much impact the decision has on things. It's only applicable in Kaplan's jurisdiction (Which, I'm pretty sure is only on the East Coast, covering just the area around New York state.). Outside, another judge or the circuit or supreme court must make a decision on the situation before it's binding in those jurisdictions.