Microsoft is the Lord your God,
You Shall have no Other software Before Me
You Shall Not Make for Yourself
Open Source Code
You Shall Not Take Microsoft's Name in Vain, nor MSNBC, nor any Affiliated Company, nor anyone nor anything that Microsoft or its Affilated Companies determine at any time undeserving of any comment made for any reason by anybody.
Keep Holy the Day of any Microsoft Announcement or Rollout
Honor your License Agreement, and Do Not Expect Microsoft to Honor any Agreement, Fitness for Service, or Product Guarantee.
Do Not Kill. That's Microsoft's job.
Do Not Commit Adultery with Other Non-Microsoft Products
Do Not Steal This Software, and pay for all upgrades whether functional or not.
Do Not Lie, and Report Anyone Who Does Not Appear to Be A True Microsoft Follower
Honor Microsoft's Goods and All That Belongs to Microsoft, and All that Microsoft Deems to Belong to Microsoft, even When Stolen from those Determined by Microsoft Not to Properly Honor Microsoft with their contributions
Surely you are not serious. You seem to think that "U.S. interference" somehow justifies mass murder and mass destruction. The fact is that a well-organized group of commandos, sponsored by some coalition of militant organizations or governments, chose to kill and destroy on a scale without historical comparison, even in the midst of war. It may be that they in fact had no purpose beyond death and destruction - no one has claimed responsibility, an no one has stated any purpose or objective to this act.
You seem to know why it was committed - are you claiming responsibility? I hope not.
Our response should not be an issue of hate, or anger, or vengeance. This should be an issue of clarity - clarity that civilization hinges upon the ability to enforce a sense of morals, responsibility, and respect for others. It is clear that action will have to be taken to preserve any civilization. Perhaps you consider that not important?
It is traumatic to many of us to see that there are large numbers of zealots who have abandoned the basic principles of civilization. It is particularly disturbing that they are hiding behind a religious front, claiming the protection of God, and even more disturbing that others in that religion are expressing sympathy for that unholy cause. By that very act they are expressing their responsibility. Please don't play that game.
Perhaps the U. S. has meddled in other countries' affairs, perhaps arrogantly, but never to my knowledge without invitation. Perhaps we should retreat to our own borders, and let the rest of the world fight its own battles, solve its own problems, and attempt to find its own way. Certainly there are many who believe this to be the safest way, and the surest way to avoid making enemies. But I find it hard to believe that we can live in a world where we refuse to meet, work, play, and even argue with our neighbors.
Surely you don't really believe that. Surely you don't really believe that peace comes from isolation. Surely you don't believe that arrogance is sufficient justification for murder. Surely you don't believe that the U. S. considers bombing to be an adult video game.
And most surely, you don't really believe - can't possibly believe - that this act of hatred without bound, of mass murder without remorse, of destruction of innocent lives, can ever, in any way, at any time, be justified.
Voting records as well as the complete text are in the Congressional Record, the full text of which is available over the net...one link is
here
(check year 1998, subject "copyright")
The bottom line is that the votes in both House and Senate were essentially unanimous. There was remarkably little discussion on the obvious conflict of the bills (HR. 2281, S. 2037) with the First Amendment, even from those who normally support individual freedoms over government regulation. In fact, quite a number of speeches implied that the DMCA was somehow a key part of defending the freedom of speech. Now that we've seen it actually implemented, it seems pretty clear that the true intent was quite different.
I don't know whether we should thank Macrovision for creating "protection" systems that are easily broken, or boycott them for making megabucks from their "screw the customer" technology. I think that at a minimum companies that use encryption and Macrovision garbage should be required to advertise it plainly on the disk being sold. Something like, "This CD has been processed with Macrovision copy protection, and may not play properly on all systems. Purchase at your own risk." Truth in advertising, guys. If you're going to sell me a product that is somehow defective or disabled, or at least "different" from what I'm used to buying, then you better tell me. If you don't, you're dishonest, and you deserve what you get (stealing, copying, software to break your code, etc.)
Hello yourself. Judges don't enforce the law, but even beyond that, "judge" Patel (and I use that term in her case with total contempt) has stepped well outside the bounds of judicial propriety. Napster did NOT engage in the infringement of copyright, nor did Napster enjoy any commercial benefit. Both of these conditions are absolute and mandatory requirements in order to render a judgement against them. What "judge" Patel did was decide that Napster committed "contributory" (secondary, tertiary, and perhaps quaternary) infringement, and MIGHT benefit commercially sometime indeterminately in the future. None of this was proven, nor did the RIAA ever demonstrate any actual damages or prove any specific infringement. So what you have is a "judge" who cares not one whit about the law, ruling upon conjecture and hypothesis, requiring conditions not imposed on any known human activity. To use your analogy, no car dealership can actually assure that 100% of their cars aren't stolen (obviously, based upon past incidents, there are a few that slip through) although you can always attempt to prosecute them if you end up with a stolen car and suffer some problems resulting from that. However, if they can show that they did not knowingly handle the car as stolen, they can't be held liable for the act of stealing it or for "aiding and abetting." What "judge" Patel did was to say that you, however, could be convicted for "tertiary" stealing of the car, since you bought it from a "secondary" thief (the dealer, whether he knew anything about it or not), but the original thief gets off scott free. And so on. Bias isn't the right term to use in conjunction with Patel. Blatant judicial misconduct, contempt of the law, malicious malfeasance, and just plain stupidity come to mind here. I, for one, believe that she has committed a gross miscarriage of justice that should entitle her to immediate removal and disbarment.
I third the motion. Google is pretty good, most of the time, for serious research. At least it's fast. The big problem is that you can't do Booleans. HotBot is good if I want to make sure I get a phrase and words in proximity, but it's almost always way out of date. Sometimes you get lucky, though. I never know what to expect from Northern Light. DogPile is just that.
Get serious. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, not freedom of speech subject to some definition of hatred, stupidity or indecency. Read the friggin' Constitution instead of telling us what you think about the ACLU.
"The problem with freedom of speech is that it is disruptive. The problem with limiting free speech is that there is no limit. I'll take the disruption."
I also remember hearing that Rio had to shell out some sort of fee to RIAA for each MP3 player they sold. Does anybody remember the deal they had to make to get the RIAA off their back? None of the money went to the artists, of course......too many freaks, not enough circuses...
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is the Lord your God,
You Shall have no Other software Before Me
You Shall Not Make for Yourself
Open Source Code
You Shall Not Take Microsoft's Name in Vain, nor MSNBC, nor any Affiliated Company, nor anyone nor anything that Microsoft or its Affilated Companies determine at any time undeserving of any comment made for any reason by anybody.
Keep Holy the Day of any Microsoft Announcement or Rollout
Honor your License Agreement, and Do Not Expect Microsoft to Honor any Agreement, Fitness for Service, or Product Guarantee.
Do Not Kill. That's Microsoft's job.
Do Not Commit Adultery with Other Non-Microsoft Products
Do Not Steal This Software, and pay for all upgrades whether functional or not.
Do Not Lie, and Report Anyone Who Does Not Appear to Be A True Microsoft Follower
Honor Microsoft's Goods and All That Belongs to Microsoft, and All that Microsoft Deems to Belong to Microsoft, even When Stolen from those Determined by Microsoft Not to Properly Honor Microsoft with their contributions
Surely you are not serious. You seem to think that "U.S. interference" somehow justifies mass murder and mass destruction. The fact is that a well-organized group of commandos, sponsored by some coalition of militant organizations or governments, chose to kill and destroy on a scale without historical comparison, even in the midst of war. It may be that they in fact had no purpose beyond death and destruction - no one has claimed responsibility, an no one has stated any purpose or objective to this act.
You seem to know why it was committed - are you claiming responsibility? I hope not.
Our response should not be an issue of hate, or anger, or vengeance. This should be an issue of clarity - clarity that civilization hinges upon the ability to enforce a sense of morals, responsibility, and respect for others. It is clear that action will have to be taken to preserve any civilization. Perhaps you consider that not important?
It is traumatic to many of us to see that there are large numbers of zealots who have abandoned the basic principles of civilization. It is particularly disturbing that they are hiding behind a religious front, claiming the protection of God, and even more disturbing that others in that religion are expressing sympathy for that unholy cause. By that very act they are expressing their responsibility. Please don't play that game.
Perhaps the U. S. has meddled in other countries' affairs, perhaps arrogantly, but never to my knowledge without invitation. Perhaps we should retreat to our own borders, and let the rest of the world fight its own battles, solve its own problems, and attempt to find its own way. Certainly there are many who believe this to be the safest way, and the surest way to avoid making enemies. But I find it hard to believe that we can live in a world where we refuse to meet, work, play, and even argue with our neighbors.
Surely you don't really believe that. Surely you don't really believe that peace comes from isolation. Surely you don't believe that arrogance is sufficient justification for murder. Surely you don't believe that the U. S. considers bombing to be an adult video game.
And most surely, you don't really believe - can't possibly believe - that this act of hatred without bound, of mass murder without remorse, of destruction of innocent lives, can ever, in any way, at any time, be justified.
Voting records as well as the complete text are in the Congressional Record, the full text of which is available over the net...one link is here (check year 1998, subject "copyright") The bottom line is that the votes in both House and Senate were essentially unanimous. There was remarkably little discussion on the obvious conflict of the bills (HR. 2281, S. 2037) with the First Amendment, even from those who normally support individual freedoms over government regulation. In fact, quite a number of speeches implied that the DMCA was somehow a key part of defending the freedom of speech. Now that we've seen it actually implemented, it seems pretty clear that the true intent was quite different.
Hey, great idea...maybe you can send out a virus with copies of DeCSS, so the MPAA can sue everyone in the world!!!
I don't know whether we should thank Macrovision for creating "protection" systems that are easily broken, or boycott them for making megabucks from their "screw the customer" technology. I think that at a minimum companies that use encryption and Macrovision garbage should be required to advertise it plainly on the disk being sold. Something like, "This CD has been processed with Macrovision copy protection, and may not play properly on all systems. Purchase at your own risk." Truth in advertising, guys. If you're going to sell me a product that is somehow defective or disabled, or at least "different" from what I'm used to buying, then you better tell me. If you don't, you're dishonest, and you deserve what you get (stealing, copying, software to break your code, etc.)
Hello yourself. Judges don't enforce the law, but even beyond that, "judge" Patel (and I use that term in her case with total contempt) has stepped well outside the bounds of judicial propriety. Napster did NOT engage in the infringement of copyright, nor did Napster enjoy any commercial benefit. Both of these conditions are absolute and mandatory requirements in order to render a judgement against them. What "judge" Patel did was decide that Napster committed "contributory" (secondary, tertiary, and perhaps quaternary) infringement, and MIGHT benefit commercially sometime indeterminately in the future. None of this was proven, nor did the RIAA ever demonstrate any actual damages or prove any specific infringement. So what you have is a "judge" who cares not one whit about the law, ruling upon conjecture and hypothesis, requiring conditions not imposed on any known human activity. To use your analogy, no car dealership can actually assure that 100% of their cars aren't stolen (obviously, based upon past incidents, there are a few that slip through) although you can always attempt to prosecute them if you end up with a stolen car and suffer some problems resulting from that. However, if they can show that they did not knowingly handle the car as stolen, they can't be held liable for the act of stealing it or for "aiding and abetting." What "judge" Patel did was to say that you, however, could be convicted for "tertiary" stealing of the car, since you bought it from a "secondary" thief (the dealer, whether he knew anything about it or not), but the original thief gets off scott free. And so on. Bias isn't the right term to use in conjunction with Patel. Blatant judicial misconduct, contempt of the law, malicious malfeasance, and just plain stupidity come to mind here. I, for one, believe that she has committed a gross miscarriage of justice that should entitle her to immediate removal and disbarment.
This isn't just off topic, it's off planet.
I third the motion. Google is pretty good, most of the time, for serious research. At least it's fast. The big problem is that you can't do Booleans. HotBot is good if I want to make sure I get a phrase and words in proximity, but it's almost always way out of date. Sometimes you get lucky, though. I never know what to expect from Northern Light. DogPile is just that.
Get serious. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, not freedom of speech subject to some definition of hatred, stupidity or indecency. Read the friggin' Constitution instead of telling us what you think about the ACLU. "The problem with freedom of speech is that it is disruptive. The problem with limiting free speech is that there is no limit. I'll take the disruption."
I also remember hearing that Rio had to shell out some sort of fee to RIAA for each MP3 player they sold. Does anybody remember the deal they had to make to get the RIAA off their back? None of the money went to the artists, of course... ...too many freaks, not enough circuses...