A billion people. Significant natural resources. A booming and dynamic IT economy. A net exporter of goods and services. Nuclear capability. And, as we see, an attitude.
When you read commentators speculating that India might be the next superpower, don't just scoff and assume that the status quo will preserve itself. This is just one of many signs that India is ready to try throwing its weight around on the world stage.
It might get slapped down this time, but the sheer audacity of it is an eye opener. Up to now, only the USA has been able to impose unilateral conditions on world trade. It'll be interesting - but probably not very comfortable - to see what happens when India starts playing the same game in earnest.
Well said. I have a clunky old Siemens C11 cellphone that I bought back in the dawn of time (aka 1998). It's been soaked, dropped, kicked around, left in a fridge for a week, and run over by a car. It's scuffed, scratched, missing the rubber port cover, and the battery case is held on with tape. It doesn't have customisable ring tones, or a graphical display, or build in games, or speech dialing or WAP features. My workmates openly laugh at it.
Until I ask them if they know where and how old cell phones are "recycled". And point out that my 'phone still has 72 hours standby and 60 minutes talk time (on the original and carefully managed battery), the same as most of theirs. And the same range. And the same voice clarity. And SMS text messaging. And a hundred number 'phonebook. And it doesn't even weigh significantly more than theirs. It's just in a bigger - and far tougher - case.
I'll replace my 'phone when it stops working and not a second before. When I do, I'll replace it with the most robust 'phone on the market (you can find reviews in ourdoorsy and extreme sports magazines). Not the smallest, or the one with the biggest screen or longest feature list, because if you purchase a 'phone on any of those criteria, then you'll need a new one in three months to stay at the cutting edge. And then again in another three months. And again. And again.
Unfortunately, that's what the market is based on now, selling us 'phones that we don't need. There's actually an advertising campaign in the UK right now telling us that we should be embarassed to have old 'phones, and that people should laugh at us. I actually think the joke's on people that feel pressured into paying hundreds of pounds to upgrade their 'phone every six months. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority.
Is the same method that Claus von Stauffenberg tried back in 1944 to get rid of a paranoid delusional dictatorship. He just needs to use a bigger briefcase.
Am I joking? I'm not entirely sure. I believe that ICANN has slipped from beyond commonplace self serving greed and incompetence into blatantly self preserving malice bording on genuine evil. The evil they inflict on any individual is small, but summed up, they are having a dreadful long term effect on what could be a wonderful medium for We, the People.
Am I really advocating killing the board of ICANN? Mmm. Probably not. But I doubt if I'd shed a tear if an asteroid hit their next board meeting.
The club has, in all certainty, pays ASCAP/BMI performance royalties. Through that, the public performance is covered, no matter the medium used
Hmm, very good point, but it really opens a can of worms, as ASCAP is very vague about what's actually covered by their licenses.
One thing that they do say with regard to DJ's is that Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license, and I believe that a lot of DJ's work as contractors, not employees. Unless he's got his own explicit license, then he's effectively trusting that merely being likely to play the copies at a licensed venue gives him an implicit license to make as many copies as he likes. But couldn't that apply to anybody? Hey, I might end up playing my mp3's at a licensed club, so it's all right to use them for home use until then?
Hard to say without seeing the terms for one of the hundred plus license variants that they produce. Still, I wouldn't be shouting about it to Associated Press unless I was sure that it wasn't going to bring Hilary Rosen down on me like a ton of bricks.
+lots, insightful, and the exact same situation applies to the Red Hat patents, or any patents owned by "friendly" companies who's friendship stops just short of giving explicit licenses.
Just because Secure Computing and Red Hat have agreed not to press their patents under certain circumstances doesn't mean that the patent isn't still a sword of Damocles. Indeed, this "Assurance" isn't very assuring at all, as it makes it very clear that the patent can be sold at any time, with no restrictions on the purchaser.
Companies change. Their directors change. They find a sudden need for money. They go bust, and when they do, their patents are sold to the highest bidder by the liquidators, and their good intentions are ignored.
Consider what would happen if Secure Computing and/or Red Hat went bankrupt? Could the FSF outbid Microsoft for the patents? I very much doubt it.
Peer-to-peer networks and Internet download sites provide Kirkendoll with a hefty supply [of mp3's]
And he's making a living off of doing this? Hello? RIAA? You know where this guy is and where he works now. Hello? How about you go after the people actually profiting off of you rather than those of us doing no-profit sharing. Is anybody in there? Hello?
Thank you for picking on my post and adding no value to the conversation beyond "You made a mistake." You're a true credit to geekdom.
Thanks! I'll choose to take that as a sincere compliment, because the big old bald fact is that you did make a mistake, and I corrected it, with references. That seems to me to be contributing far more to the discussion than your simple minded and incorrect assertion.
Lesson learned though. I often forget that we don't like nasty boring old facts getting in the way of a good flame war.
Unless of course your driving the truck they are aiming the laser at then I would say you chances are quite a bit higher
Yes, very droll. Now, can you think of any existing aircraft mounted weapon that gives you even a chance of not being injured or killed if you're in a truck that it disables? Anything at all?
Military bombs that have built in shrapnel are called "Anti-personel". The Daisy Cutter is an example of this.
Only in the most tenuous sense that it's got a metal casing wrapped round the explosive. If you bother to do ten seconds of research you'll find that the BLU-828 (to which I assume that you're erroneously referring) has its effect primarily from the massive blast of the explosion, not from shrapnel. This is what makes it so useful for clearing forest (it flattens, not shreds trees), triggering mines, and (relevant to this discussion) causing crippling injuries to distant combatants even behind or inside fortifications.
You really couldn't have picked a worse example to use to make your point.
Like a laser mounted to an F15 is gonna be perfect?
I'm sorry, you must have replied to some other post, because I neither said nor implied that it would be perfect. I asked how it could be worse.
How could a high powered laser be worse than a laser guided bomb following a lower powered laser from the same 'plane? It's going to be firing in short pulses, not burning in a long burst.
The idea of a clean kill is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Bombs go astray, the jury's still out on the health effects of distributing DUP dust into the atmosphere from a burning target, and at least with lasers you won't have all that dreadful unexploded ordnance to clean up.
I live in the UK. If Disney hacks me, it's not a crime in the US because, well, it's not a crime in the US. And it's not a crime in the UK because nobody in the UK committed a crime.
Want to bet what'll happen if I retaliate? Do the names Jon Johanson and Dmitri Sklyarov ring a bell?
Carrots make your eyesight better (Myth used by the Allies in WWII to hide the fact that they had made advances regarding the lighting colour of intrumentation in airplane cockpits resulting in better weapons accuracy)
Radar, not instrumentation lighting. Not that I should really be wasting time answering an AC, but urban legends should be strangled at birth.
Are you kidding? Didn't you read the part WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITALS? That really swung me.
Seriously, you're right. There's no argument in there, and no reason why UCITA will hurt OSS. In fact, I'd have thought it would help OSS. Have you ever sat down and read the EULA for a commercial product? They are at best laughable and at worst abominable. Hardly any of them are reasonable or would be accepted by a reasonable person knowing that they could be enforced.
We keep focussing on the negatives of UCITA. How about the positives? How about it actually driving customers away from companies that write terms like "You can't use Frontpage to create a website that criticizes Microsoft"? (real example) to companies that offer relaxed licenses, like OSS vendors.
This guy was selling a line of 413 pirated games and didn't know what he was doing was illegal?
Actually, his statement is so unbelievable in context that it makes me wonder if "pirated" in this article is clueless media-speak for "imported". Just a thought.
* (2) Permissible acts of encryption research. - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if - o (A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work; o (B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research; o (C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and (D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
* (3) Factors in determining exemption. - In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include - o (A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
Were we all following that? The preceeding sections of 1201 don't make it illegal to disseminate information on decrypting. However, (g)(3)(a) implies that it does. Very weakly, IMHO, and a reasonable judge should interpret this as saying that not disseminating information about your circumvention device is only one part of making that device allowed, not that the act of dissemination is itself illegal.
Unfortunately, because 2600 had an unreasonable judge and gave up their case, case law now disagrees, and we're boned until we prove otherwise.
Macrovision is not a legally mandated content control system; what Hollings is asking for is a FEDERALLY MANDATED SYSTEM. [...] This is the crucial difference between content control systems that are voluntarily implemented like macrovision and those that are mandatory, like the proposed broadcast flag.
And that difference would be? Please cite a legal precedent to support why it's illegal for Congress to pass a new law to do this.
Your assertion doesn't make it so. USING CAPITALS DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. If you're done with your tantrum, let's look at what's actually happening.
Let's ask U.S District Court Judge Ronald Whyte what he thinks. He thinks that even when Congress writes a law that contains an explicit promise to not prevent fair use, that it still protects (note; protects, not allows) technology that de facto prevents fair use.
Further, he thinks - explicitely - that even if you have fair use rights, you do not have the right to easy access. In the case of eBooks, Judge Whyte thinks that transcription is a perfectly acceptable method of making a fair use copy. I'll conjecture that he'd consider making a camcorder recording off of a TV screen as being about as practical.
But don't mind me or Judge Whyte. You go on shrieking that fair use overrules technological protections, without bothering to cite relevant recent legal precedent.
people have the right to timeshift all of the tv they watch [...] There is already caselaw substantiating this
Al that means is that we have a fairly good chance of not being prosecuted or being found guilty of copyright infringement for timeshifting, or for making or selling devices that allow timeshifting.
There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?
Step 1: Make a name for yourself in the market Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration Step 3: Struggle. Squirm. Step 4: Release source to your application.
At the premiere, Cowboy Bebop director, Shinichiro Watanabe, score composer, Yoko Kanno and character designer Toshihiro Kawamoto will be on hand to meet their legions of fans." That's a show worth seeing
Two thousand sweaty overweight Comic Book Guy clones in identical fanboy t-shirts trying to out-pedant each other with their authentic Japanese pronounciation?
Fair enough though, the slap fights and hissy fits to ask the most sycophantic and obscure question from the floor might be worth watching.;-)
If it requires an inflight reboot, there's no doubt what OS it's running.
Apple support: Thanks for calling Apple! How may we help you? Pilot: "Uhh.. I'm spiraling towards the earth, both my engines are out, and my display says 'unresolved kernel trap' in white text on a black background, admittedly overlaid on very a friendly GUI. Before that, there was a three second delay accompanied by a busy icon whenever I tried anything." Apple Support: "And what is the system model?" Pilot: "The the F-22 jet.." Apple support: Oh, sorry, we don't plan to support that hardware until version 10.3. Can you use 10.2 Jaguar until then? Pilot: @#$*! Mac! I'm switching to BeOS if I survive! Apple support: Can I interest you in a.Mac subscription?
Check up on your law. Refusing a search can NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be grounds for a search
Probable cause can be established based on how you refuse the search. Saying "I refuse the search" isn't probable cause... unless you say it too calmly, or too excitedly or protest too much or (bizarrely) don't protest enough. And who determines and records your attitude and the degree of your protest? Why, the arresting officer! All they have to do is to say that you were acting excessively calmly or excessively nervously when you refused, and bingo, that's their probable cause right there.
After all, if you refuse a search, isn't it probably because you've got something to hide?
Slashdot Mirror
A billion people. Significant natural resources. A booming and dynamic IT economy. A net exporter of goods and services. Nuclear capability. And, as we see, an attitude.
When you read commentators speculating that India might be the next superpower, don't just scoff and assume that the status quo will preserve itself. This is just one of many signs that India is ready to try throwing its weight around on the world stage.
It might get slapped down this time, but the sheer audacity of it is an eye opener. Up to now, only the USA has been able to impose unilateral conditions on world trade. It'll be interesting - but probably not very comfortable - to see what happens when India starts playing the same game in earnest.
Well said. I have a clunky old Siemens C11 cellphone that I bought back in the dawn of time (aka 1998). It's been soaked, dropped, kicked around, left in a fridge for a week, and run over by a car. It's scuffed, scratched, missing the rubber port cover, and the battery case is held on with tape. It doesn't have customisable ring tones, or a graphical display, or build in games, or speech dialing or WAP features. My workmates openly laugh at it.
Until I ask them if they know where and how old cell phones are "recycled". And point out that my 'phone still has 72 hours standby and 60 minutes talk time (on the original and carefully managed battery), the same as most of theirs. And the same range. And the same voice clarity. And SMS text messaging. And a hundred number 'phonebook. And it doesn't even weigh significantly more than theirs. It's just in a bigger - and far tougher - case.
I'll replace my 'phone when it stops working and not a second before. When I do, I'll replace it with the most robust 'phone on the market (you can find reviews in ourdoorsy and extreme sports magazines). Not the smallest, or the one with the biggest screen or longest feature list, because if you purchase a 'phone on any of those criteria, then you'll need a new one in three months to stay at the cutting edge. And then again in another three months. And again. And again.
Unfortunately, that's what the market is based on now, selling us 'phones that we don't need. There's actually an advertising campaign in the UK right now telling us that we should be embarassed to have old 'phones, and that people should laugh at us. I actually think the joke's on people that feel pressured into paying hundreds of pounds to upgrade their 'phone every six months. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority.
Is the same method that Claus von Stauffenberg tried back in 1944 to get rid of a paranoid delusional dictatorship. He just needs to use a bigger briefcase.
Am I joking? I'm not entirely sure. I believe that ICANN has slipped from beyond commonplace self serving greed and incompetence into blatantly self preserving malice bording on genuine evil. The evil they inflict on any individual is small, but summed up, they are having a dreadful long term effect on what could be a wonderful medium for We, the People.
Am I really advocating killing the board of ICANN? Mmm. Probably not. But I doubt if I'd shed a tear if an asteroid hit their next board meeting.
Hmm, very good point, but it really opens a can of worms, as ASCAP is very vague about what's actually covered by their licenses.
One thing that they do say with regard to DJ's is that Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license, and I believe that a lot of DJ's work as contractors, not employees. Unless he's got his own explicit license, then he's effectively trusting that merely being likely to play the copies at a licensed venue gives him an implicit license to make as many copies as he likes. But couldn't that apply to anybody? Hey, I might end up playing my mp3's at a licensed club, so it's all right to use them for home use until then?
Hard to say without seeing the terms for one of the hundred plus license variants that they produce. Still, I wouldn't be shouting about it to Associated Press unless I was sure that it wasn't going to bring Hilary Rosen down on me like a ton of bricks.
+lots, insightful, and the exact same situation applies to the Red Hat patents, or any patents owned by "friendly" companies who's friendship stops just short of giving explicit licenses.
Just because Secure Computing and Red Hat have agreed not to press their patents under certain circumstances doesn't mean that the patent isn't still a sword of Damocles. Indeed, this "Assurance" isn't very assuring at all, as it makes it very clear that the patent can be sold at any time, with no restrictions on the purchaser.
Companies change. Their directors change. They find a sudden need for money. They go bust, and when they do, their patents are sold to the highest bidder by the liquidators, and their good intentions are ignored.
Consider what would happen if Secure Computing and/or Red Hat went bankrupt? Could the FSF outbid Microsoft for the patents? I very much doubt it.
Isn't that illegal in a public place?
No, wait, I think I see what you mean.
And he's making a living off of doing this? Hello? RIAA? You know where this guy is and where he works now. Hello? How about you go after the people actually profiting off of you rather than those of us doing no-profit sharing. Is anybody in there? Hello?
Thanks! I'll choose to take that as a sincere compliment, because the big old bald fact is that you did make a mistake, and I corrected it, with references. That seems to me to be contributing far more to the discussion than your simple minded and incorrect assertion.
Lesson learned though. I often forget that we don't like nasty boring old facts getting in the way of a good flame war.
Yes, very droll. Now, can you think of any existing aircraft mounted weapon that gives you even a chance of not being injured or killed if you're in a truck that it disables? Anything at all?
Only in the most tenuous sense that it's got a metal casing wrapped round the explosive. If you bother to do ten seconds of research you'll find that the BLU-828 (to which I assume that you're erroneously referring) has its effect primarily from the massive blast of the explosion, not from shrapnel. This is what makes it so useful for clearing forest (it flattens, not shreds trees), triggering mines, and (relevant to this discussion) causing crippling injuries to distant combatants even behind or inside fortifications.
You really couldn't have picked a worse example to use to make your point.
I'm sorry, you must have replied to some other post, because I neither said nor implied that it would be perfect. I asked how it could be worse.
How could a high powered laser be worse than a laser guided bomb following a lower powered laser from the same 'plane? It's going to be firing in short pulses, not burning in a long burst.
The idea of a clean kill is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Bombs go astray, the jury's still out on the health effects of distributing DUP dust into the atmosphere from a burning target, and at least with lasers you won't have all that dreadful unexploded ordnance to clean up.
I live in the UK. If Disney hacks me, it's not a crime in the US because, well, it's not a crime in the US. And it's not a crime in the UK because nobody in the UK committed a crime.
Want to bet what'll happen if I retaliate? Do the names Jon Johanson and Dmitri Sklyarov ring a bell?
Only after it's been eaten though. Oh wait, did you mean venomous?
Radar, not instrumentation lighting. Not that I should really be wasting time answering an AC, but urban legends should be strangled at birth.
Are you kidding? Didn't you read the part WRITTEN ALL IN CAPITALS? That really swung me.
Seriously, you're right. There's no argument in there, and no reason why UCITA will hurt OSS. In fact, I'd have thought it would help OSS. Have you ever sat down and read the EULA for a commercial product? They are at best laughable and at worst abominable. Hardly any of them are reasonable or would be accepted by a reasonable person knowing that they could be enforced.
We keep focussing on the negatives of UCITA. How about the positives? How about it actually driving customers away from companies that write terms like "You can't use Frontpage to create a website that criticizes Microsoft"? (real example) to companies that offer relaxed licenses, like OSS vendors.
Actually, his statement is so unbelievable in context that it makes me wonder if "pirated" in this article is clueless media-speak for "imported". Just a thought.
Now I can use my CD-fixin' sharpie out "Dmitri Sklyarov" and scribble in "Bruce Perens" on my "Free..." t-shirt.
Read on.
* (g) Encryption Research. -* (2) Permissible acts of encryption research. - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if -
o (A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
o (B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
o (C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and (D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
* (3) Factors in determining exemption. - In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include -
o (A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
Were we all following that? The preceeding sections of 1201 don't make it illegal to disseminate information on decrypting. However, (g)(3)(a) implies that it does. Very weakly, IMHO, and a reasonable judge should interpret this as saying that not disseminating information about your circumvention device is only one part of making that device allowed, not that the act of dissemination is itself illegal.
Unfortunately, because 2600 had an unreasonable judge and gave up their case, case law now disagrees, and we're boned until we prove otherwise.
And that difference would be? Please cite a legal precedent to support why it's illegal for Congress to pass a new law to do this.
Your assertion doesn't make it so. USING CAPITALS DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. If you're done with your tantrum, let's look at what's actually happening.
Let's ask U.S District Court Judge Ronald Whyte what he thinks. He thinks that even when Congress writes a law that contains an explicit promise to not prevent fair use, that it still protects (note; protects, not allows) technology that de facto prevents fair use.
Further, he thinks - explicitely - that even if you have fair use rights, you do not have the right to easy access. In the case of eBooks, Judge Whyte thinks that transcription is a perfectly acceptable method of making a fair use copy. I'll conjecture that he'd consider making a camcorder recording off of a TV screen as being about as practical.
But don't mind me or Judge Whyte. You go on shrieking that fair use overrules technological protections, without bothering to cite relevant recent legal precedent.
Al that means is that we have a fairly good chance of not being prosecuted or being found guilty of copyright infringement for timeshifting, or for making or selling devices that allow timeshifting.
There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?
Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration
Step 3: Struggle. Squirm.
Step 4: Release source to your application.
Now, how would it proceed?
Two thousand sweaty overweight Comic Book Guy clones in identical fanboy t-shirts trying to out-pedant each other with their authentic Japanese pronounciation?
Fair enough though, the slap fights and hissy fits to ask the most sycophantic and obscure question from the floor might be worth watching. ;-)
- If it requires an inflight reboot, there's no doubt what OS it's running.
Apple support: Thanks for calling Apple! How may we help you?Pilot: "Uhh.. I'm spiraling towards the earth, both my engines are out, and my display says 'unresolved kernel trap' in white text on a black background, admittedly overlaid on very a friendly GUI. Before that, there was a three second delay accompanied by a busy icon whenever I tried anything."
Apple Support: "And what is the system model?"
Pilot: "The the F-22 jet.."
Apple support: Oh, sorry, we don't plan to support that hardware until version 10.3. Can you use 10.2 Jaguar until then?
Pilot: @#$*! Mac! I'm switching to BeOS if I survive!
Apple support: Can I interest you in a
Probable cause can be established based on how you refuse the search. Saying "I refuse the search" isn't probable cause... unless you say it too calmly, or too excitedly or protest too much or (bizarrely) don't protest enough. And who determines and records your attitude and the degree of your protest? Why, the arresting officer! All they have to do is to say that you were acting excessively calmly or excessively nervously when you refused, and bingo, that's their probable cause right there.
After all, if you refuse a search, isn't it probably because you've got something to hide?