Depends. Handwritten in ink on good paper with good penmanship will beat a laser-printer for style points any day; hand printed in crayon on a piece of a brown paper bag is just about worthless.
[Hey, let's all write in favor of this in crayon on scraps of brown paper bag!]
Just because devices sold in Canada will have the DRM features (for reasons of economies of scale) does not mean the media in Canada will be required (or allowed) to use them.
We may not be able to buy DRM-free devices in Canada and smuggle them back into the USA, but we may be able to buy DRM-free content in Canada and smuggle it back! Let's hope, at least.
(wouldn't that be a laugh, if Disney DVD sales tanked in the USA and spiked in Canada after passage of this bill -- but Eisner still wouldn't catch that clue -- too subtle [which reminds me of a Black Adder line...])
I'd love a T1 of my own, but they are not available where I live. "aint that fast by todays standards" but much faster than the technology USQWest does offer us (24k dialup). Of course, I couldn't afford one even if they were available... Thank goodness for ATTBI (as bad as they are, at least they'll sell to us).
I don't understand your reasoning. You say this ruling is good because "If this doesn't prove that the DMCA should be repealed, I don't know what will." I disagree. What this proves is that the DMCA works as designed: AOL was protected, and the individual (in this case Harlan Ellison) got screwed.
This case might make industry think twice about the DMCA if the copyright work in question were owned by, say, Bertelsmann or another AOL-Time-Warner competitor. But as the suit was brought by some puny individual (no offense, Mr. Ellison, but you're not a mega-media conglomerate) and the RightSide won, this won't change the opinions of AnyoneThatMatters.
Re:The open relay testers send me unsolicited e-ma
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2
I've found that most hypocrits are on a moral crusade of one sort or another. But there are far more people on moral crusades who are not hypocrits. Being on a moral crusade <> hypocrit, but hypocrit == being on a moral crusade.
You don't understand. RMS doesn't want everyone to benefit from his code, only those right-thinking people who right-think like him. Wrong-thinking people like you are not welcome in RMS's world. BSD is bad because it sets the code truely free (even to be enslaved if it wishes enslavement). GPL is good because it only allows code to be as free as RMS chooses, not free to do as it chooses. True freedom is dangerous, as all right-thinking people know.
So, when do you think RMS will put down the crack pipe?
All of the code in Linux is copyrighted. All of the code in *BSD is copyrighted. All of the code in Gnome, KDE, Tuxracer, GIMP, etc. is copyrighted. Are you saying all those programmers made baby Jesus cry? Are you saying Richard Stallman made baby Jesus cry? Maybe he did, but if so I doubt it was for copyrighting his work.
Why not go back to a 1980's-era environment with a legacy communications package and a clunky internet email gateway?
Such luxury! Back in the 1980s the only people with email (well, where I worked) were managers (they had PROFS). In the early 1980s we wrote our code on paper and the data entry clerks typed it onto the punch cards; later they typed it onto magnetic media -- big improvement!
By 1982 we had terminals of our own (I guess they paid for them by cutting the data entry staff), but they were up at the front of the room and we had to wait to use them -- often we fought over them. While we waited we revised our code by editing the printouts with red/blue double-ended pencils: red for deletes, blue for adds. I still have one of those pencils as a souvineer, and some punch cards and green striped paper printouts -- remember those? This was back in the sea-of-desks days, well before cubicals. We didn't need cubicals because we were coding on paper and the only phone calls were work related (on the shared phone, mind you - one per every 5-6 workers).
If you had email and any sort of communications package in the 1980s, you were lucky! Ahhh, the good old days.
A local TV talk show host once revealed that if he didn't have time to read the book of an author/guest he would read the first chapter, the first page of each chapter, and the last chapter.
Yeah, it's off-topic, but it's not redundant! Stupid moderators -- meta-mod will bite you back!
Since we see their ads no matter how we log in, I fail to see what difference it makes. The NYT is telling us loud and clear that they don't give a damn about our desire for anonimity and privacy. But then, given their view of everything west of the Hudson and south of Coney Island, what did I expect?
Whoever has the account "aaaaa" changed the password (was "aaaaa"). Damn. There is a solution, however -- Slashdot editors please take notes:
If you open a NYT article and press the "Print this article" button, you're taken to a link that does not require an account. So if you're going to submit a story with a NYT link please go to the "Print this article" page and post that link, then we'll all be able to read the story.
It's getting so that I hardly bother reading/. stories that reference the NYT (why oh why did the owner of "aaaaa" change their password?)
This just points out the difference between proprietary code and open code. Those using open code incorporating this flaw have had a fix available for days (if they choose to patch and compile the source). Those using proprietary code incorporating this flaw will have to wait for the vendor to release a fix, if ever.
If that's not a good arguement against depending on proprietary code (as for running a business), try this: If the flaw was not in open code incorporated into the proprietary code, but rather existed exclusively in the proprietary code alone (yeah, right -- proprietary code with bugs! LOL:-) then we might never know the flaw existed, let alone get a fix, unless some cracker with ethics told the world when they found the flaw rather than keep the exploit to themselves.
The problem with an income tax in Washington State is that nobody here trusts the politicians (wow! really? how unusual!). We'd probably go for an income tax if it replaced existing taxes, but everyone knows that none of the other taxes would go away, or even be significantly reduced.
What might fly is a constitutional amendment that forces the Legislature to totally re-structure the tax system such that they can't impose the old taxes again once an income tax is in place. And that'll never happen, because in Washington only the Legislature can amend the Constitution.
Exactly how does taxing commercial software hurt open source? This law, if it sticks, would have the exact opposite affect, if any.
You obviously don't understand Washington's B&O taxes. It's a tax on income (not profit). If you're writing open source and not charging for it, there's no income to tax.
To the morons here in/. who think this affects Microsoft: Microsoft is located in Redmond, not Seattle. The only effect on Microsoft would be rising real estate prices on the eastside as Seattle's high-tech firms (Adobe and Watchguard come to mind) relocate.
To the morons in Seattle who thought this was a good idea: That sucking sound you hear is hundreds of high-tech businesses leaving your city.
This is a reaction engine. Lead may be the reactant, and lasers may be the energy source, but the propulsion is still caused by tossing mass away from the direction you wish to move.
A true impulse engine does not lose mass, just energy, and is still a fiction. That's not what these folks are working on.
The lawsuit might not seek damages. It might just seek an injuction barring the FAA from further copyright infringement, effectively ending this program. A 3rd party might sue simply to prevent the government from violating copyright laws. Indeed, the suit could be brought by anyone seeking to force the government to enforce it's own laws, such as a Congressman who voted for the Bono act, or the company that paid for it. Hell, they might sue the Justice Department for failing to sue the FAA. In this litigous country, anything's possible.
The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.
I don't think very many airplanes were designed prior to January 1, 1923; I suspect the bulk of the aircraft the EAAis talking about were designed between then and 1978.
I don't doubt that the FAA is going to do this, but I also don't doubt that they'll get their butts sued over it. Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes, and Bono gives them the right to sue. Not that they will, but they could. I doubt the FAA has the authority to violate copyright law, even if the copyright holders don't care -- the RIAA and MPAA might just care enough to sue to enforce copyright law in general (although IANAL and don't know if a 3rd party can bring suit in a copyright case).
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. Handwritten in ink on good paper with good penmanship will beat a laser-printer for style points any day; hand printed in crayon on a piece of a brown paper bag is just about worthless.
[Hey, let's all write in favor of this in crayon on scraps of brown paper bag!]
Just because devices sold in Canada will have the DRM features (for reasons of economies of scale) does not mean the media in Canada will be required (or allowed) to use them.
We may not be able to buy DRM-free devices in Canada and smuggle them back into the USA, but we may be able to buy DRM-free content in Canada and smuggle it back! Let's hope, at least.
(wouldn't that be a laugh, if Disney DVD sales tanked in the USA and spiked in Canada after passage of this bill -- but Eisner still wouldn't catch that clue -- too subtle [which reminds me of a Black Adder line...])
World's earliest photo set to make £500,000 at auction
Turns out someone in France has been holding an even earlier (1825) Niepce photograph, and now they're selling it.
This case might make industry think twice about the DMCA if the copyright work in question were owned by, say, Bertelsmann or another AOL-Time-Warner competitor. But as the suit was brought by some puny individual (no offense, Mr. Ellison, but you're not a mega-media conglomerate) and the Right Side won, this won't change the opinions of Anyone That Matters.
I've found that most hypocrits are on a moral crusade of one sort or another. But there are far more people on moral crusades who are not hypocrits. Being on a moral crusade <> hypocrit, but hypocrit == being on a moral crusade.
Uh, yeah, like everything's blinded by the sun, dude, including RADAR.
Aren't you glad these guys are watching out for us?
So, when do you think RMS will put down the crack pipe?
By 1982 we had terminals of our own (I guess they paid for them by cutting the data entry staff), but they were up at the front of the room and we had to wait to use them -- often we fought over them. While we waited we revised our code by editing the printouts with red/blue double-ended pencils: red for deletes, blue for adds. I still have one of those pencils as a souvineer, and some punch cards and green striped paper printouts -- remember those? This was back in the sea-of-desks days, well before cubicals. We didn't need cubicals because we were coding on paper and the only phone calls were work related (on the shared phone, mind you - one per every 5-6 workers).
If you had email and any sort of communications package in the 1980s, you were lucky! Ahhh, the good old days.
Yeah, it's off-topic, but it's not redundant! Stupid moderators -- meta-mod will bite you back!
Since we see their ads no matter how we log in, I fail to see what difference it makes. The NYT is telling us loud and clear that they don't give a damn about our desire for anonimity and privacy. But then, given their view of everything west of the Hudson and south of Coney Island, what did I expect?
Nevermind. They closed the loophole.
If you open a NYT article and press the "Print this article" button, you're taken to a link that does not require an account. So if you're going to submit a story with a NYT link please go to the "Print this article" page and post that link, then we'll all be able to read the story.
It's getting so that I hardly bother reading /. stories that reference the NYT (why oh why did the owner of "aaaaa" change their password?)
This just points out the difference between proprietary code and open code. Those using open code incorporating this flaw have had a fix available for days (if they choose to patch and compile the source). Those using proprietary code incorporating this flaw will have to wait for the vendor to release a fix, if ever.
If that's not a good arguement against depending on proprietary code (as for running a business), try this: If the flaw was not in open code incorporated into the proprietary code, but rather existed exclusively in the proprietary code alone (yeah, right -- proprietary code with bugs! LOL :-) then we might never know the flaw existed, let alone get a fix, unless some cracker with ethics told the world when they found the flaw rather than keep the exploit to themselves.
The problem with an income tax in Washington State is that nobody here trusts the politicians (wow! really? how unusual!). We'd probably go for an income tax if it replaced existing taxes, but everyone knows that none of the other taxes would go away, or even be significantly reduced.
What might fly is a constitutional amendment that forces the Legislature to totally re-structure the tax system such that they can't impose the old taxes again once an income tax is in place. And that'll never happen, because in Washington only the Legislature can amend the Constitution.
You obviously don't understand Washington's B&O taxes. It's a tax on income (not profit). If you're writing open source and not charging for it, there's no income to tax.
To the morons here in
To the morons in Seattle who thought this was a good idea: That sucking sound you hear is hundreds of high-tech businesses leaving your city.
What "California copyright violations"? Both companies are european and the aledged violation was in the UK, not the USofA.
Yes, this is a redundant post, but WTF?
This is a reaction engine. Lead may be the reactant, and lasers may be the energy source, but the propulsion is still caused by tossing mass away from the direction you wish to move.
A true impulse engine does not lose mass, just energy, and is still a fiction. That's not what these folks are working on.
The lawsuit might not seek damages. It might just seek an injuction barring the FAA from further copyright infringement, effectively ending this program. A 3rd party might sue simply to prevent the government from violating copyright laws. Indeed, the suit could be brought by anyone seeking to force the government to enforce it's own laws, such as a Congressman who voted for the Bono act, or the company that paid for it. Hell, they might sue the Justice Department for failing to sue the FAA. In this litigous country, anything's possible.
I don't doubt that the FAA is going to do this, but I also don't doubt that they'll get their butts sued over it. Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes, and Bono gives them the right to sue. Not that they will, but they could. I doubt the FAA has the authority to violate copyright law, even if the copyright holders don't care -- the RIAA and MPAA might just care enough to sue to enforce copyright law in general (although IANAL and don't know if a 3rd party can bring suit in a copyright case).
Doesn't the Bono act make this a moot point? Exactly when are these copyrights ever going to expire?