The ISPs were never 'liable' for P2P copyright violations.
Not exactly true - until the DMCA defined ISPs as common carriers, they could very well have been held liable for copyright infringement of their users, regardless of the method of infringement. (There is no guarantee that they would lose, but they could have been held liable.)
The irony is that the RIAA (and MPAA, but we'll leave them out for the moment) lobbied for the DMCA, and thought they got what they wanted, when in fact their shortsightedness now prevents the law they wanted from being used as they wanted. (They wanted a big stick they could use against people sharing files on the internet. They got their stick, but it could only be used for things they knew about when it was created.)
some of the best editing i've seen (comic-style frames etc
Oh come on - those "comic-style frames" were annoyingly stupid.. the only reason they were there I can think of is that the director wanted to dupe people into seeing the movie multiple times, so they could actually follow what was being said.
Properly done, split screen can be an effective device (watch "When Harry Met Sally", the four-way split screen was done exceedingly well) - but in the Hulk, it was just annoying - multiple characters talking about different things at the same time just makes the viewer miss what's being said in at least one of the dialogues, if not in all of them (as they try to switch from one to another.)
If the "comic-style frames" were done properly (ie, round-robin dialog, that clearly gives the viewer focus) it would have been OK, but the director apparenly just wanted to get people to spend extra money coming back to the theater to get the "full experience" - not realizing that the whole movie was such a stinking pile that after seeing it once, nobody would want to listen to the full dialog.
The truth is that the head executives at SCO really believed that there was some part of SysV inside Linux
I disagree - refusing to show the alleged infringing code shows that they don't have any evidence at all; by refusing to show the alleged infringing code, they are effectively preventing themselves from reaping any monetary benefits from the alleged infringement. A first year law student would know this (do some reading on the Doctrine of Laches).
and you can tell by the malloc() and other examples that they were showing to the analysts under nondisclosure.
I disagree - their examples can also be explained by desire to decieve people who they think wouldn't know better.
What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use.
This may be true, but simply put, it's just not gonna happen.
That's why they've resisted explaining exactly which code they consider infringing,
Again, no. If this was true, then Darl and co is living in a dream world - nobody is that stupid. Their lawyers would have pointed out that it was hopeless, and they'd be screwing themselves by not coming up with their 'evidence'.
From a logic standpoint, the only explanation is that SCO knows that there is no infringing code. To believe otherwise is to believe that every lawyer under their employ is so horribly inept that they never would have passed the bar.
Unsigned artists submit their music to the site, a group of public moderators give the music good/bad karma and the good stuff gets streamed to millions of PCs.
The problem with that is taste - not everybody has the same taste in music..
A better idea (IMHO) is instead of a 'group' of moderators, anyone should be allowed to sign up to moderate - then the system can keep track of who likes what, and customize the stream for each user, based on those moderations (people who moderate similar to you should have similar musical tastes - the server can recommend new songs based on stuff that these people rate 'good'.) The more you use it, the better it gets at recommending music you'll like.
Because MP3.com made it too difficult to get, or even to try.
Even if I just wanted to sample, MP3.com required me to give them my personal information. Why? Why not just let me listen/download first, and create an account if I felt there was something of value? (Like allowing me to rate stuff I listened to, and referring me to other stuff, based on other people who liked the same stuff - something else that was missing.)
There was a band I was interested in - they put their stuff on MP3.com - I wanted to listen to their new CD, to see if it was worth buying... but I couldn't find any easy way to do that - it's just too much hassle, and too much of an invasion of my privacy, so I just said 'screw it'.
For a quick-and-dirty solution for one or two users, over a reliable connection, this might be sufficient, but for the poster's problem, it would be a nightmare.
TCP over TCP is a bad idea because it amplifies the effect of lost packets.. two or three dropped packets in a short period of time will result in a cascade failure as each TCP stream attempts to compensate for the loss.
in OSS every interested party in the entire world can see where you have been lazy and/or stupid... If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
/me puts on PHB hat..
I know! We'll encourage our DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! to look at each other's code, and we'll accept nominations from them for the laziest and stupidest code. Then each week, we'll give a golden raspberry to whoever wins! If you win three times in a row, you get fired!
Yeah! That should motivate them to produce good code, just like Linux!
/me removes stupid PHB hat.
(note: At one time, I really did have a boss who thought like this - only it wasn't a raspberry, it was a stuffed frog.)
assuming that the law did work, who's to say that spammers can't skip the US
Nobody's saying they can't - people are saying they won't
Spammers are sociopaths, like any other sociopath, they do what they do because it's the path of least resistance. They are not spamming because they believe in their rights, they are spamming because they want money, and this is the easiest way to get it.
It's like saying, when the War On Drugs(tm) started, "what's to stop all the pot dealers from moving to Amsterdam"?
Unlike pot dealers, spammers (by definition) can't conceal their identities/location (they have to broadcast some way to contact them, otherwise they have no way to get your money.) If spam truly became illegal, I think spammers would move to other, less publically visible ways to steal.
How (exactly) can someone be expected to adhere to a contract if they do not even know the contract exists?!?!?!
A sale is a legal contract. It is illegal to alter the terms of that contract after the contract has been executed (unless the contract specifically states that the terms may change - which sales generally don't). If there is no mention of the EULA before the contract is executed, then the EULA has no bearing on the sale.
The court specifically cites revocability of the contract as one of the things that makes EULAs legal. They also cite the impossibility of displaying the entire contract at point-of-sale as another factor.
No, they say that these two things together is what made this particular EULA legal.
All of which is completely irrelevant to my post.
No. You can't
Yes. I can. As I said, I paid for it, it's mine. Period. If the salesman didn't tell me that I was not actually buying the software, it's not my problem. It's not legal for anyone to alter the terms of the contract after it's been executed.
There are a huge number of technical advantages to building atop a BSD, rather than a Linux base for this sort of project, entirely aside from licensing issues.
Could you list some then? The only one of this "huge number" is a non-starter.
I've used both extensively
As have I.
even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs.
I primarily use Slackware. To date, I've had a total of zero crashes or stability problems with either it or FreeBSD. How is this "dramatically less stable"?
Please provide some quantifiable data to back up your claims.
Courts have ruled, routinely, that the full version of a long contract that cannot be displayed at time of purchase may be included along with delivery.
Yes, but you're missing the point that the customer must be made aware of the contract before they buy it.
If I buy something, and the salesman doesn't say anywhere that I'm not really buying it, then I've bought it, and no EULA can restrict me from using it within the bounds of the law.
Saying "oh, you can return it once you open it and decide you don't like the EULA" is meaningless if the person wasn't made aware at the time of sale that there were additional terms he or she must agree to before being able to use the software.
I bought it, it's mine, I don't agree to the EULA, I can still use it.
You can click a wheel in place of a third button perfectly well.
No, I can't.
Just because a scroll wheel can be used as a button does not mean that it's logical to have nothing but scroll wheels.
Why not? You said that a wheel is better than a button, because you can "click it perfectly well". Why then, does it not follow that all buttons should be replaced by wheels?
You are trying to adapt the notion of ad absurdum, taking a particular facet of an argument to its most extreme case
Of course, to show how absurd the statement really is. (Which you haven't refuted, BTW.)
By your logic, because having twenty towers would be untenable, suspension bridges are foolish.
No, my logic says nothing like that. Because you can't have a suspension bridge with no towers.
I am merely asserting the wheel mouses are largely superior
Actually, you asserted that the wheel mouse is perfectly superior. So, it thusly follows that there is no need for buttons at all. (After all, if something is perfect, then it cannot be improved upon.)
I personally don't want to be labeled as anything.
That's fine, but what you're missing is that labels are an expression of power.
If you are part of a group, others outside that group will attempt to label the group and it's members. You can either apply your own label, or take that which is given to you.
Blacks calling themselves n* especially - it just makes it a black thing instead of a racist white thing.
This is exactly the point. If you label yourself, you gain power over that label. Use it to refer to yourself, and you are expressing that power.
It all comes down to power. Do you want to weild it, or do you want others to weild it over you?
Until I can show a girl my Magic the Gathering card collection and impress her, lonely I shall be...
Dude, you're hanging out in the wrong places.. my M:TG collection has gotten me laid twice!
Man, nothing gets the ladies hotter than not one, but two Mazes of Ith.
(OK, that was sarcasm, but I've met a couple of female M:TG players, and yes, they were impressed by my collection, and yes, we did end up dating.)
Re:There's still something that separates us
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
OK, there seems to be a lot of heartache going on here, so I gotta chime in..
First, I've been in pretty much every type of "platonic male/female" relationship there is (mutual interest, mutual disinterest, and one-sided interest - from both sides) and it's not as bad as you guys are saying..
First - 'unrequited love': if you don't tell her, of course it will stay 'unrequited'. Women (for the most part) expect the guy to make the first move. If you don't, she'll think you're not interested.
Pick a good time, and tell her. Don't wait until she's vulnerable, don't do it while you're vulnerable, don't make it seem like you're coming on to her, just be honest.
Tell her how you feel - and more importantly, tell her why you're being honest (because she should know, if she doesn't already), and even more importantly, explain that it's not a big deal if she doesn't reciprocate (which it shouldn't be - your feelings are already there, and they haven't affected your friendship - it's no different now that she knows about it.)
Doing otherwise is just dooming yourself to pain.
Platonic female friends aren't evil. If you have (or develop) feelings, share them, but not in a "I'm so desperately in love with you I want to cut off my arm and send it to you for Valentine's day" way.
The answer to the (rhetorical) question is simple:
BECAUSE I LEARN FROM MY MISTAKES.
Imagine an art critic saying to a painter: "Your first work is sloppy, so therefore everything you do will be sloppy, and there's no way you can improve."
The last "myth" ("I'll do it right *this* time") is entirely stupid...
The "reality" he says is "If you weren't disciplined then, why would you be disciplined now?"
Umm, how about because I learn from my mistakes?
Jeebus, but isn't that one of the things humans do? Learn?
It's got nothing to do with being "undisciplined" (well, usually nothing) it's about learning. The more you do, the more you learn, and the better you become.
Enjoy the label you're giving yourself, but please don't include me, thanks.
Groups give label themselves because if they don't, others from outside the group will label them.
Labels are a method of expressing power. When you decide for yourself, you're taking control of that power. You're welcome to opt-out, but you should be aware that you'll be giving up that power to society at large.
The question is: do you want control, or do you want to be controlled?
Slashdot Mirror
The ISPs were never 'liable' for P2P copyright violations.
Not exactly true - until the DMCA defined ISPs as common carriers, they could very well have been held liable for copyright infringement of their users, regardless of the method of infringement. (There is no guarantee that they would lose, but they could have been held liable.)
The irony is that the RIAA (and MPAA, but we'll leave them out for the moment) lobbied for the DMCA, and thought they got what they wanted, when in fact their shortsightedness now prevents the law they wanted from being used as they wanted. (They wanted a big stick they could use against people sharing files on the internet. They got their stick, but it could only be used for things they knew about when it was created.)
the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional
No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.
Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!
Gotta love the irony!
some of the best editing i've seen (comic-style frames etc
Oh come on - those "comic-style frames" were annoyingly stupid.. the only reason they were there I can think of is that the director wanted to dupe people into seeing the movie multiple times, so they could actually follow what was being said.
Properly done, split screen can be an effective device (watch "When Harry Met Sally", the four-way split screen was done exceedingly well) - but in the Hulk, it was just annoying - multiple characters talking about different things at the same time just makes the viewer miss what's being said in at least one of the dialogues, if not in all of them (as they try to switch from one to another.)
If the "comic-style frames" were done properly (ie, round-robin dialog, that clearly gives the viewer focus) it would have been OK, but the director apparenly just wanted to get people to spend extra money coming back to the theater to get the "full experience" - not realizing that the whole movie was such a stinking pile that after seeing it once, nobody would want to listen to the full dialog.
The truth is that the head executives at SCO really believed that there was some part of SysV inside Linux
I disagree - refusing to show the alleged infringing code shows that they don't have any evidence at all; by refusing to show the alleged infringing code, they are effectively preventing themselves from reaping any monetary benefits from the alleged infringement. A first year law student would know this (do some reading on the Doctrine of Laches).
and you can tell by the malloc() and other examples that they were showing to the analysts under nondisclosure.
I disagree - their examples can also be explained by desire to decieve people who they think wouldn't know better.
What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use.
This may be true, but simply put, it's just not gonna happen.
That's why they've resisted explaining exactly which code they consider infringing,
Again, no. If this was true, then Darl and co is living in a dream world - nobody is that stupid. Their lawyers would have pointed out that it was hopeless, and they'd be screwing themselves by not coming up with their 'evidence'.
From a logic standpoint, the only explanation is that SCO knows that there is no infringing code. To believe otherwise is to believe that every lawyer under their employ is so horribly inept that they never would have passed the bar.
Unsigned artists submit their music to the site, a group of public moderators give the music good/bad karma and the good stuff gets streamed to millions of PCs.
The problem with that is taste - not everybody has the same taste in music..
A better idea (IMHO) is instead of a 'group' of moderators, anyone should be allowed to sign up to moderate - then the system can keep track of who likes what, and customize the stream for each user, based on those moderations (people who moderate similar to you should have similar musical tastes - the server can recommend new songs based on stuff that these people rate 'good'.) The more you use it, the better it gets at recommending music you'll like.
It happened.
No, it didn't.
It was called MP3.com.
I tried MP3.com - it was completely useless
nobody wanted what they had to offer. Why?
Because MP3.com made it too difficult to get, or even to try.
Even if I just wanted to sample, MP3.com required me to give them my personal information. Why? Why not just let me listen/download first, and create an account if I felt there was something of value? (Like allowing me to rate stuff I listened to, and referring me to other stuff, based on other people who liked the same stuff - something else that was missing.)
There was a band I was interested in - they put their stuff on MP3.com - I wanted to listen to their new CD, to see if it was worth buying... but I couldn't find any easy way to do that - it's just too much hassle, and too much of an invasion of my privacy, so I just said 'screw it'.
mkdir /sysfs
/sysfs do? From the name, I'm thinking something futile. :o)
Wasn't that the guy from Greek mythology who was forced to spend his afterlife pushing a boulder up a hill?
So what does
Setting up Samba over SSH Tunnel
For a quick-and-dirty solution for one or two users, over a reliable connection, this might be sufficient, but for the poster's problem, it would be a nightmare.
TCP over TCP is a bad idea because it amplifies the effect of lost packets.. two or three dropped packets in a short period of time will result in a cascade failure as each TCP stream attempts to compensate for the loss.
You can find all the gory details here.
anyone else getting the sinking feeling about the navy's networks? (rimshot)
Gawd, but those jokes are all wet.
Better quit before you're all washed up!
have I got a deal on a bridge for you!
:o)
Bridges are passe - tell him it's a router
in OSS every interested party in the entire world can see where you have been lazy and/or stupid...
If that is not a strong motivation for churning out quality code I don't know what is!
/me puts on PHB hat..
I know! We'll encourage our DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! to look at each other's code, and we'll accept nominations from them for the laziest and stupidest code. Then each week, we'll give a golden raspberry to whoever wins! If you win three times in a row, you get fired!
Yeah! That should motivate them to produce good code, just like Linux!
/me removes stupid PHB hat.
(note: At one time, I really did have a boss who thought like this - only it wasn't a raspberry, it was a stuffed frog.)
assuming that the law did work, who's to say that spammers can't skip the US
Nobody's saying they can't - people are saying they won't
Spammers are sociopaths, like any other sociopath, they do what they do because it's the path of least resistance. They are not spamming because they believe in their rights, they are spamming because they want money, and this is the easiest way to get it.
It's like saying, when the War On Drugs(tm) started, "what's to stop all the pot dealers from moving to Amsterdam"?
Unlike pot dealers, spammers (by definition) can't conceal their identities/location (they have to broadcast some way to contact them, otherwise they have no way to get your money.)
If spam truly became illegal, I think spammers would move to other, less publically visible ways to steal.
No. They don't
YES, THEY _DO_
How (exactly) can someone be expected to adhere to a contract if they do not even know the contract exists?!?!?!
A sale is a legal contract. It is illegal to alter the terms of that contract after the contract has been executed (unless the contract specifically states that the terms may change - which sales generally don't). If there is no mention of the EULA before the contract is executed, then the EULA has no bearing on the sale.
The court specifically cites revocability of the contract as one of the things that makes EULAs legal. They also cite the impossibility of displaying the entire contract at point-of-sale as another factor.
No, they say that these two things together is what made this particular EULA legal.
All of which is completely irrelevant to my post.
No. You can't
Yes. I can. As I said, I paid for it, it's mine. Period. If the salesman didn't tell me that I was not actually buying the software, it's not my problem. It's not legal for anyone to alter the terms of the contract after it's been executed.
There are a huge number of technical advantages to building atop a BSD, rather than a Linux base for this sort of project, entirely aside from licensing issues.
Could you list some then? The only one of this "huge number" is a non-starter.
I've used both extensively
As have I.
even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs.
I primarily use Slackware. To date, I've had a total of zero crashes or stability problems with either it or FreeBSD. How is this "dramatically less stable"?
Please provide some quantifiable data to back up your claims.
If they are right, their valuable source code will be released on the internet and lose all its value if it is open court.
Isn't the crux of their lawsuit that their valuable source code is already on the internet, and has thus lost all of it's value?
I mean come on.. "we can't enter into public evidence the stuff that's already been made public, because then it would be even more public"
Courts have ruled, routinely, that the full version of a long contract that cannot be displayed at time of purchase may be included along with delivery.
Yes, but you're missing the point that the customer must be made aware of the contract before they buy it.
If I buy something, and the salesman doesn't say anywhere that I'm not really buying it, then I've bought it, and no EULA can restrict me from using it within the bounds of the law.
Saying "oh, you can return it once you open it and decide you don't like the EULA" is meaningless if the person wasn't made aware at the time of sale that there were additional terms he or she must agree to before being able to use the software.
I bought it, it's mine, I don't agree to the EULA, I can still use it.
GNOME is faster than KDE
On my current machines, this has been my experience as well, however I've not tried KDE3.2...
have you? (After all, she says it's now faster than Gnome, which means that it wasn't before.)
the supreme court has declared that unsolicited email with extreme pornographic material is "free speech"
I don't believe you. References, please?
You can click a wheel in place of a third button perfectly well.
No, I can't.
Just because a scroll wheel can be used as a button does not mean that it's logical to have nothing but scroll wheels.
Why not? You said that a wheel is better than a button, because you can "click it perfectly well". Why then, does it not follow that all buttons should be replaced by wheels?
You are trying to adapt the notion of ad absurdum, taking a particular facet of an argument to its most extreme case
Of course, to show how absurd the statement really is. (Which you haven't refuted, BTW.)
By your logic, because having twenty towers would be untenable, suspension bridges are foolish.
No, my logic says nothing like that. Because you can't have a suspension bridge with no towers.
I am merely asserting the wheel mouses are largely superior
Actually, you asserted that the wheel mouse is perfectly superior. So, it thusly follows that there is no need for buttons at all. (After all, if something is perfect, then it cannot be improved upon.)
I personally don't want to be labeled as anything.
That's fine, but what you're missing is that labels are an expression of power.
If you are part of a group, others outside that group will attempt to label the group and it's members. You can either apply your own label, or take that which is given to you.
Blacks calling themselves n* especially - it just makes it a black thing instead of a racist white thing.
This is exactly the point. If you label yourself, you gain power over that label. Use it to refer to yourself, and you are expressing that power.
It all comes down to power. Do you want to weild it, or do you want others to weild it over you?
Until I can show a girl my Magic the Gathering card collection and impress her, lonely I shall be...
Dude, you're hanging out in the wrong places.. my M:TG collection has gotten me laid twice!
Man, nothing gets the ladies hotter than not one, but two Mazes of Ith.
(OK, that was sarcasm, but I've met a couple of female M:TG players, and yes, they were impressed by my collection, and yes, we did end up dating.)
OK, there seems to be a lot of heartache going on here, so I gotta chime in..
First, I've been in pretty much every type of "platonic male/female" relationship there is (mutual interest, mutual disinterest, and one-sided interest - from both sides) and it's not as bad as you guys are saying..
First - 'unrequited love': if you don't tell her, of course it will stay 'unrequited'. Women (for the most part) expect the guy to make the first move. If you don't, she'll think you're not interested.
Pick a good time, and tell her. Don't wait until she's vulnerable, don't do it while you're vulnerable, don't make it seem like you're coming on to her, just be honest.
Tell her how you feel - and more importantly, tell her why you're being honest (because she should know, if she doesn't already), and even more importantly, explain that it's not a big deal if she doesn't reciprocate (which it shouldn't be - your feelings are already there, and they haven't affected your friendship - it's no different now that she knows about it.)
Doing otherwise is just dooming yourself to pain.
Platonic female friends aren't evil. If you have (or develop) feelings, share them, but not in a "I'm so desperately in love with you I want to cut off my arm and send it to you for Valentine's day" way.
The answer to the (rhetorical) question is simple:
BECAUSE I LEARN FROM MY MISTAKES.
Imagine an art critic saying to a painter: "Your first work is sloppy, so therefore everything you do will be sloppy, and there's no way you can improve."
Generally, the more you do, the better you get.
The last "myth" ("I'll do it right *this* time") is entirely stupid...
The "reality" he says is "If you weren't disciplined then, why would you be disciplined now?"
Umm, how about because I learn from my mistakes?
Jeebus, but isn't that one of the things humans do? Learn?
It's got nothing to do with being "undisciplined" (well, usually nothing) it's about learning. The more you do, the more you learn, and the better you become.
Enjoy the label you're giving yourself, but please don't include me, thanks.
Groups give label themselves because if they don't, others from outside the group will label them.
Labels are a method of expressing power. When you decide for yourself, you're taking control of that power. You're welcome to opt-out, but you should be aware that you'll be giving up that power to society at large.
The question is: do you want control, or do you want to be controlled?