I don't get why everyone is advocating tricks to get around clicking 'ok' on the license agreement. Does anyone really think that a judge would uphold that dodge in court? 'Oh, you didn't know the license was there, so you accidentally used winzip rather than just double clicking on the executable'. I don't see this going over well.
Actually it can be argued that any security conscious user would NEVER double click on an.exe file if another alternative existed, in this case WinZip is that alternative.
I know that personally, when I get a self extracting.exe, I ALWAYS try to open it with WinZip first, it just makes good security sense don't ya think? Why run an.exe when you can use WinZip to do the same thing without putting your system at risk?
All it would take to convince a judge of this would be to infect the same.exe with BO2K and show WHY using WinZip is the best option to start with.
For those who posted in a public forum, they were not consulted. We had considered tracking down people, but my inital test run of trying to track down people went so terribly, we gave up. You'd be amazed how many people change e-mail addresses in a year
I understand your problems with tracking people down and commend you for making the effort to do so, however... simply because a message is posted in a public forum does not make it public domain.
Doesn't ICQ have a mini-web server that allows you to serve minimal HTML and graphics? Imagine if someone pulled this stunt on all the ICQ users on their network, you can just hear them screaming class-action from here.
As far as napster/gnutella, I think people are kidding themselves if they think these tools are not primarily delivery tools for illegal software and copyrighted audio. Sure, there are people using these tools in a legit way, but the majority of the people using them are not.
Should they be banned? I'm not sure, but I do know that burying our heads in the sand in regards to what people are REALLY using these tools for is ridiculous.
Think of it this way, sure, Back Orifice can be used as a great admin tool, but for the most part it's being used by people who want to commit illegal acts (i.e. 0wn1ng j00r b4wx). Will people piss and moan when their ISP blocks port 37337? Doubt it because it's not stopping their ability to pirate software and music.
He puts up a banner ad, this would pay for the ISP bill and he might even make a little money.
So now to be able to utilize the web as a publisher and still control how your content is accessed, you have to become a commercial entity? I don't buy this argument one bit.
What if Joe's site is about why internet advertising is the downfall of the internet itself? Wouldn't quite work then now would it?
My point is, the only simple answer is to respect those who wish to have their content not linked to, all other "solutions" avoid the overall issue here which is regardless of the "open" nature of the web or the "public" aspect of the internet, a publisher of content deserves to not be trampled over by millions if he doesn't want to be.
And if you read the original post, you'd see I wasn't addressing DEEP linking, I was addressing Taco's statement that he feels you shouldn't be able to stop people from linking to any pages, not just DEEP linking.
I Don't think it would be wrong for Taco to keep the link active. Joe could Temporarily take down his server, remove the stuff getting slashdotted, write a CGI that sends a small error message and apology to 99/100 requests that have slashdot as the referrer.
And if Joe is out of the country on vacation and only has web and mail access, what then? What if Joe is in the hospital and has no clue about the slashdotting he got until his webhost sends him the $5,000 bill? What if Joe had a mexican lunch and is on the can for the first hour of slashdotting, he's already OVER his bandwidth limit before he can even START to code a CGI solution to his problem. What if his project has NOTHING to do with the web at all, it's simply good "news for nerds" and anything CGI is greek to him... then he has to find someone to stop the slashdotting for him which will cost both time and money.
Not everyone is a perl guru, that doesn't mean they don't have the right not to endure a slashdotting against their will.
A lot of people say if you don't want people showing up, don't put your stuff on the web... well I put my house on a public street, does that mean I want 500,000 geeks driving by one day to take a look? Hell no, and it's my right to do what I can to stop that since geeks usually leave a trail of Jolt Cola cans and Slim Jims behind them. heh
Take that to the next level and put those 500,000 geeks in my front yard, than you'll have what a slashdotting is like. If I put up a no trespassing sign, all 500,000 of you would be breaking the law regardless of how public the street (network) I live on is. So yes, the web is public, that does not make every single page a public place where the person who owns the page (pays for the hosting, resources, etc.) has no rights to control how it's accessed.
To put it in simpler terms... if I'm a site admin that does not want a certain amount of network traffic, and you continue to send that network traffic to my site after I ask you not to... that my friends, is a denial of service attack. What's next, script kiddies saying they have a right to smurf you because your server is on the "public internet" and the whole point of the internet is to share data?!
but I don't think anyone should ever be able to say, "You may not link this page" since that is fundamentally the anti-point of the Web.
So let's look at an example:
Joe Developer has a good idea but not a lot of money, he hosts his site with information about his project on a $9.99/month hosting plan where he gets 200MB of transfer a month.
Someone submits Joe Developer's page to slashdot because it's a valid "news for nerds" item and Joe gets slashdotted. Within minutes, Joe contacts Taco saying "Don't link to my page!"... does Taco take it down?
Let's say he practices what he preaches (see quote above) and says "You can't tell me not to link it!" and leaves the link up. Joe Developer gets 500,000 hits in one day and goes over his allotted bandwidth by 20GB. At $5 per 10MB over his allotment, he now owes his hosting company a $1000 in overage fees and Joe Developer removes his site and goes bankrupt due to the "fundamental point of the web." (Note: I think Taco would remove such a link under these circumstances, this is just an example of why one size does not fit all.)
So as you can see, there ARE cases where someone should have the right to say DON'T LINK TO THIS PAGE. While much of the web is built to get traffic, some pages are not meant to be slashdotted for a number of different reasons.
So while I agree that a site that invites enormous amounts of eyeballs shouldn't deny linking (i.e. NYTimes, CNN, etc.), sites that do not aspire to get traffic should be allowed to control how they are linked.
Now, if only Apache would deny based on referrer like the old NCSA servers did. *sigh*
This is a month old, and just an artist concept
on
Sony's Palm PDA
·
· Score: 2
We covered this over a month ago right here and it is only an artist's conception.
It was submitted to/. the same day we posted it but it was rejected... I guess you just have to wait a few weeks and resubmit to get stuff posted these days. *sigh*
Well I had it bookmarked and it DID NOT work this morning and the root URL redirected to www.he.net and it's now the same as the/iopener/ directory so obviously it has been changed... dumbass.
You can't really blame them for this move (although you can probably blame them for the misleading statements made previously saying they had no real intentions to change the device).
When you have a multi-million dollar IPO, all that matters is profits and you MUST answer to shareholders when you take a big loss. Since Netpliance is selling the i-opener WELL below cost, they were setting themselves up for a HUGE loss. They stopped the bleeding as best they could, you can't really blame 'em.
Did you notice that http://www.linux-hacker/i-opener/ no longer exists? No more $35 hack kits even if you *can* get your hands on an old i-opener.
I mean come on, this is just ridiculous. It's bad enough that the "quality" news has gone from 4-5 articles a day to 4-5 articles a WEEK but do we really need the whole tabloid sensationalism as well? I'd imagine that someone making the money Rob is would take pride in RESEARCHING things before posting them. But then again, when you get paid millions for a website, it may be harder to keep sight on such things.
Isn't this the same company that offered *free*.cx domains a year or so ago only to turn around and try to CHARGE people for them 2 months later? Yes, I think it is.
Nice way to gather personal information to serve your real purpose.
- Company XYZ patents software, they are denounced by the "community" as greedy profiteers - Transmeta patents software-morphing and they are revolutionary geniuses
- Company XYZ cracks down on trademark use in domains and is demonized by the "community" - Linus cracks down on the use of "Linux" in domains he doesn't "approve" and he's a God
- Company XYZ produces a closed source OS that gains 95% market share and they are considered the devil by the "community" - Transmeta produces a closed source emulation software and they are the holy grail
Uhmm... Redhat is always free, that's the whole point right?
Maybe the story should say "Redhat Linux MEDIA and MANUALS available Free to UK Schools" since Redhat itself as a distribution is available free to anyone who wants it.
I mean, if you think about the timing of the law suit, Etoys.com main goal was to prevent people from going to Etoy.com when they meant to go to Etoys.com. The best way to fix this type of confusion beyond hijacking the domain and redirecting it is to bring it down all together.
Scenario:
Customer remembers something about the "etoy" toystore on the web from a TV commercial so they punch up Etoy.com into their browser... if Etoys.com hadn't brought etoy.com down, that user may have been marveled by the content of etoy.com and forgotten that they wanted to go to etoys.com in the first place, only later to go to toysrus.com. If Etoy.com fails to resolve for the customer, there is more of a chance that they'll try "etoys.com" and get to the toy site.
Etoys.com main goal here was to prevent the loss of even a SINGLE possible customer due to the distraction that is etoy.com... and they did just that.
Now they want to come off as the Good Guys(TM) for not pushing the suit while all along, their plan worked 100% as expected.
This will be tagged as flamebait/troll I'm sure but I just have to say that I am sick and tired of the "freedom" community pissing and moaning all the time about copyrights, trademarks, patents and the like.
Linus has a Trademark yet he's still a God to you guys O'Riely books are copyrighted yet what they publish what is considered the gospel to this community Slashdot lambastes people for not GPL'ing their code but where's a *current* GPL'd slash engine? Transmeta has patents on embedded electronics and SOFTWARE that runs 'em yet they are the holy frickin grail.
ENOUGH WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS!
80% of you would not even have JOBS if it weren't for the USPTO and the US Copyright act... how do you think companies would be able to make billions to pay you what you make if they could not ensure that they can make a profit from what they create without some fly-by nighter coming in, stealing it and reselling it below cost simply because they could?
You guys can't see the forest for the trees and the undying need to complain makes you blinder each day.
I say more power too the mega-corps with the $$$ to bust these spammer's asses. I'm tired of all this "I have free speech rights blah blah blah"... "spamming is legal and moral blah blah blah"... once you invade MY inbox, all bets are off pal.
The fact that AOL nailed 'em on fraudulent use of the AOL.com domain in headers just goes to show how spammers will be forced out of business. This is common practice by almost all the spammers out there since they know their emails are hated by 99% of the users they hit and would rather NOT have it traced back to them. With more and more spammers getting busted for this practice, they'll have nothing to hide behind and YOU KNOW DAMN WELL that if they can't be anonymous frauds, 99% of existing spammers won't spam anymore.
If I decided to mine through the/. articles and comments and present their content on my own site for people to search through without ever hitting the slashdot server (or viewing a slashdot ad). I'm sure the recently public Andover.net legal team would be quick to point out the following:
That's right, Andover.net owns the copyright on anything that's not already trademarked or copyrighted and not posted by users... so who am I to steal that data for my own commercial venture? And don't even start crying "fair use" because it does not come into play in this scenario.
I wonder if I were to be sued by the mega-corp Andover.net... if this would be a "Your rights online" feature?
My point to all this... sure, eBay may be handling the PR aspect of this poorly but the simple fact remains... IT'S THEIR COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL and if they don't want you indexing/mining and re-serving it... it's their right to ask/force you to stop.
(Note: I had a recent "go-round" with Google.com about them serving my entire copyrighted content without my permission via their "cached page" option... I contacted them and they promptly removed that option from any page on my site without question. I didn't threaten to sue and they didn't claim any ownership of my content or any "right" to serve it up to their users... that's how it should work out in almost all cases like this.)
Because they hold patents on things such as a "Method and apparatus for correcting errors in computer systems" (US5905855) which I'm sure includes SOME sort of "software" (even hardware components need instruction sets) which is now patented.
Why no boycott of Transmeta... well that's simple, they aren't a mega-corp like Amazon or Microsoft (yet) and that's what really cheeses off many in this anti-patent movement.
Now I agree that the USPTO has issued some CRAZY patents due to lack of research (i.e. CSS to MS), but patents DO have their place, even software patents whether you guys like it or not.
Imagine a 20th century where a person or company's ideas were NOT able to be protected... how many of you would have a good job right now, or parents who could pay your tuition? I'd bet very few.
Microsoft was in the right on this one - a standard does need to be made, by an industry-wide group.
When did hacking into a network and leeching it's resources for your own gain become a valid action when striving for industry wide standards?
I'd like to see standardized IM as much as anyone, but saying Microsoft is right is a bit far fetched. Microsoft is wrong for hacking into AOL's IM infrastructure after access was denied and AOL is wrong for exploiting their own client software to keep MS out... they should have found a better way to do it.
What if I wanted to get in on this exploding new technology called... email, but instead of setting up my own mail server, I hacked into yours and pointed all my users to it, then when you fixed your server so I couldn't get in, I hacked into it again to give my users free use of a resource I don't own, maintain, or hold accountability for?
And don't respond back with "email is an open standard, while IM is not" because that's not my point, my point is MSN HAS their own IM infrastructure and could have used it, but they decided to leech on the resources and investment of another company and when they were asked/told/forced to stop, they hacked it again. They are FAR from right in this case.
with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
And you're expecting to get that from c|net? or any windows-centric outlet in general?
I agree with everything you've said and would like to see a few detailed comparisons as well but you have to consider the source. If linux.com posted something like this, then yes... bitch all you want, but when c|net posts it with an audience of 90% Windows users, they ARE all newbies and don't know a core dump from a bash history so the sort of indepth analysis you are looking for would be wasted on them.
It seems like everyone wants linux to take over the world but doesn't expect anyone to have to be a newbie in the process. "Why can't they all just be as smart as me and KNOW linux already?!" I'm sorry, that just doesn't happen and if the world domination plan is to ever come to light, articles like this will need to be spread far and wide.
I long for a day when the word "newbie" isn't a four letter word, rather it indicates someone who is willing to stray from the status quo in search for better solutions than what may be being force fed to them.
It's good to see that booting up is not part of Intel's QA process since I'm sure that would really slow down the marketing and shipment of new, faster tracking devices... err I mean processors.
The wise AC said: "Since when has malicious intent been a prerequisite of FUD or ignorance an exemption from it?"
Thank you, that was my point... inaccurate statements due to malice or ignorance has the same effect on an unsuspecting sys-admin who's trying to sort out all the "myths" being spewed out these days.
What makes this inaccuracy glaring is the arrogance in which it is presented, similar to the arrogance many anti-MS folks site often.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get why everyone is advocating tricks to get around clicking 'ok' on the license agreement. Does anyone really think that a judge would uphold that dodge in court? 'Oh, you didn't know the license was there, so you accidentally used winzip rather than just double clicking on the executable'. I don't see this going over well.
.exe file if another alternative existed, in this case WinZip is that alternative.
.exe, I ALWAYS try to open it with WinZip first, it just makes good security sense don't ya think? Why run an .exe when you can use WinZip to do the same thing without putting your system at risk?
.exe with BO2K and show WHY using WinZip is the best option to start with.
Actually it can be argued that any security conscious user would NEVER double click on an
I know that personally, when I get a self extracting
All it would take to convince a judge of this would be to infect the same
For those who posted in a public forum, they were not consulted. We had considered tracking down people, but my inital test run of trying to track down people went so terribly, we gave up. You'd be amazed how many people change e-mail addresses in a year
... simply because a message is posted in a public forum does not make it public domain.
/. page should read: All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster up until the point they press submit, then they are public domain for anyone to publish in any other form they wish without permission or recognition of the source. The Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net.
I understand your problems with tracking people down and commend you for making the effort to do so, however
If it did, your copyright notice at the bottom of each
I mean, you can't have it both ways right? You can't "own" your comments yet not have any control over it right?
Doesn't ICQ have a mini-web server that allows you to serve minimal HTML and graphics? Imagine if someone pulled this stunt on all the ICQ users on their network, you can just hear them screaming class-action from here.
As far as napster/gnutella, I think people are kidding themselves if they think these tools are not primarily delivery tools for illegal software and copyrighted audio. Sure, there are people using these tools in a legit way, but the majority of the people using them are not.
Should they be banned? I'm not sure, but I do know that burying our heads in the sand in regards to what people are REALLY using these tools for is ridiculous.
Think of it this way, sure, Back Orifice can be used as a great admin tool, but for the most part it's being used by people who want to commit illegal acts (i.e. 0wn1ng j00r b4wx). Will people piss and moan when their ISP blocks port 37337? Doubt it because it's not stopping their ability to pirate software and music.
I could not believe it when my text message alarm went off and it was a SPAM for term life insurance.
It prompted me to write a very annoyed entry on DaBuzz.net.
If you want to feel my pain, go check it out.
He puts up a banner ad, this would pay for the ISP bill and he might even make a little money.
So now to be able to utilize the web as a publisher and still control how your content is accessed, you have to become a commercial entity? I don't buy this argument one bit.
What if Joe's site is about why internet advertising is the downfall of the internet itself? Wouldn't quite work then now would it?
My point is, the only simple answer is to respect those who wish to have their content not linked to, all other "solutions" avoid the overall issue here which is regardless of the "open" nature of the web or the "public" aspect of the internet, a publisher of content deserves to not be trampled over by millions if he doesn't want to be.
And if you read the original post, you'd see I wasn't addressing DEEP linking, I was addressing Taco's statement that he feels you shouldn't be able to stop people from linking to any pages, not just DEEP linking.
I Don't think it would be wrong for Taco to keep the link active. Joe could Temporarily take down his server, remove the stuff getting slashdotted, write a CGI that sends a small error message and apology to 99/100 requests that have slashdot as the referrer.
... then he has to find someone to stop the slashdotting for him which will cost both time and money.
... well I put my house on a public street, does that mean I want 500,000 geeks driving by one day to take a look? Hell no, and it's my right to do what I can to stop that since geeks usually leave a trail of Jolt Cola cans and Slim Jims behind them. heh
... if I'm a site admin that does not want a certain amount of network traffic, and you continue to send that network traffic to my site after I ask you not to ... that my friends, is a denial of service attack. What's next, script kiddies saying they have a right to smurf you because your server is on the "public internet" and the whole point of the internet is to share data?!
And if Joe is out of the country on vacation and only has web and mail access, what then? What if Joe is in the hospital and has no clue about the slashdotting he got until his webhost sends him the $5,000 bill? What if Joe had a mexican lunch and is on the can for the first hour of slashdotting, he's already OVER his bandwidth limit before he can even START to code a CGI solution to his problem. What if his project has NOTHING to do with the web at all, it's simply good "news for nerds" and anything CGI is greek to him
Not everyone is a perl guru, that doesn't mean they don't have the right not to endure a slashdotting against their will.
A lot of people say if you don't want people showing up, don't put your stuff on the web
Take that to the next level and put those 500,000 geeks in my front yard, than you'll have what a slashdotting is like. If I put up a no trespassing sign, all 500,000 of you would be breaking the law regardless of how public the street (network) I live on is. So yes, the web is public, that does not make every single page a public place where the person who owns the page (pays for the hosting, resources, etc.) has no rights to control how it's accessed.
To put it in simpler terms
but I don't think anyone should ever be able to say, "You may not link this page" since that is fundamentally the anti-point of the Web.
... does Taco take it down?
So let's look at an example:
Joe Developer has a good idea but not a lot of money, he hosts his site with information about his project on a $9.99/month hosting plan where he gets 200MB of transfer a month.
Someone submits Joe Developer's page to slashdot because it's a valid "news for nerds" item and Joe gets slashdotted. Within minutes, Joe contacts Taco saying "Don't link to my page!"
Let's say he practices what he preaches (see quote above) and says "You can't tell me not to link it!" and leaves the link up. Joe Developer gets 500,000 hits in one day and goes over his allotted bandwidth by 20GB. At $5 per 10MB over his allotment, he now owes his hosting company a $1000 in overage fees and Joe Developer removes his site and goes bankrupt due to the "fundamental point of the web." (Note: I think Taco would remove such a link under these circumstances, this is just an example of why one size does not fit all.)
So as you can see, there ARE cases where someone should have the right to say DON'T LINK TO THIS PAGE. While much of the web is built to get traffic, some pages are not meant to be slashdotted for a number of different reasons.
So while I agree that a site that invites enormous amounts of eyeballs shouldn't deny linking (i.e. NYTimes, CNN, etc.), sites that do not aspire to get traffic should be allowed to control how they are linked.
Now, if only Apache would deny based on referrer like the old NCSA servers did. *sigh*
We covered this over a month ago right here and it is only an artist's conception.
/. the same day we posted it but it was rejected ... I guess you just have to wait a few weeks and resubmit to get stuff posted these days. *sigh*
It was submitted to
Looks like a few others had the same problem.
Now the question remains, why am I bothering to reply to lame ass AC's anyways, as usually when they post anonymously, they don't know shit.
Well I had it bookmarked and it DID NOT work this morning and the root URL redirected to www.he.net and it's now the same as the /iopener/ directory so obviously it has been changed ... dumbass.
You can't really blame them for this move (although you can probably blame them for the misleading statements made previously saying they had no real intentions to change the device).
When you have a multi-million dollar IPO, all that matters is profits and you MUST answer to shareholders when you take a big loss. Since Netpliance is selling the i-opener WELL below cost, they were setting themselves up for a HUGE loss. They stopped the bleeding as best they could, you can't really blame 'em.
Did you notice that http://www.linux-hacker/i-opener/ no longer exists? No more $35 hack kits even if you *can* get your hands on an old i-opener.
I mean come on, this is just ridiculous. It's bad enough that the "quality" news has gone from 4-5 articles a day to 4-5 articles a WEEK but do we really need the whole tabloid sensationalism as well? I'd imagine that someone making the money Rob is would take pride in RESEARCHING things before posting them. But then again, when you get paid millions for a website, it may be harder to keep sight on such things.
Isn't this the same company that offered *free* .cx domains a year or so ago only to turn around and try to CHARGE people for them 2 months later? Yes, I think it is.
Nice way to gather personal information to serve your real purpose.
- Company XYZ patents software, they are denounced by the "community" as greedy profiteers
- Transmeta patents software-morphing and they are revolutionary geniuses
- Company XYZ cracks down on trademark use in domains and is demonized by the "community"
- Linus cracks down on the use of "Linux" in domains he doesn't "approve" and he's a God
- Company XYZ produces a closed source OS that gains 95% market share and they are considered the devil by the "community"
- Transmeta produces a closed source emulation software and they are the holy grail
How ironic indeed.
Uhmm ... Redhat is always free, that's the whole point right?
Maybe the story should say "Redhat Linux MEDIA and MANUALS available Free to UK Schools" since Redhat itself as a distribution is available free to anyone who wants it.
I mean, if you think about the timing of the law suit, Etoys.com main goal was to prevent people from going to Etoy.com when they meant to go to Etoys.com. The best way to fix this type of confusion beyond hijacking the domain and redirecting it is to bring it down all together.
... if Etoys.com hadn't brought etoy.com down, that user may have been marveled by the content of etoy.com and forgotten that they wanted to go to etoys.com in the first place, only later to go to toysrus.com. If Etoy.com fails to resolve for the customer, there is more of a chance that they'll try "etoys.com" and get to the toy site.
... and they did just that.
Scenario:
Customer remembers something about the "etoy" toystore on the web from a TV commercial so they punch up Etoy.com into their browser
Etoys.com main goal here was to prevent the loss of even a SINGLE possible customer due to the distraction that is etoy.com
Now they want to come off as the Good Guys(TM) for not pushing the suit while all along, their plan worked 100% as expected.
This will be tagged as flamebait/troll I'm sure but I just have to say that I am sick and tired of the "freedom" community pissing and moaning all the time about copyrights, trademarks, patents and the like.
... how do you think companies would be able to make billions to pay you what you make if they could not ensure that they can make a profit from what they create without some fly-by nighter coming in, stealing it and reselling it below cost simply because they could?
Linus has a Trademark yet he's still a God to you guys
O'Riely books are copyrighted yet what they publish what is considered the gospel to this community
Slashdot lambastes people for not GPL'ing their code but where's a *current* GPL'd slash engine?
Transmeta has patents on embedded electronics and SOFTWARE that runs 'em yet they are the holy frickin grail.
ENOUGH WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS!
80% of you would not even have JOBS if it weren't for the USPTO and the US Copyright act
You guys can't see the forest for the trees and the undying need to complain makes you blinder each day.
I say more power too the mega-corps with the $$$ to bust these spammer's asses. I'm tired of all this "I have free speech rights blah blah blah" ... "spamming is legal and moral blah blah blah" ... once you invade MY inbox, all bets are off pal.
The fact that AOL nailed 'em on fraudulent use of the AOL.com domain in headers just goes to show how spammers will be forced out of business. This is common practice by almost all the spammers out there since they know their emails are hated by 99% of the users they hit and would rather NOT have it traced back to them. With more and more spammers getting busted for this practice, they'll have nothing to hide behind and YOU KNOW DAMN WELL that if they can't be anonymous frauds, 99% of existing spammers won't spam anymore.
If I decided to mine through the /. articles and comments and present their content on my own site for people to search through without ever hitting the slashdot server (or viewing a slashdot ad). I'm sure the recently public Andover.net legal team would be quick to point out the following:
... so who am I to steal that data for my own commercial venture? And don't even start crying "fair use" because it does not come into play in this scenario.
... if this would be a "Your rights online" feature?
... sure, eBay may be handling the PR aspect of this poorly but the simple fact remains ... IT'S THEIR COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL and if they don't want you indexing/mining and re-serving it ... it's their right to ask/force you to stop.
... I contacted them and they promptly removed that option from any page on my site without question. I didn't threaten to sue and they didn't claim any ownership of my content or any "right" to serve it up to their users ... that's how it should work out in almost all cases like this.)
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-99 Andover.Net. "
That's right, Andover.net owns the copyright on anything that's not already trademarked or copyrighted and not posted by users
I wonder if I were to be sued by the mega-corp Andover.net
My point to all this
(Note: I had a recent "go-round" with Google.com about them serving my entire copyrighted content without my permission via their "cached page" option
Because they hold patents on things such as a "Method and apparatus for correcting errors in computer systems" (US5905855) which I'm sure includes SOME sort of "software" (even hardware components need instruction sets) which is now patented.
... well that's simple, they aren't a mega-corp like Amazon or Microsoft (yet) and that's what really cheeses off many in this anti-patent movement.
... how many of you would have a good job right now, or parents who could pay your tuition? I'd bet very few.
Why no boycott of Transmeta
Now I agree that the USPTO has issued some CRAZY patents due to lack of research (i.e. CSS to MS), but patents DO have their place, even software patents whether you guys like it or not.
Imagine a 20th century where a person or company's ideas were NOT able to be protected
Microsoft was in the right on this one - a standard does need to be made, by an industry-wide group.
... they should have found a better way to do it.
... email, but instead of setting up my own mail server, I hacked into yours and pointed all my users to it, then when you fixed your server so I couldn't get in, I hacked into it again to give my users free use of a resource I don't own, maintain, or hold accountability for?
When did hacking into a network and leeching it's resources for your own gain become a valid action when striving for industry wide standards?
I'd like to see standardized IM as much as anyone, but saying Microsoft is right is a bit far fetched. Microsoft is wrong for hacking into AOL's IM infrastructure after access was denied and AOL is wrong for exploiting their own client software to keep MS out
What if I wanted to get in on this exploding new technology called
And don't respond back with "email is an open standard, while IM is not" because that's not my point, my point is MSN HAS their own IM infrastructure and could have used it, but they decided to leech on the resources and investment of another company and when they were asked/told/forced to stop, they hacked it again. They are FAR from right in this case.
with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
... bitch all you want, but when c|net posts it with an audience of 90% Windows users, they ARE all newbies and don't know a core dump from a bash history so the sort of indepth analysis you are looking for would be wasted on them.
And you're expecting to get that from c|net? or any windows-centric outlet in general?
I agree with everything you've said and would like to see a few detailed comparisons as well but you have to consider the source. If linux.com posted something like this, then yes
It seems like everyone wants linux to take over the world but doesn't expect anyone to have to be a newbie in the process. "Why can't they all just be as smart as me and KNOW linux already?!" I'm sorry, that just doesn't happen and if the world domination plan is to ever come to light, articles like this will need to be spread far and wide.
I long for a day when the word "newbie" isn't a four letter word, rather it indicates someone who is willing to stray from the status quo in search for better solutions than what may be being force fed to them.
You've written a great article jamie. Concise and well thought out articles is what slashdot needs more of.
Keep it up!
It's good to see that booting up is not part of Intel's QA process since I'm sure that would really slow down the marketing and shipment of new, faster tracking devices ... err I mean processors.
Jeez, how slack can you get?!?
The wise AC said: "Since when has malicious intent been a prerequisite of FUD or ignorance an exemption from it?"
... inaccurate statements due to malice or ignorance has the same effect on an unsuspecting sys-admin who's trying to sort out all the "myths" being spewed out these days.
Thank you, that was my point
What makes this inaccuracy glaring is the arrogance in which it is presented, similar to the arrogance many anti-MS folks site often.