They only get royalties on those CD-R's specifically marked for audio, I think, which explains why they're so much more expensive than others. Just load up on those 100-CD spindles for 60 and 70 bucks.
That's not the point. Slashdot posts did not make it into the court record, and Boies didn't make any kind of compelling argument for non-infringing uses of Napster (if any actually exist). The judge was forced to rule against Napster, because of their inability to demonstrate any way in which their product can be legitimately used.
Many of those arguments have been made here, but like I said...Slashdot posts didn't make it into the trial record.
Solaris x86 is a dog, so while it's admirable that he tried to include a commercial Unix, it's really too bad he couldn't run it on proper hardware. I would have liked to have seen any areas where BSD and Linux beat Solaris, on Sun hardware.
"I don't think it matters at all whether we've been economically hurt," she said. "I think that if I own my shirt and you borrow it, it doesn't matter whether or not I have another shirt. You're just not entitled to borrow it without my permission. And if you have a copyright asset, that is the principle of copyright--that you get to control and own your own work, and other people don't get to profit from it without your permission."
I think we can all agree that Hilary Rosen topless is a bad thing, and if that's what happens when people use Napster, I'd rather they stop.
Sure, he used that title, but he was using it in the vein of "Unix sucks, this is what we need to do to make it better" (or at least, that's my understanding....you've seen the talk, so I won't pretend to tell you what he said).
That may have been an imperfect example, but it was typical of the sensationalism that has overtaken this site ("Miguel says Unix Sucks!" is pretty inflammatory), and the 644 comments posted to it show that it pays off.
Like I said, though, I find them mildly interesting, but the Slashdot staff needs to make a conscious effort to stop thinking of themselves as journalists when it's convenient.
When "news" becomes a link to an opinion post on a webboard, it seems painfully obvious that Slashdot is primarily interested in getting people worked up and generating pageviews. Don't believe me? In the past two days, we've got this article to stir up the Perl zealots, and an article in which Miguel de Icaza is purported to have said "Unix Sucks," when in fact he stated that he wanted reuseable components, and that the innovation seems to have gone out of Unix variants. Also, the MPAA chooses to sue Scour for making copyrighted works available for download, and the headline asks "Is google next?"
These things are all vaguely interesting, and I don't dispute Slashdot's right to post whatever the hell they want. However, every now and again they claim some sort of journalistic status (check the story on cnet buying zdnet), and that claim becomes more absurd with every passing day. Perhaps it's time to change the name to "Slashdot: Advocacy for Open Source and the death of Intellectual Property, Think Like Us"
The problem is caused by inetcomm.dll, which is replaced when IE 5.5 or IE 5 Service Pack 1 are installed. Whether this means they knew about the bug and quietly patched it, or it was simply changed as part of development, I don't know. Since the patch is now available, I don't think it can be attributed to a sneaky plan of forced upgrading.
Microsoft has a bulletin addressing this, but no patch yet. Apparently, newer versions of Internet Explorer already solve the problem. Sorry to participate in the offtopic thread, but it could be helpful to anyone that followed the link in the parent post.
As an aside, Aleph1 and CERT have already questioned (in posts to Bugtraq) SANS' use of hyperbole in that report.
Not really, they've all got an X picture in that area.
Making those images publicly readable has got to be one of the most bone-headed design flaws I've seen in a long time. Granted, the website needed to be set up, and able to go on with little maintenance, but how hard would it have been to copy the "X" pictures over from an inaccessible directory as needed? It's not a life and death situation, but it's another case where security though obscurity fails. Whether you're being targeted by a filthy, anti-social hacker, or just some obsessed fan, you shouldn't underestimate the amount of free time they have to find weaknesses in your system.
2. You must provide your complete legal name and postal address in the membership application form. If your membership or vote is challenged as part of an At Large audit process, you must agree to furnish suitable documentation of your legal identity, address, country of residence, and age.
3. You must provide a valid Internet email address that is continuously active so that you can send and receive messages from ICANN and participate in its electronic forums.
Like I said, I have no love for IE, and I mainly meant to point out that this isn't anticompetitive behavior. I don't agree that what they've done is necessarily a good thing, and if web designers begin using these IE-only features, then blame the web designers. Nothing will keep Microsoft from embracing and extending, if the market rewards them for it by implementing their crap.
Actually, MS can introduce all the tags they want, and it's up to web developers to NOT USE THEM. If these new tags become heavily utilized on the web, then we have web designers to blame, and not Microsoft. Further, it would actually show that there's a demand for that functionality, and that W3C is moving too slow to be useful.
Standards are good when they help people to accomplish their tasks. If the standards body can't provide workable standards is a reasonable timeframe, then it's difficult to blame Microsoft of Netscape for introducing them on their own.
I have no love for Microsoft or IE, but I really don't see this as being an issue of anti-competitiveness.
Nothing in the GPL states that it needs to be internal fair use. If you code something that serves information to people, you can't really get upset when someone makes some modifications to suit their needs, and uses it to serve information to people. Your code is just another layer within the content delivery system.
If I've modifed Apache to be highly secure, to protect my web site, would I then be required to release my modifications? I'll use a different daemon without such silly restrictions, in that case. It actually sounds to me like you want to release the source to your scripts, and not allow anyone to put them to better use than you, which doesn't strike me as being free or open.
Better still, don't worry about a license. Write code that suits a purpose for you, and then if you'd like, post it somewhere for other people to use. If you don't want them to use it, don't release the source. It beats the hell out of what you want to do, which seems very similar to Microsoft's public "trade secret."
Either release it or don't, but try not to micromanage how we use it, ok?
I'd always guessed that phrase to mean if something is hard to swallow, you take it with a grain of salt, which somehow makes it easier to go down.
I'd like to see some reference for your interpretation, since it would be "take it AS a grain of salt" if you are correct. It just doesn't make sense, otherwise.
Re:The original poster was [mostly] right
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
The most recent document I've seen about the makeup of the root servers is the Root Nameservers Year 2000 Statement from last July. Since I'm just plain lazy on a Sunday morning, care to point me to the docs related to the gtld servers?
Re:Put it in the hands of a known agentcy
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
I'm afraid the joke just wouldn't work with http://www.GNU/domainname.com, since the domain would be read as path-on-host then. I'm sorry the joke offended your technical sensibilities.
Re:Put it in the hands of a known agentcy
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 3
Nooooooooo!
My god, if you put Stallman in charge, everything will be GNU://www.domainname.com.
Of course, NSI does control the a server, which is the master of the 12 slaves, so they do have a certain degree of control. I agree that people need to understand the DNS system before posting about it, but when has ignorance stopped people from posting on Slashdot before?
Re:Yes -- and one opportunity we missed!
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Hrm, so your missed opportunity was actually a method which would have effectively worked for only the web? I can't say that we missed much.
You do recall correctly. This is one of the articles about it from back in 1996. It never really did take off, and kind of hit a big snag when they hijacked internic.net in "protest."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, RIAA doesn't believe those people are buying CDs now.
They only get royalties on those CD-R's specifically marked for audio, I think, which explains why they're so much more expensive than others. Just load up on those 100-CD spindles for 60 and 70 bucks.
Many of those arguments have been made here, but like I said...Slashdot posts didn't make it into the trial record.
Unless, of course, you wanted us to go to that Digital Couple website.
Solaris x86 is a dog, so while it's admirable that he tried to include a commercial Unix, it's really too bad he couldn't run it on proper hardware. I would have liked to have seen any areas where BSD and Linux beat Solaris, on Sun hardware.
I think we can all agree that Hilary Rosen topless is a bad thing, and if that's what happens when people use Napster, I'd rather they stop.
That may have been an imperfect example, but it was typical of the sensationalism that has overtaken this site ("Miguel says Unix Sucks!" is pretty inflammatory), and the 644 comments posted to it show that it pays off.
Like I said, though, I find them mildly interesting, but the Slashdot staff needs to make a conscious effort to stop thinking of themselves as journalists when it's convenient.
These things are all vaguely interesting, and I don't dispute Slashdot's right to post whatever the hell they want. However, every now and again they claim some sort of journalistic status (check the story on cnet buying zdnet), and that claim becomes more absurd with every passing day. Perhaps it's time to change the name to "Slashdot: Advocacy for Open Source and the death of Intellectual Property, Think Like Us"
Welllll....he did say he'd be focusing his efforts on Bonobo, to provide the reuseable objects he believes Unix lacks. How about reading the article?
The problem is caused by inetcomm.dll, which is replaced when IE 5.5 or IE 5 Service Pack 1 are installed. Whether this means they knew about the bug and quietly patched it, or it was simply changed as part of development, I don't know. Since the patch is now available, I don't think it can be attributed to a sneaky plan of forced upgrading.
The SANS link above refers to a different Windows exploit, which is decidedly less dangerous than the Outlook exploit reported yesterday.
As an aside, Aleph1 and CERT have already questioned (in posts to Bugtraq) SANS' use of hyperbole in that report.
Making those images publicly readable has got to be one of the most bone-headed design flaws I've seen in a long time. Granted, the website needed to be set up, and able to go on with little maintenance, but how hard would it have been to copy the "X" pictures over from an inaccessible directory as needed? It's not a life and death situation, but it's another case where security though obscurity fails. Whether you're being targeted by a filthy, anti-social hacker, or just some obsessed fan, you shouldn't underestimate the amount of free time they have to find weaknesses in your system.
2. You must provide your complete legal name and postal address in the membership application form. If your membership or vote is challenged as part of an At Large audit process, you must agree to furnish suitable documentation of your legal identity, address, country of residence, and age.
3. You must provide a valid Internet email address that is continuously active so that you can send and receive messages from ICANN and participate in its electronic forums.
Like I said, I have no love for IE, and I mainly meant to point out that this isn't anticompetitive behavior. I don't agree that what they've done is necessarily a good thing, and if web designers begin using these IE-only features, then blame the web designers. Nothing will keep Microsoft from embracing and extending, if the market rewards them for it by implementing their crap.
Standards are good when they help people to accomplish their tasks. If the standards body can't provide workable standards is a reasonable timeframe, then it's difficult to blame Microsoft of Netscape for introducing them on their own.
I have no love for Microsoft or IE, but I really don't see this as being an issue of anti-competitiveness.
If I've modifed Apache to be highly secure, to protect my web site, would I then be required to release my modifications? I'll use a different daemon without such silly restrictions, in that case. It actually sounds to me like you want to release the source to your scripts, and not allow anyone to put them to better use than you, which doesn't strike me as being free or open.
Better still, don't worry about a license. Write code that suits a purpose for you, and then if you'd like, post it somewhere for other people to use. If you don't want them to use it, don't release the source. It beats the hell out of what you want to do, which seems very similar to Microsoft's public "trade secret."
Either release it or don't, but try not to micromanage how we use it, ok?
Actually, he didn't.
I'd like to see some reference for your interpretation, since it would be "take it AS a grain of salt" if you are correct. It just doesn't make sense, otherwise.
The most recent document I've seen about the makeup of the root servers is the Root Nameservers Year 2000 Statement from last July. Since I'm just plain lazy on a Sunday morning, care to point me to the docs related to the gtld servers?
I'm afraid the joke just wouldn't work with http://www.GNU/domainname.com, since the domain would be read as path-on-host then. I'm sorry the joke offended your technical sensibilities.
My god, if you put Stallman in charge, everything will be GNU://www.domainname.com.
Of course, NSI does control the a server, which is the master of the 12 slaves, so they do have a certain degree of control. I agree that people need to understand the DNS system before posting about it, but when has ignorance stopped people from posting on Slashdot before?
Hrm, so your missed opportunity was actually a method which would have effectively worked for only the web? I can't say that we missed much.
You do recall correctly. This is one of the articles about it from back in 1996. It never really did take off, and kind of hit a big snag when they hijacked internic.net in "protest."