Thompson obviously wasn't even paying attention to his own article, since his complaints are mutually exclusive (e.g. he's upset that the US succeeds in using the DCMA to have stuff pulled from foreign sites and that some French judge fails in his attempt to use hate crime laws to have stuff pulled from foreign sites).
or did the FCC actually say "screw you" to the MPAA?
Frankly, doing so loudly and publicly is their only chance of meeting even the 2007 date. Any FUD about the ability of Joe Sixpack to keep using his VCR in the manner to which he has become accustomed is enough to kill the concept, without any need to get into the details of the rights issues.
Re:Life without TV is good
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 2
Bhutan's desire to not be Westernized
A meaningless phrase, as only individuals can have a "desire" for anything. Presumably it is shorthand for "the desire of certain people within Bhutan to prevent anyone in the country from having the option of adopting Western ways".
Email while annoying doesn't necessarily impede you from downloading the rest of your email in a timely manner.
Spam e-mail can fill an in-box memory allotment and cause the loss of legitimate e-mail, just as spam faxes can exhaust a paper roll and buffer and cause the loss of legitimate faxes. The two are exactly analogous.
I think the industry can basically tell Congress, 'Mandate these features or we won't release media'.
And Congress can basically tell them, "OK, then, I hope you've figured out how to send your broadcasts by carrier pigeon because in 2006 you won't have any broadcast spectrum that fits your requirements."
Promoting creative expression includes protecting the rights of the owner to profit from their work.
I can throw paint at a canvas, put it on the market, and I have a right to a profit? Cool!
Re:free enterprise?? With a price...
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 2
What is the difference is you unknowningly send a 7 year old an email that has a URL to a porn site and says things like watch 2 girls do f***, or see cindy take it up the a**, and pedophilia?
If you sent one message like that to a 7-year-old, you'd end up in Bubba's Crossbar Honeymoon Suite before you had a chance to say "Pass the Vaseline". I can't understand how it is that none of these spammers have been prosecuted under the same laws. (Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't heard of an irate parent tracking down one of these perps for a street-justice session.)
What I don't get is this: if they keep spamming, it means there must be someone buying their stuff.
No, it doesn't. The spammers sell their "services" to clueless "businessmen". Even if the spam doesn't generate a single sale, the spammer still has the money, and scrupulously follows the First Law of Acquisition.
...spammers constantly change their Internet providers and locations, buying service from multiple carriers, often under false names...
Dave Codding, president of Internet Direct, an Ohio-based ISP, said his company struggled for a year to get Cowles off his network. Codding said Cowles used a false name to open an account and threatened to sue if he was cut off.
It is well-established law in the US, and probably most civilized nations as well, that using a false name for a fraudulent purpose is illegal. Specifically, it's illegal to use a false name to hide relevant information about your past (e.g. lousy credit, criminal record), which is precisely what these slimeballs are doing.
Somebody needs to convince a local DA to make an example of one of these crooks. Once it becomes too risky to use a pseudonym, it will be a simple matter of convincing ISPs to black-list them.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but STALKING these guys? Threatening them?
Anybody dumb enough to think this actually happened based on the word of some lowlife spammer (but I repeat myself) is part of the natural target audience for their moronic scams.
BUT. the defence will probably move to strike it all, lock stock and barrel. because of the manner in which it was acquired. illegal search and seizure. actually, all out digital breaking and entering.
And the judge will remind the defense lawyer that the exclusionary rule only applies to the government, not to private citizens, and deny the motion.
Since the article says that each Linux server was over an order of magnitude cheaper than each Unix server, I suspect that they now have more of them at work. They should have been more specific about the cause of the speed increase.
The main flaw I found in the article was the paragraph:
Microsoft paints Linux as a threat to intellectual property rights. Software developers who make their applications Linux-ready risk losing their proprietary products to the public domain, Microsoft warns.
The lack of rebuttal, and use the word "warns" (which implies a notification of a real threat) rather than a more correct one such as "claims" or "asserts", gives undeserved credibility to this shibboleth.
So I figure that spamers need at least 1 our of every 25,000 people out there to be DUMB enough to actually buy whatever product is being sold, and that's just to cover the expense of spaming!
No, they just need to find one sucker dumb enough to buy their "Internet Marketing Service". The sucker gets nothing but aggrivation, but by then the spammer already has his money.
Heck, the FCC even governs how much EMI is allowed to pass from flourescent light bulbs in offices. If they didn't then I believe that most, if not all offices, would be unable to operate computers and other electronic devices.
You don't suppose that screwing up all the office equipment might have a slight impact on the light maker's sales?
By switching over to digital television it will help to free up some of the some of the frequencies currently being used by old analogue sets
It would be simpler to forget the whole "digital television" nonsense and sell off the frequencies it would have occupied for some more productive use.
Advantages of digital broadcasts: Clear picture even in less than perfect conditions.
Irrelevant. The pictures available now are considered good enough by 99% of the viewers. The small minority who want better pictures badly enough to pay for them can buy it on DVD or whatever.
In any case, a crystal-clear picture of moronic bilge is still a picture of moronic bilge.
I don't mean encryption (which has beneficial uses, including to undermine bad governments), I mean filtering technologies of the type being provided to China.
If China wanted them to hand over blueprints to export-controlled sensitive technologies, should they just do that, too?
Frankly, the US government ought to add these filtering systems to the list of forbidden exports, since their only purpose is to aid governments in opposing our way of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Thompson obviously wasn't even paying attention to his own article, since his complaints are mutually exclusive (e.g. he's upset that the US succeeds in using the DCMA to have stuff pulled from foreign sites and that some French judge fails in his attempt to use hate crime laws to have stuff pulled from foreign sites).
For the incumbent entertainment industry, obstructing the ability to create and distribute one's own content is a feature, not a bug.
Frankly, doing so loudly and publicly is their only chance of meeting even the 2007 date. Any FUD about the ability of Joe Sixpack to keep using his VCR in the manner to which he has become accustomed is enough to kill the concept, without any need to get into the details of the rights issues.
A meaningless phrase, as only individuals can have a "desire" for anything. Presumably it is shorthand for "the desire of certain people within Bhutan to prevent anyone in the country from having the option of adopting Western ways".
And some of them will, quite frankly, hate you enough to make up bogus information just to punish you for spamming. Don't do it.
Spam e-mail can fill an in-box memory allotment and cause the loss of legitimate e-mail, just as spam faxes can exhaust a paper roll and buffer and cause the loss of legitimate faxes. The two are exactly analogous.
Is there an IRS agent in the house...?
Non sequitur.
And Congress can basically tell them, "OK, then, I hope you've figured out how to send your broadcasts by carrier pigeon because in 2006 you won't have any broadcast spectrum that fits your requirements."
I can throw paint at a canvas, put it on the market, and I have a right to a profit? Cool!
If you sent one message like that to a 7-year-old, you'd end up in Bubba's Crossbar Honeymoon Suite before you had a chance to say "Pass the Vaseline". I can't understand how it is that none of these spammers have been prosecuted under the same laws. (Frankly, I'm suprised that we haven't heard of an irate parent tracking down one of these perps for a street-justice session.)
No, it doesn't. The spammers sell their "services" to clueless "businessmen". Even if the spam doesn't generate a single sale, the spammer still has the money, and scrupulously follows the First Law of Acquisition.
No, you don't, or you wouldn't present this tired old twaddle.
Spam is not a free-as-in-speech issue. Spam is a free-as-in-beer (because you stole the beer from the person who paid for it) issue.
Dave Codding, president of Internet Direct, an Ohio-based ISP, said his company struggled for a year to get Cowles off his network. Codding said Cowles used a false name to open an account and threatened to sue if he was cut off.
It is well-established law in the US, and probably most civilized nations as well, that using a false name for a fraudulent purpose is illegal. Specifically, it's illegal to use a false name to hide relevant information about your past (e.g. lousy credit, criminal record), which is precisely what these slimeballs are doing.
Somebody needs to convince a local DA to make an example of one of these crooks. Once it becomes too risky to use a pseudonym, it will be a simple matter of convincing ISPs to black-list them.
Anybody dumb enough to think this actually happened based on the word of some lowlife spammer (but I repeat myself) is part of the natural target audience for their moronic scams.
Or else what?
And the judge will remind the defense lawyer that the exclusionary rule only applies to the government, not to private citizens, and deny the motion.
Since the article says that each Linux server was over an order of magnitude cheaper than each Unix server, I suspect that they now have more of them at work. They should have been more specific about the cause of the speed increase.
No, they just need to find one sucker dumb enough to buy their "Internet Marketing Service". The sucker gets nothing but aggrivation, but by then the spammer already has his money.
You don't suppose that screwing up all the office equipment might have a slight impact on the light maker's sales?
It would be simpler to forget the whole "digital television" nonsense and sell off the frequencies it would have occupied for some more productive use.
Irrelevant. The pictures available now are considered good enough by 99% of the viewers. The small minority who want better pictures badly enough to pay for them can buy it on DVD or whatever.
In any case, a crystal-clear picture of moronic bilge is still a picture of moronic bilge.
I don't mean encryption (which has beneficial uses, including to undermine bad governments), I mean filtering technologies of the type being provided to China.
Frankly, the US government ought to add these filtering systems to the list of forbidden exports, since their only purpose is to aid governments in opposing our way of life.