Anyone with any good photoshop skills care to take a whack at it? Just use the Gold Seal Flower emblem as your starting point if we can't find one for the DHS.
Maybe we can get SGI one too, so SCO can't sue them.
How many of these products will actually help prevent or counter terrorism? Not all, of course, but companies have an incentive to get questionable products through if they can: Certified products will enjoy protection from liability suits -- similar to the protection defense contractors get -- when they are purchased by the 22 federal agencies under DHS, or by other state and local employees fighting terrorism. Even better, lawyers say this good-homeland-keeping seal of approval should also provide at least some defense in private suits.
(Emphasis mine)
Let's hope this seal is huge and in an annoying color so we can all avoid it.
Somehow, I seriously doubt all of the products getting this seal will be quality and I'm under the belief that more than a few will be utter pieces of shit. I mean, they've got federal freedom from lawsuits. Why bother ensuring the product is safe?
Maybe its the pessimist in me. Maybe its the total lack of faith in our government agencies to do anything that makes sense (case-in-point: USPTO). Or, maybe I'm just being realistic.
Does anyone else get this feeling, or do I need to don a tinfoil hat to avoid getting these impressions?
Lucky I am Canadian...and pay that fee with my blank cds thats lets me more legally do that.
We all pay a fee on blank media as well as writers, which goes back to the record companies we just don't get the same legal 'right' Canadians do with P2P.
This was discussed in other RIAA/P2P threads here. Anyone got that info handy?
IANAL, but I believe that, as a minor, the legal guardian/parent is legally responsible for all laws that the child breaks and is legally responsible for restitution. This is how they can throw parents in jail when a kid is excessively truant.
Of couse, they don't jail the parents of kids who kill (but they should) rather they jail the kid.
You're missing the point. Your analogy doesn't really fit.
In your scenario, the insurance companies would be going to the car thieves themselves to get information on which cars are most likely to be stolen and then increasing the number of billboards or commercials for said vehicles, in an attempt to get car thieves to go legit.
What the RIAA is doing is scraping the lists to see whose stuff is getting "pirated" the most so they can increase marketing and airplay for that "artist" - thus making the case that there is actually a legitimate use for P2P -- something they've been campaigning against all along. So, if there's a legit use for it, this lessens the chance of P2P being outlawed completely.
I can see the RIAA coming back and saying 'Well, MIT says it was you. Cough up some dough. $2000 will do' and then leaving without so much as giving him a reach-around.
Personally, I hope that the RIAA tries to persue this guy and that MIT gets involved on his behalf. Let the two of them duke it out.
The stories published yesterday said these people a) paid for a service that we all know doesn't charge, b) the kid, who allegedly lives in low-income housing, is an honor student and either didn't know or couldn't figure out what was going on
Some points:
a) Some website somewhere might be scamming and selling KaZaA. Someone not that technical might not know the difference
b) She's 12, and may be technically naive. I'd hope not, but we have no way of knowing.
How do you serve papers to someone if you don't even know who they are?
Easy. There are lots of lawsuits where they group 'JOHN DOEs' together. You file a lawsuit, then start the process of investigating to find out who people are.
The RIAA might've contacted her ISP, who wasn't immediately forthcoming with the name. As such, they file suit and inform the ISP who in turn contacted the account holder. The mother calls some friends who tell her to go public. She does.
I smell a LFUD (Lies and FUD) campaign...
By who? The RIAA? I'd like to believe they utter morons, but I don't think even they'd be dumb enough to pull a stunt like this.
or some similarly-minded group should find this girl and ask her mother if she'd like to be the posterchild for the evils of the RIAA. (If not her, then some child model like they use in clothing ads). Offer to pick up the $2000 tab.
Picture this:
A crying girl, behind bars. In prison garb.
In 48pt font (or larger) over her head:
"This is the face of music piracy."
Blow the picture, in smaller type:
" In September of 2003, 12-year-old Brianna LaHara found out that she was a pirate. Brianna didn't know KaZaA shared her music by default, and her mother was forced to pay a settlement to the RIAA in the amount of $2000. Brianna, her mother and brother live in government-subsidized housing. " $2000 settlement so that the members of Metallica can afford that 12,000 sq ft mansion instead of the measly 9,000 sq ft one. $2000 settlement so that Britney Spears can afford another set of tits. $2000 settlement so that an industry so out-of-touch with its audience can continue to strong-arm copywrite protection down the throats of the American public. " Take time to contact the RIAA and voice your opinion on this matter."
And then list all known addresses and phone numbers for them.
Anyone?
Ok, it might be lame, but I've not had any coffee yet and its not even 7AM.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said
The key is the 'they listen to songs without recording them'. Now, I don't remember Kazaa offering streaming, but I could be wrong. I believe that you have the ability to play the media as its downloading and maybe this is what they're referring to.
Maybe what they're doing is downloading the song and using Kazaa as their media player, not realizing they're actually retaining a copy of the song and sharing (which is turned ON by default if memory serves me right). If this is the case, they're probably sharing quite a bit.
.. but where does one get a copy of the amnesty doc? We could start a campaign to send bogus docs to the RIAA (like the guy who sent SCO monopoly money) just to flood them with paperwork.
Print up some bogus Notary stamps (make it an obvious forgery) and just flood them with paperwork.
Use their own names, Darl McBride, Heywood Jablowme, Mike Hunt, every character from The Matrix and Office Space, etc.
You're a mental midget who missed the whole point, so I'll make it (more) crystal for you:
The RIAA wants to target P2P programs and lable them as purveyors of kiddie porn. All this will do is drive P2P users back to more isolated and exclusive trading schemes -- BBS', meet and greets, private FTPs, etc.
Once they shut down the P2P programs, I guess you'll have to go back to trolling the playgrounds to get your rocks off.
We'll all just resort to going back to IRC channels or setting up telnet-enabled BBS' and go 'old sk00l' on you. Or, barring that - just resort to installing some 56K modems and running WWIV or some other BBS without hooks into the 'net.
More likely than not, people will simply resort to participating in file- and song-trading parties like we used to in the 80s. Unless you're prepared to raid all the Incredible Flying Pizza Society locations (any Austinintes here?) or other places we're known to gather, how about you just sit back and have a nice cup of Shut the Fuck Up?
The sad thing is, Joe Q. Public will actually buy into the idea that P2P programs are stomping grounds for pedophiles. While there may be an isolated number of child porn traded over P2P (I've never run across any, but I'm not looking for it) I imagine this isn't the norm.
I've been right here, watching. What you refer to was just for select business systems. What about the average person buying a PC? Where is the option for no OS?
Well, thats not the question you initally asked.
Besides, buy a system and then sue to get the $ back for the OS you're not using.
Many times I have been sat at my desk and read something that is internally confidential to my company posted on an external web site... this is hugely damaging for the company and it's reputation. As a senior exec I would buy off on anything that allows me to keep my confidential information confidential.
Somehow, someway stuff will get leaked. Its inevitible. Whether it be by accident, carelessness or malice - it'll get leaked.
Sure, this'll slow it down. But how much do you want to bet that MS will offer MSDN users tools to break the docs? How long before some CEO or CIO forgets his/her password and needs to get into a protected doc?
It'll happen. And when it does, the info will make it out. This is simply a band-aid.
Every time you see someone using a pirated version of a Microsoft product in a system that helps maintain the lock-in, mailing you Word docs or similar, inform the Business Software Alliance.
And how do you know they're using pirated copies? Does the word document's headers contain anything special that says as much? No, it doesn't.
Like it or not, piracy is good for software vendors. The more people you have using it, the more mainstream it becomes.
After everyone's hooked, you move to a registration scheme similar to XP's (take Adobe for example -- the next version of PhotoShop).
Unless and until GPL applications with the same features (and ease-of-use) come along, people are going to stick to what they know. No GPL application will have an easy fight getting users of pirated software to convert. By the time the GPL program is out, the users are used to the other application's menu structure and use. Unless said application mirrors the pirated program exactly, people will resist changing.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. A new low, even for an AC.
Whatcha going to do? Reply to ALL my threads with points back to FoxNews?
I guess you took a break from your non-stop masturbation to Hansen photos long enough to post four replies.
Get a life.
I, for one, would like to see the seal.
I say we get Slashdot one.
Anyone with any good photoshop skills care to take a whack at it? Just use the Gold Seal Flower emblem as your starting point if we can't find one for the DHS.
Maybe we can get SGI one too, so SCO can't sue them.
From the article:
How many of these products will actually help prevent or counter terrorism? Not all, of course, but companies have an incentive to get questionable products through if they can: Certified products will enjoy protection from liability suits -- similar to the protection defense contractors get -- when they are purchased by the 22 federal agencies under DHS, or by other state and local employees fighting terrorism. Even better, lawyers say this good-homeland-keeping seal of approval should also provide at least some defense in private suits.
(Emphasis mine)
Let's hope this seal is huge and in an annoying color so we can all avoid it.
Somehow, I seriously doubt all of the products getting this seal will be quality and I'm under the belief that more than a few will be utter pieces of shit. I mean, they've got federal freedom from lawsuits. Why bother ensuring the product is safe?
Maybe its the pessimist in me. Maybe its the total lack of faith in our government agencies to do anything that makes sense (case-in-point: USPTO). Or, maybe I'm just being realistic.
Does anyone else get this feeling, or do I need to don a tinfoil hat to avoid getting these impressions?
Houston? I'm sorry. :-P
I live in Round Rock. Literally 5 min north of Austin.
Lucky I am Canadian...and pay that fee with my blank cds thats lets me more legally do that.
We all pay a fee on blank media as well as writers, which goes back to the record companies we just don't get the same legal 'right' Canadians do with P2P.
This was discussed in other RIAA/P2P threads here. Anyone got that info handy?
IANAL, but I believe that, as a minor, the legal guardian/parent is legally responsible for all laws that the child breaks and is legally responsible for restitution. This is how they can throw parents in jail when a kid is excessively truant.
Of couse, they don't jail the parents of kids who kill (but they should) rather they jail the kid.
You're missing the point. Your analogy doesn't really fit.
In your scenario, the insurance companies would be going to the car thieves themselves to get information on which cars are most likely to be stolen and then increasing the number of billboards or commercials for said vehicles, in an attempt to get car thieves to go legit.
What the RIAA is doing is scraping the lists to see whose stuff is getting "pirated" the most so they can increase marketing and airplay for that "artist" - thus making the case that there is actually a legitimate use for P2P -- something they've been campaigning against all along. So, if there's a legit use for it, this lessens the chance of P2P being outlawed completely.
I was being sarcastic.
I can see the RIAA coming back and saying 'Well, MIT says it was you. Cough up some dough. $2000 will do' and then leaving without so much as giving him a reach-around.
Personally, I hope that the RIAA tries to persue this guy and that MIT gets involved on his behalf. Let the two of them duke it out.
.. the RIAA settle this one for $2000.
Dude, you're evil. I like evil people.
Had I seen this last night, I'd have posted your link on Fark's "What have you done to someone in revenge" (or something like that) thread.
The stories published yesterday said these people a) paid for a service that we all know doesn't charge, b) the kid, who allegedly lives in low-income housing, is an honor student and either didn't know or couldn't figure out what was going on
Some points:
a) Some website somewhere might be scamming and selling KaZaA. Someone not that technical might not know the difference
b) She's 12, and may be technically naive. I'd hope not, but we have no way of knowing.
How do you serve papers to someone if you don't even know who they are?
Easy. There are lots of lawsuits where they group 'JOHN DOEs' together. You file a lawsuit, then start the process of investigating to find out who people are.
The RIAA might've contacted her ISP, who wasn't immediately forthcoming with the name. As such, they file suit and inform the ISP who in turn contacted the account holder. The mother calls some friends who tell her to go public. She does.
I smell a LFUD (Lies and FUD) campaign...
By who? The RIAA? I'd like to believe they utter morons, but I don't think even they'd be dumb enough to pull a stunt like this.
or some similarly-minded group should find this girl and ask her mother if she'd like to be the posterchild for the evils of the RIAA. (If not her, then some child model like they use in clothing ads). Offer to pick up the $2000 tab.
Picture this:
A crying girl, behind bars. In prison garb.
In 48pt font (or larger) over her head:
"This is the face of music piracy."
Blow the picture, in smaller type:
" In September of 2003, 12-year-old Brianna LaHara found out that she was a pirate. Brianna didn't know KaZaA shared her music by default, and her mother was forced to pay a settlement to the RIAA in the amount of $2000. Brianna, her mother and brother live in government-subsidized housing.
" $2000 settlement so that the members of Metallica can afford that 12,000 sq ft mansion instead of the measly 9,000 sq ft one. $2000 settlement so that Britney Spears can afford another set of tits. $2000 settlement so that an industry so out-of-touch with its audience can continue to strong-arm copywrite protection down the throats of the American public.
" Take time to contact the RIAA and voice your opinion on this matter."
And then list all known addresses and phone numbers for them.
Anyone?
Ok, it might be lame, but I've not had any coffee yet and its not even 7AM.
I believe they were actually using the term 'gremlin' as opposed to bugs at that time.
4 846982/qid=1063131131/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-214539 9-3462502?v=glance&s=books.
Besides, according to Amazon, the earlist publication date (that I could find) was from 1953:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039
Product Details
Library Binding: 186 pages
Publisher: Random Library; (September 1953)
ASIN: 0394846982
But that's not how I read it:
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said
The key is the 'they listen to songs without recording them'. Now, I don't remember Kazaa offering streaming, but I could be wrong. I believe that you have the ability to play the media as its downloading and maybe this is what they're referring to.
Maybe what they're doing is downloading the song and using Kazaa as their media player, not realizing they're actually retaining a copy of the song and sharing (which is turned ON by default if memory serves me right). If this is the case, they're probably sharing quite a bit.
Her parents should have known better than to let her collect thousands of mp3s she doesnt have rights too.
Quoth the article:
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said
So, I guess the RIAA lied when they said they were only targeting users who shared a substantial amount of music files.
That, or the mom's lying. Who are you prepared to believe?
.. but where does one get a copy of the amnesty doc? We could start a campaign to send bogus docs to the RIAA (like the guy who sent SCO monopoly money) just to flood them with paperwork.
Print up some bogus Notary stamps (make it an obvious forgery) and just flood them with paperwork.
Use their own names, Darl McBride, Heywood Jablowme, Mike Hunt, every character from The Matrix and Office Space, etc.
Anyone?
And I say to you:
Have a healthy cup of Shut the Fuck Up.
You're a mental midget who missed the whole point, so I'll make it (more) crystal for you:
The RIAA wants to target P2P programs and lable them as purveyors of kiddie porn. All this will do is drive P2P users back to more isolated and exclusive trading schemes -- BBS', meet and greets, private FTPs, etc.
Once they shut down the P2P programs, I guess you'll have to go back to trolling the playgrounds to get your rocks off.
We'll all just resort to going back to IRC channels or setting up telnet-enabled BBS' and go 'old sk00l' on you. Or, barring that - just resort to installing some 56K modems and running WWIV or some other BBS without hooks into the 'net.
More likely than not, people will simply resort to participating in file- and song-trading parties like we used to in the 80s. Unless you're prepared to raid all the Incredible Flying Pizza Society locations (any Austinintes here?) or other places we're known to gather, how about you just sit back and have a nice cup of Shut the Fuck Up?
The sad thing is, Joe Q. Public will actually buy into the idea that P2P programs are stomping grounds for pedophiles. While there may be an isolated number of child porn traded over P2P (I've never run across any, but I'm not looking for it) I imagine this isn't the norm.
I've been right here, watching. What you refer to was just for select business systems. What about the average person buying a PC?
Where is the option for no OS?
Well, thats not the question you initally asked.
Besides, buy a system and then sue to get the $ back for the OS you're not using.
Exactly. Then they should be required to offer systems with no OS (without having to pay the OEM fees to MS either).
4 &mode=thread&tid=109.
They already do.
See also:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/14/13624
Where've you been?
Many times I have been sat at my desk and read something that is internally confidential to my company posted on an external web site... this is hugely damaging for the company and it's reputation. As a senior exec I would buy off on anything that allows me to keep my confidential information confidential.
Somehow, someway stuff will get leaked. Its inevitible. Whether it be by accident, carelessness or malice - it'll get leaked.
Sure, this'll slow it down. But how much do you want to bet that MS will offer MSDN users tools to break the docs? How long before some CEO or CIO forgets his/her password and needs to get into a protected doc?
It'll happen. And when it does, the info will make it out. This is simply a band-aid.
Every time you see someone using a pirated version of a Microsoft product in a system that helps maintain the lock-in, mailing you Word docs or similar, inform the Business Software Alliance.
And how do you know they're using pirated copies? Does the word document's headers contain anything special that says as much? No, it doesn't.
Like it or not, piracy is good for software vendors. The more people you have using it, the more mainstream it becomes.
After everyone's hooked, you move to a registration scheme similar to XP's (take Adobe for example -- the next version of PhotoShop).
Unless and until GPL applications with the same features (and ease-of-use) come along, people are going to stick to what they know. No GPL application will have an easy fight getting users of pirated software to convert. By the time the GPL program is out, the users are used to the other application's menu structure and use. Unless said application mirrors the pirated program exactly, people will resist changing.
No, shithead. **MY** labs don't bite.
You're not taking into account that some systems sit in boxes in the warehouse or in transit when some updates are released.
I would find it hard to believe that the OP's father's box was devoid of any fix.
What's the issue with it? What's it doing/not doing?