Intel persued this for one reason, and one reason only - they did not like what he had to say. From what I read, it seems that the content of his messages were Intel employment practices and employee rights. Under California labor laws he may (or may not) have had a protected right to send the E-mails.
Wrong. The original injunction only was aimed at preventing him from using their servers. Intel was not stressing some "shut up NDA" thingy that prevented him from talking about it at all.
Picture your phone company said "we do not consent to carry any message critical of us"
That's different for many reasons
1. You pay for the phone service 2. Its regulated by the government 3. Its actually illegal in many countries to provide sub-par telephone service over land-lines.
If you read all the material Intel tried to filter out Hamidi originally. Only when he bypassed their filters did they seek a state injunction to barr him from using their servers.
Hamidi is not paying for the intel servers, nor is Intel a government agency. And believe it or not its not illegal to barr a citizen from talking to a private citizen [re: restraining order].
Hamidi has no explicit right to use their servers at all. The right is implied, however, when Intel asked him to leave them alone the implicit rights vanish.
You seem to think Intel just sat on this then went to court right away. That's not the case. Intel did try to filter out his posts originally.
Also you seem to forget this sole fact. THE INJUNCTION IS FOR INTEL SERVERS ONLY!
Holy shit get that through your head. The judges said nothing about his freedom of speech. They are only legally banning him from using PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Tell ya what. Please tell me your home address. I will pay you a visit every day and night just for kicks. When you ask me to leave I will come more often. Then when you get a restraining order I will cry "1st Admendment!".
Some people comment on the volume of data. Intel's systems were designed to handle volumes of data. They were not in any way burdened.
Does it matter if they are burdened at all? Intel asked him to stop. He didn't. While the "chattel" law may be inappropriate [I actually don't know either way] its not upto Hamidi whether he can use the Intel servers.
Hamidi did have an out and he's still pressing it.
Again I will repeat myself. The judgement is not to shut Hamidi up, its to stop him from using Intel servers. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Nobody is saying Hamidi isn't allowed to express his hate for Intel. The judgement is just to stop him from using private property.
Stop trying to see a cause in this. Whats the worse thing that could happen? If the judgement is carried through in the end only Hamidi is barred from using Intel servers. He can still host his crap anywhere and get TV spots, etc...
That's a bit different. Customers have certain rights to file grievences [sp?]. I mean if I buy a lawn mower from Walmart and it runs too slowly I should be able to come back and bitch [ask for replacement/refund/etc].
Hamidi is some bitch ass know nothing lame excuse for a cause ex-employee who is probably getting smashed everyday because he feels sorry for himself.
Fired employees really have no rights to spam their former employer.
As the submitter stated, there was little if any monitary loss by Intel. If Intel would like to sue for money, then they should be required to list each individual item and the amount of each ($.10 electricity, $1.00 hard drive space, $2.00 bandwidth, etc) and make them reasonable. In contrast to Sun suing Mitnick for millions when he had source code that was available for $100.
Why? Intel asked him to stop before this began. They tried to avoid a big deal in court. Hamidi wouldn't listen. A good million or two in damages should shut the fucking bastard up.
Sending emails is not trespass. they have an email server -- they connect it to the internet -- they want to recieve emails. this guy sent emails, end of story. he had no intent to cause harm and he didn't do so.
Hmm? Your logic escapes me. Is everything connected to the internet public property now?
I mean your house is on a public road. Is that now public property too?
Just because Intel is connected to the internet doesn't give *ANYONE* the right to use their servers. Visiting intel.ca is a privilege not a right.
Christ people, if you are gonna be rights advocates LEARN YOUR BLOODY RIGHTS FIRST!
So, the issue becomes whether we think that free speach include the right to send email critizing a company using their mail servers, and if so how that is different from allowing spammers to send solicitations on my mail server when I don't want them to.
This isn't a free speech issue. Those are intel servers not his. Its like me running up to the house of a Jewish person and saying over and over "I hate jews, stupid cheap bastards!".
The computers he accessed belong to Intel not him. If Intel doesn't want him using their system they should have every right to stop him within the bounds of the law.
Note that the law in question is not that of the ability for Hamidi to share his thoughts, just he can't share them by using Intel servers. There is nothing stopping him from setting up a website or buying air time on a local TV station.
Note also we don't know *why* Hamidi was fired/laid off. Maybe he's a drunk with a cause?
Look at the gaming market. The GBA [cute 16mhz ARM device] is gonna stick at 16Mhz [until the N reads my mind and sticks more ram in it and bumps the clock to 32Mhz....:-)].
Not for a long while. Error-free Voice Recognition? Artificial Intelligence? Robots? Cars that don't need drivers?
We need Terahertz processors.
Or just efficient cores. I mean you could in theory have a 500Mhz processor get more performance than a 1500Mhz processor. Its all about the architecture.
Not only that but alot of the ideas you listed are limited by good algorithms too. I mean AI doesn't really need a 1Thz processor it just needs loads of ram and proper cellular automata designs:-)
What the heck do you want? No shit MS isn't going to advertise Linux on their websites. Fuck thats like expecting Ford to advertise for GM in their commercials.
Are you some kind of moron?
My point was that you could even use the MS search engine to find linux related [OSS/GPL] software. Besides if a troll doesn't even know of "linux" then they are probably not smart enough to setup/use it anyways!
Re:If you examine the Judges Original ruling
on
2600 Appeal Rejected
·
· Score: 1
Actually I encode at 320x240x29.97fps and it does indeed look very good. Sure if you look upclose you can see the gibbs phenonemen but text/high freq stuff still comes up good.
At 1.2Mbps MPEG-1 video is suppose to be around TV quality [TV broadcast is 1.5Mbps IIRC].
Anyways, I am not a videophile. As long as the image is smooth enough [at say 5ft] and I can read the text its all good.
Tom
Re:If you examine the Judges Original ruling
on
2600 Appeal Rejected
·
· Score: 1
People shouldn't pirate movies, but it somebody wants to rip their own DVDs and put'em on their HD, transcode them to MPEG4 for size efficiency, and stream them off of a box running an OS of their choice;
NOBODY, and I repeat, NOBODY should have the right to stop a person from doing that.
If it is within the sanctity of a person's own home and they are NOT harming ANYBODY AT ALL;
Once again this is an issue of actually figuring out what is what.
When you buy a DVD you are buying a license to view the movie, not own the data on the disc. Or something like that.
Yeah, in a perfect world you should be able todo that. And personally if you want to I think its ok.
What pisses me off are these uber-cool l33t-h4x0rz that waste tons of school bandwidth to pirate 15fps 11khz audio crappy movies. Fuck, go buy a DVD, or do what I do
1. Walk to blockbuster 2. Rent movie for 5 bucks 3. Watch DVD 4. Copy DVD 5. Encode to two CDs [MPEG-1 at around 1.2Mbps] 6. Return DVD
For around 8$ I have a virtually perfect rip [on two CDs] and I don't have to waste tons of bandwidth.
The biggest threat against the Windows monopoly is not the presence of a technically superior operating system. The biggest threat to the Windows monopoly, is widespread awareness that an alternative *exists* at all.
Ever notice that alot of these pro-lifers [or anti-choice] people are the same who eat meat, live in buildings and otherwise displace millions of other lifeforms for their own comfort.
Its interesting that the lifes they choose to protect are only the unborn fetuses of unwilling parents.
Why don't they spend their energy helping parents who want kids but can't afford things like child care, food, clothing!
Oh thats right, self-righteousness on the part of some christian bible-thumper. I'll let you in on a secret, the bible is just a fairy tale made to a) control the mass and b) comfort irrational fears.
I say down with the website, more space on the web for something productive now.
I say lets solve some earthly problems. Sure the technology coming out of this will be cool but alot of it is just "tons of money to build esoteric specialty equipment".
I'd rather see the money spent on say, I dunno, shaping up jobs or school. I mean sure you can't invest all in school [what is an educated person todo?] but spending billions on sending 3 people to Mars is probably a lot less useful then say funding ~10k valid research grants ort using the money to invest in businesses that are struggling to make meet ends-odds.
Or how about use the money to fix up branches of the government like the UPSO:-)
I wouldn't always equate moral with legal if I were you. Downloading and then buying doesn't hurt anyone, it actually helps both parties. Yes it is illegal, but I dont' recommend always following the law of the land blindly.
The road to hell is paved with...
If you disagree with the laws of the land, change them. Don't just break them then stand up proud saying "I meant well!".
The reason a civilized society follows laws is because normally it takes a concensus to form laws. That means more then person must be involved.
Sure some laws may be found inappropriate [dmca, slavery] but just breaking the law because you want to is wrong.
Put it this way. What if I think all of a sudden that fat people shouldn't own food, so as a favour to them I rob them of all their food in their homes. Even if my intentions are noble who am I to randomly make up a "law" and follow it?
Downloading copyrighted music, even if your intentions are honourable [e.g. you will buy or delete it] doesn't mean its legal.
And I don't think anyone is disagreeing that your way of business is more efficient/practical but that doesn't make it right. I personally don't believe in income tax, but that doesn't mean I can't skip paying it.
From what I could gather, it seemed that 90% of its users were only interested in getting MP3's of songs they didn't want to pay for. There were some who would use it to listen to a song to evalutate whether they wanted to buy a CD, but they were the minority.
I love the last bit the best. Um, even if you are going to buy the CD you have no right to infringe copyright. Thats like downing a 1L of pepsi just to "test the market" first. Same goes for those pirate-game-but-only-for-24-hours-then-delete people. Copying game even for 10 mins is illegal in most countries. Just because you plan on buying a copy in no way makes that ok.
Thats what radio is for. If you want to here what is new tune into your local radio station. They at least [probably] legitimately have copies!
Or perhaps you should just stop being so... generic?
Saying napster had legitimate uses? Such as what? It only indexed music.
If I want to look for a good non-signed local band I certainly wouldn't use P2P. Those stupid "it helps the little guy" excuses are the masses way of justifying downloading 10GB worth of RIAA music.
If Napster was truly altruistic they would have banned IPs from those who sent/got copyrighted material. Instead they let it go for years before being slapped around.
holy crap/. editors get one simple fact through your thick fucking skulls.
What a private company does on their own network is not a "YRO" story. Its a breach of contract if anything at all. The only right here in question is the right to sue the bastards for putting the filter on the network if it violates their contract with the customers [hint; it probably doesn't so suck it up!]
Slashdot Mirror
Intel persued this for one reason, and one reason only - they did not like what he had to say. From what I read, it seems that the content of his messages were Intel employment practices and employee rights. Under California labor laws he may (or may not) have had a protected right to send the E-mails.
Wrong. The original injunction only was aimed at preventing him from using their servers. Intel was not stressing some "shut up NDA" thingy that prevented him from talking about it at all.
Picture your phone company said "we do not consent to carry any message critical of us"
That's different for many reasons
1. You pay for the phone service
2. Its regulated by the government
3. Its actually illegal in many countries to provide sub-par telephone service over land-lines.
If you read all the material Intel tried to filter out Hamidi originally. Only when he bypassed their filters did they seek a state injunction to barr him from using their servers.
Hamidi is not paying for the intel servers, nor is Intel a government agency. And believe it or not its not illegal to barr a citizen from talking to a private citizen [re: restraining order].
Hamidi has no explicit right to use their servers at all. The right is implied, however, when Intel asked him to leave them alone the implicit rights vanish.
You seem to think Intel just sat on this then went to court right away. That's not the case. Intel did try to filter out his posts originally.
Also you seem to forget this sole fact. THE INJUNCTION IS FOR INTEL SERVERS ONLY!
Holy shit get that through your head. The judges said nothing about his freedom of speech. They are only legally banning him from using PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Tell ya what. Please tell me your home address. I will pay you a visit every day and night just for kicks. When you ask me to leave I will come more often. Then when you get a restraining order I will cry "1st Admendment!".
Tom
Read it, still disagree. For instance,
Some people comment on the volume of data. Intel's systems were designed to handle volumes of data. They were not in any way burdened.
Does it matter if they are burdened at all? Intel asked him to stop. He didn't. While the "chattel" law may be inappropriate [I actually don't know either way] its not upto Hamidi whether he can use the Intel servers.
Hamidi did have an out and he's still pressing it.
Again I will repeat myself. The judgement is not to shut Hamidi up, its to stop him from using Intel servers. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Nobody is saying Hamidi isn't allowed to express his hate for Intel. The judgement is just to stop him from using private property.
Stop trying to see a cause in this. Whats the worse thing that could happen? If the judgement is carried through in the end only Hamidi is barred from using Intel servers. He can still host his crap anywhere and get TV spots, etc...
Tom
Yes, million dollar fines are a useful and effective tool for censorship. If the ruling stands it will be widely applied on the internet.
As it should. Should anyone be able to bombard your server with requests/posts/emails/etc...?
Intel provides access to the outside web as a courtesy not as a "do what you want!"
And this is not even censorship. Hamidi is allowed to express his ideas. He just can't use the intel email server todo so.
Is that really hard to understand?
Tom
Here's the trick.
Get a GBA and then head to www.lik-sang.com and get flash cart/linker set.
Hmm, piracy...
Actually I put PocketNES on my GBA since its way more fun than have of the clone stupid side scroller GBA games.
Tom
That's a bit different. Customers have certain rights to file grievences [sp?]. I mean if I buy a lawn mower from Walmart and it runs too slowly I should be able to come back and bitch [ask for replacement/refund/etc].
Hamidi is some bitch ass know nothing lame excuse for a cause ex-employee who is probably getting smashed everyday because he feels sorry for himself.
Fired employees really have no rights to spam their former employer.
Tom
As the submitter stated, there was little if any monitary loss by Intel. If Intel would like to sue for money, then they should be required to list each individual item and the amount of each ($.10 electricity, $1.00 hard drive space, $2.00 bandwidth, etc) and make them reasonable. In contrast to Sun suing Mitnick for millions when he had source code that was available for $100.
Why? Intel asked him to stop before this began. They tried to avoid a big deal in court. Hamidi wouldn't listen. A good million or two in damages should shut the fucking bastard up.
Tom
Sending emails is not trespass. they have an email server -- they connect it to the internet -- they want to recieve emails. this guy sent emails, end of story. he had no intent to cause harm and he didn't do so.
Hmm? Your logic escapes me. Is everything connected to the internet public property now?
I mean your house is on a public road. Is that now public property too?
Just because Intel is connected to the internet doesn't give *ANYONE* the right to use their servers. Visiting intel.ca is a privilege not a right.
Christ people, if you are gonna be rights advocates LEARN YOUR BLOODY RIGHTS FIRST!
So, the issue becomes whether we think that free speach include the right to send email critizing a company using their mail servers, and if so how that is different from allowing spammers to send solicitations on my mail server when I don't want them to.
This isn't a free speech issue. Those are intel servers not his. Its like me running up to the house of a Jewish person and saying over and over "I hate jews, stupid cheap bastards!".
The computers he accessed belong to Intel not him. If Intel doesn't want him using their system they should have every right to stop him within the bounds of the law.
Note that the law in question is not that of the ability for Hamidi to share his thoughts, just he can't share them by using Intel servers. There is nothing stopping him from setting up a website or buying air time on a local TV station.
Note also we don't know *why* Hamidi was fired/laid off. Maybe he's a drunk with a cause?
Tom
Look at the gaming market. The GBA [cute 16mhz ARM device] is gonna stick at 16Mhz [until the N reads my mind and sticks more ram in it and bumps the clock to 32Mhz.... :-)].
People still buy games for the GBA regardless.
Tom
Not for a long while. Error-free Voice Recognition? Artificial Intelligence? Robots? Cars that don't need drivers?
:-)
We need Terahertz processors.
Or just efficient cores. I mean you could in theory have a 500Mhz processor get more performance than a 1500Mhz processor. Its all about the architecture.
Not only that but alot of the ideas you listed are limited by good algorithms too. I mean AI doesn't really need a 1Thz processor it just needs loads of ram and proper cellular automata designs
Tom
Sure it will hinder development of newer transistors but I'm certain quake3 will still run on my 1.53Ghz athlon :-)
The world won't stop spinning just because intel can't crank out a 24Ghz Pentium 84.
Tom
It cost money not to be spammed/harassed?
Wow what a market. Kinda reminds me of the mob protection schemes....
Tom
What the heck do you want? No shit MS isn't going to advertise Linux on their websites. Fuck thats like expecting Ford to advertise for GM in their commercials.
Are you some kind of moron?
My point was that you could even use the MS search engine to find linux related [OSS/GPL] software. Besides if a troll doesn't even know of "linux" then they are probably not smart enough to setup/use it anyways!
But just for S&G's try this link
surprise!
Tom
Actually I encode at 320x240x29.97fps and it does indeed look very good. Sure if you look upclose you can see the gibbs phenonemen but text/high freq stuff still comes up good.
At 1.2Mbps MPEG-1 video is suppose to be around TV quality [TV broadcast is 1.5Mbps IIRC].
Anyways, I am not a videophile. As long as the image is smooth enough [at say 5ft] and I can read the text its all good.
Tom
People shouldn't pirate movies, but it somebody wants to rip their own DVDs and put'em on their HD, transcode them to MPEG4 for size efficiency, and stream them off of a box running an OS of their choice;
NOBODY, and I repeat, NOBODY should have the right to stop a person from doing that.
If it is within the sanctity of a person's own home and they are NOT harming ANYBODY AT ALL;
Once again this is an issue of actually figuring out what is what.
When you buy a DVD you are buying a license to view the movie, not own the data on the disc. Or something like that.
Yeah, in a perfect world you should be able todo that. And personally if you want to I think its ok.
What pisses me off are these uber-cool l33t-h4x0rz that waste tons of school bandwidth to pirate 15fps 11khz audio crappy movies. Fuck, go buy a DVD, or do what I do
1. Walk to blockbuster
2. Rent movie for 5 bucks
3. Watch DVD
4. Copy DVD
5. Encode to two CDs [MPEG-1 at around 1.2Mbps]
6. Return DVD
For around 8$ I have a virtually perfect rip [on two CDs] and I don't have to waste tons of bandwidth.
Tom
The biggest threat against the Windows monopoly is not the presence of a technically superior operating system. The biggest threat to the Windows monopoly, is widespread awareness that an alternative *exists* at all.
Oh really?
check this
Stupid linux-uber user....
Ever notice that alot of these pro-lifers [or anti-choice] people are the same who eat meat, live in buildings and otherwise displace millions of other lifeforms for their own comfort.
Its interesting that the lifes they choose to protect are only the unborn fetuses of unwilling parents.
Why don't they spend their energy helping parents who want kids but can't afford things like child care, food, clothing!
Oh thats right, self-righteousness on the part of some christian bible-thumper. I'll let you in on a secret, the bible is just a fairy tale made to a) control the mass and b) comfort irrational fears.
I say down with the website, more space on the web for something productive now.
Tom
I say lets solve some earthly problems. Sure the technology coming out of this will be cool but alot of it is just "tons of money to build esoteric specialty equipment".
:-)
I'd rather see the money spent on say, I dunno, shaping up jobs or school. I mean sure you can't invest all in school [what is an educated person todo?] but spending billions on sending 3 people to Mars is probably a lot less useful then say funding ~10k valid research grants ort using the money to invest in businesses that are struggling to make meet ends-odds.
Or how about use the money to fix up branches of the government like the UPSO
Or how about donating all the money to Canada?
Tom
Hehehe, wow, that trailer sucked ass bigtime. I mean I could make a better trailer half tied to the outside of a speeding train.
w00t w00t!
Tom
shhh.... you've let out their secret...
[insert picture of big pile of NASA money with the chair dancing around it throwing money into the air...]
Tom
I wouldn't always equate moral with legal if I were you. Downloading and then buying doesn't hurt anyone, it actually helps both parties. Yes it is illegal, but I dont' recommend always following the law of the land blindly.
...
The road to hell is paved with
If you disagree with the laws of the land, change them. Don't just break them then stand up proud saying "I meant well!".
The reason a civilized society follows laws is because normally it takes a concensus to form laws. That means more then person must be involved.
Sure some laws may be found inappropriate [dmca, slavery] but just breaking the law because you want to is wrong.
Put it this way. What if I think all of a sudden that fat people shouldn't own food, so as a favour to them I rob them of all their food in their homes. Even if my intentions are noble who am I to randomly make up a "law" and follow it?
Downloading copyrighted music, even if your intentions are honourable [e.g. you will buy or delete it] doesn't mean its legal.
And I don't think anyone is disagreeing that your way of business is more efficient/practical but that doesn't make it right. I personally don't believe in income tax, but that doesn't mean I can't skip paying it.
Tom
From what I could gather, it seemed that 90% of its users were only interested in getting MP3's of songs they didn't want to pay for. There were some who would use it to listen to a song to evalutate whether they wanted to buy a CD, but they were the minority.
I love the last bit the best. Um, even if you are going to buy the CD you have no right to infringe copyright. Thats like downing a 1L of pepsi just to "test the market" first. Same goes for those pirate-game-but-only-for-24-hours-then-delete people. Copying game even for 10 mins is illegal in most countries. Just because you plan on buying a copy in no way makes that ok.
Thats what radio is for. If you want to here what is new tune into your local radio station. They at least [probably] legitimately have copies!
Tom
Or perhaps you should just stop being so... generic?
Saying napster had legitimate uses? Such as what? It only indexed music.
If I want to look for a good non-signed local band I certainly wouldn't use P2P. Those stupid "it helps the little guy" excuses are the masses way of justifying downloading 10GB worth of RIAA music.
If Napster was truly altruistic they would have banned IPs from those who sent/got copyrighted material. Instead they let it go for years before being slapped around.
Tom
Lets see.
Leaders of the worlds largest pirate network are resigning [hopefully to go find a real job....] big deal.
Tom
holy crap /. editors get one simple fact through your thick fucking skulls.
What a private company does on their own network is not a "YRO" story. Its a breach of contract if anything at all. The only right here in question is the right to sue the bastards for putting the filter on the network if it violates their contract with the customers [hint; it probably doesn't so suck it up!]
Tom