Here in the U.S. internet telephony will probably take quite a while to catch on. Why? Because landline rates are cheap (at least compared to the rest of the world). Also, the quality of American landlines tends to be high, at least better than internet telephony.
Internet telephony may take awhile to catch on, but I get the exact same service as my former land line, plus 700 minutes free ld, plus the convenience of having my phone with me at all times, for the same price with my cell phone. I disconnected my land line almost a year ago and haven't regretted it in the slightest.
With these prices and increasingly better and widespread service, I can see more and more people do the same thing I have.
The term "Third World" didn't come about until the 1950s and has nothing to do with racism. Your claims are blatantly false, as even a tiny bit of research would've shown you.
Oh, and the "Second World" refers to the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact countries. As there is no longer a U.S.S.R. or a Warsaw Pact, there aren't any more "Second World" countries.
How many people have tried to unplug your land line and have just a cell phone. It sucks, even in areas where coverage is good.
I've done this and it doesn't suck at all. My coverage is great; I can make and take calls wherever I go. The quality of the line isn't that much different either.
But in a like manner, I'm far too addicted to the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty.", "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", Freedom of Speech, the 5th Amendment, and so on.
Though have you considered that you may be acting a bit paranoid? I mean, really, you seem to be (along with most of Carnivore's opponents) assuming the very worst, without any firm evidence to do so. How about giving things a chance before passing judgement?
The point is that there is no judicial review, which is required by the Fourth Amendment. To at least a few Americans, violations agains the Constitution - even if done with the best of intentions - are problematic.
Without judicial review the police can do whatever they like. And police are only human, no better or worse than the rest of us, and just as prone to mistakes and the presence of 'bad apples'.
No, first name really is Max. I can see why you might think otherwise, but if you could get further information on that account you'd also find that I live at 123 Happy Lane in the city of Oz.:-)
If someone breaks into your house, and you see them snooping around, do you want the FBI to have to get a warrant to go into your house? Or should they just get your permission?
Any law enforcement officer can enter your property without a warrant if they have sufficient cause to believe that a crime is in progress. No warrant is required for this, nor would any reasonable person expect it. Your example is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
To remind myself that I am not really anonymous. Slashdot knows who is making the posts, and as far as any real security, that means everyone knows
I used to do this too in the 'old days', until someone with a particular interest in my conversations garnered enough details on me to track me down in real life and show up at my front door. After this instance I began using 'trivial' obfuscation (my name is Max, but the last name ain't Public) to keep the loons from having an easy time of it.
At least with the police there's some vague expectation that they won't become immediately violent because they don't happen to like something that I said....
The web isn't your private property. Your site is, but by publishing it in a public place you have no basis in claim for trespassing.
If you don't like it then get off your lazy ass and make some trivial changes to how your web site is accessed. Referrals are only one way of doing this; I posted another earlier in the discussion (assuming you have the native wit to cgi your site).
The web is a public domain. You publish in a public domain and want to protect your content in from certain forms of linking (which is the *basis for the entire technology*) then it's up to *you* to take the appropriate measures. Whining about others not doing the job for you is inappropriate, not to mention an advertisement for gross technical imcompetence and a complete lack of understanding of how the web works.
I think *you* missed the point. Again, you're talking about copyright infringement which by your own admission has nothing to do with deep linking.
Your comments were entirely irrelevent to the article, or to any previous discussion on the article prior to your post. Not that this means much on slashdot, but if confusion results the blame is at least in part yours.
If you just want to make sure they're coming from some other page on your web site you could include a simple hidden variable on every generated page. If x == 1 then generate the new page, else redirect to an error page.
If the site is cgi'd rather than hard html all the way through this is trivial to set up.
If someone deep links to one of my pages that somehow screwed up navigation, and I asked them to redo the link elsewhere, I would expect them to either comply or remove the link.
You can prevent this yourself with a minimum of effort. Complaining that other people aren't doing the job for you is just sheer laziness.
If you can't figure out how to do this, then perhaps publishing your content in a public domain isn't for you.
Install some controls. It isn't rocket science. And if you can't figure out how to do it with the entire wealth of knowledge available in the web and usenet at your fingertips, then perhaps you shouldn't be publishing your material in a public domain to begin with.
Please, folks. This is not some nefarious Redmondian plot. It's simply a case of some middle-management MS trog going live with a website without running it by the legal department first. Had the MS legal eagles clapped eyes on this concoction before it debuted, there's no way that statement about "owning" licensed software ever would have seen the light of day.
The same thing could be said of most of the provisions of the majority of the EULAs out there. Yet the language, which would probably never hold up in court, is included anyway simply because most recipients won't have the money to make a challenge. This is considered to be a perfectly acceptable tactic in business.
If you think MS lawyers would nix this you're sadly mistaken. MS can't lose here; they can make threats if they find a pc 'not in compliance' during an audit, but then fall back on the defense that their guidelines were 'misinterpretated' if it came down to a court case.
After all, the wording is beautifully vague yet the implications of that wording point in one direction for anyone reading it; no middle-management schlock could write something so elegant. It has to be the work of a lawyer, adroitly skirting the edges of contract law.
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
Re-read the above sentence and tell me that to the average person this doesn't mean that Windows has to stay on the machine for so long as it's being used.
Explain to me how a school district - the folks who're going to be audited, not the donator - is going to have the balls to ignore this, knowing that MS will demand that they present the OS (CD, license) if they find a machine running Linux. You do know that MS will blame the district, not the donator, don't you? That's how things work in the real world.
Without a copy of the license and the CD MS will claim that the district is violating the license and must purchase additional copies of the OS. They're doing this to school districts already, a practice that has resulted in my own district hastily purchasing extra licenses of all MS software in preparation for the dreaded, 'inevitable' audit.
Districts don't have the time, money, or inclination to challenge MS no matter how ridiculous the guidelines. And why should they? If the federal government will fold in the face of Microsoft (no matter what the reason), what chance do they stand against the behemoth? And why would they try, since any win means no more 'freebies' from MS or it's partners ever again?
If you need any further proof of how a monopoly can adversely affect everyone, not just MS competitors, you have it right here.
The only way in which this requirement could possibly be a legal one is if it is a condition of the licence agreement under which either the PC or the OS (or both) was purchased.
And even so, this clearly isn't a legal requirement. Making such a claim stretches contract law beyond the provisions which can be upheld in court.
Although not a lawyer in this or any previous lifetime, I spent a good many years immersed in contract law (among other things) while employed for the government. There are provisions for reasonable expectations, among other things, and this claim by Microsoft simply doesn't meet them. At most Microsoft could claim (and even this probably wouldn't pass judicial muster) that an OEM version of their OS could only be used with the purchased computer; they could not, under any circumstances, require that the OS go with the computer if subsequently sold or donated. If the OEM/hardware tie were to be ruled legal by the court at some later date then what you'd end up with is a useless copy of the OS as you wouldn't be allowed to install it anywhere after you gave away the old PC - but that's it.
Microsoft doesn't make these absurd claims because they honestly believe they're legal. They make them because they know that it'll take a bucket of money to challenge them on it, money school districts (who're being audited and would have to provide the copy of the OS to 'prove' that it's in compliance) aren't willing to pay. Everyone could well be aware that the provision is ludicrous but MS would *still* try to enforce it and the defendent would *still* pay legal fees through the nose to fight it, as well as waste time and manpower. Given that our federal government has rolled over and presented both ass cheeks to Microsoft, it'd be silly for something as local and limited as a school district to make a challenge if MS demanded they buy additional licenses to comply with an audit.
Besides, school districts in many places are strapped for cash and rely on MS 'donations' - with all strings attached - to provide at least some hardware and software. Even if the district won the battle they know they'd never again get anything from Microsoft or any of it's partners. And there's a real fear that Microsoft would find some other way to punish them; they've done it to competitors and (from the district's point of view) there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't find a way to express their vindictiveness with a school district that gave them problems or embarrassed them publicly.
Remember, MS talks about the donator in their guidelines. But it's the audited school districts that'll have to come up with the 'proof' that the machine is in compliance, even if the compliance is a crock - and if the machine is running Linux and you have no copy of the OEM OS, you can bet MS'll throw a fit and blame the district, not the donator. The threat isn't against donations but whoever is receiving the donations.
For all of these reasons, if society thinks it can interfere with the property rights they gave you, then they in fact *can* interfere with those rights.
You can blather on all you like about how you and your neighbors have some mystical 'right' to tell me that for whatever reason (control? to make yourself feel powerful?) you can dictate to me whether or not I have a home security system.
But unless you find out about it - and you won't - there's not a damn thing you can do about it. *That's* reality. Object, wring your hands, issue pronouncements - it won't change anything.
And since there's no reasonable expectation of harm your claims of 'untolerable antisocial behavior' are a crock.
And I'll be in front of you in the line of folks asking for Canadian citizenship.
I'd be inclined to fight the good fight, as an American is supposed to do, if I thought my fellow countrymen would join me. But so far as I can tell, with a few exceptions they either don't care or actually approve of anything which limits freedom and moves the government that much closer to totalitarianism. There's not much you can do when the vast majority of folks think that 'freedom' is a dirty word.
You have no more right to demand not to use Microsoft
Sure I do. It's my government. I've every right to object to using proprietary products put out by a company known for its criminal activities. And I've every right to insist that my government use open source methods for implementing this scheme, if I so choose.
It's my tax dollars, son, and this is supposed to be a democracy, remember?
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the U.S. internet telephony will probably take quite a while to catch on. Why? Because landline rates are cheap (at least compared to the rest of the world). Also, the quality of American landlines tends to be high, at least better than internet telephony.
Internet telephony may take awhile to catch on, but I get the exact same service as my former land line, plus 700 minutes free ld, plus the convenience of having my phone with me at all times, for the same price with my cell phone. I disconnected my land line almost a year ago and haven't regretted it in the slightest.
With these prices and increasingly better and widespread service, I can see more and more people do the same thing I have.
Max
The term "Third World" didn't come about until the 1950s and has nothing to do with racism. Your claims are blatantly false, as even a tiny bit of research would've shown you.
Oh, and the "Second World" refers to the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact countries. As there is no longer a U.S.S.R. or a Warsaw Pact, there aren't any more "Second World" countries.
Max
How many people have tried to unplug your land line and have just a cell phone. It sucks, even in areas where coverage is good.
I've done this and it doesn't suck at all. My coverage is great; I can make and take calls wherever I go. The quality of the line isn't that much different either.
And no telemarketing calls.
I'm glad I dropped my land line for a cell.
Max
Watch me boggle at the thought of a tech department obsessed with the *color* of their machines....
Max
But in a like manner, I'm far too addicted to the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty.", "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", Freedom of Speech, the 5th Amendment, and so on.
What about "give me liberty or give me death"?
Max
Though have you considered that you may be acting a bit paranoid? I mean, really, you seem to be (along with most of Carnivore's opponents) assuming the very worst, without any firm evidence to do so. How about giving things a chance before passing judgement?
The point is that there is no judicial review, which is required by the Fourth Amendment. To at least a few Americans, violations agains the Constitution - even if done with the best of intentions - are problematic.
Without judicial review the police can do whatever they like. And police are only human, no better or worse than the rest of us, and just as prone to mistakes and the presence of 'bad apples'.
Max
No, first name really is Max. I can see why you might think otherwise, but if you could get further information on that account you'd also find that I live at 123 Happy Lane in the city of Oz. :-)
Max
If someone breaks into your house, and you see them snooping around, do you want the FBI to have to get a warrant to go into your house? Or should they just get your permission?
Any law enforcement officer can enter your property without a warrant if they have sufficient cause to believe that a crime is in progress. No warrant is required for this, nor would any reasonable person expect it. Your example is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Max
Of course they overstep their bounds sometimes
Which includes trivial things like the 2,000 illegal wiretaps the FBI made during the year 2000....
Max
To remind myself that I am not really anonymous. Slashdot knows who is making the posts, and as far as any real security, that means everyone knows
I used to do this too in the 'old days', until someone with a particular interest in my conversations garnered enough details on me to track me down in real life and show up at my front door. After this instance I began using 'trivial' obfuscation (my name is Max, but the last name ain't Public) to keep the loons from having an easy time of it.
At least with the police there's some vague expectation that they won't become immediately violent because they don't happen to like something that I said....
Max
The web isn't your private property. Your site is, but by publishing it in a public place you have no basis in claim for trespassing.
If you don't like it then get off your lazy ass and make some trivial changes to how your web site is accessed. Referrals are only one way of doing this; I posted another earlier in the discussion (assuming you have the native wit to cgi your site).
Max
Forget the analogy. It's irrelevant.
The web is a public domain. You publish in a public domain and want to protect your content in from certain forms of linking (which is the *basis for the entire technology*) then it's up to *you* to take the appropriate measures. Whining about others not doing the job for you is inappropriate, not to mention an advertisement for gross technical imcompetence and a complete lack of understanding of how the web works.
Max
I think *you* missed the point. Again, you're talking about copyright infringement which by your own admission has nothing to do with deep linking.
Your comments were entirely irrelevent to the article, or to any previous discussion on the article prior to your post. Not that this means much on slashdot, but if confusion results the blame is at least in part yours.
Max
You're talking about copyright infringement - people copying your stuff and misrepresenting as their own on their web sites.
This has *nothing* to do with the deep linking talked about in the article.
Max
If you just want to make sure they're coming from some other page on your web site you could include a simple hidden variable on every generated page. If x == 1 then generate the new page, else redirect to an error page.
If the site is cgi'd rather than hard html all the way through this is trivial to set up.
Max
If someone deep links to one of my pages that somehow screwed up navigation, and I asked them to redo the link elsewhere, I would expect them to either comply or remove the link.
You can prevent this yourself with a minimum of effort. Complaining that other people aren't doing the job for you is just sheer laziness.
If you can't figure out how to do this, then perhaps publishing your content in a public domain isn't for you.
Max
Install some controls. It isn't rocket science. And if you can't figure out how to do it with the entire wealth of knowledge available in the web and usenet at your fingertips, then perhaps you shouldn't be publishing your material in a public domain to begin with.
Max
Can the LoJack system be defeated with a bollix or 'noise generator'?
Max
Please, folks. This is not some nefarious Redmondian plot. It's simply a case of some middle-management MS trog going live with a website without running it by the legal department first. Had the MS legal eagles clapped eyes on this concoction before it debuted, there's no way that statement about "owning" licensed software ever would have seen the light of day.
The same thing could be said of most of the provisions of the majority of the EULAs out there. Yet the language, which would probably never hold up in court, is included anyway simply because most recipients won't have the money to make a challenge. This is considered to be a perfectly acceptable tactic in business.
If you think MS lawyers would nix this you're sadly mistaken. MS can't lose here; they can make threats if they find a pc 'not in compliance' during an audit, but then fall back on the defense that their guidelines were 'misinterpretated' if it came down to a court case.
After all, the wording is beautifully vague yet the implications of that wording point in one direction for anyone reading it; no middle-management schlock could write something so elegant. It has to be the work of a lawyer, adroitly skirting the edges of contract law.
Max
they are NOT forcing you to keep win on the box.
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
Re-read the above sentence and tell me that to the average person this doesn't mean that Windows has to stay on the machine for so long as it's being used.
Explain to me how a school district - the folks who're going to be audited, not the donator - is going to have the balls to ignore this, knowing that MS will demand that they present the OS (CD, license) if they find a machine running Linux. You do know that MS will blame the district, not the donator, don't you? That's how things work in the real world.
Without a copy of the license and the CD MS will claim that the district is violating the license and must purchase additional copies of the OS. They're doing this to school districts already, a practice that has resulted in my own district hastily purchasing extra licenses of all MS software in preparation for the dreaded, 'inevitable' audit.
Districts don't have the time, money, or inclination to challenge MS no matter how ridiculous the guidelines. And why should they? If the federal government will fold in the face of Microsoft (no matter what the reason), what chance do they stand against the behemoth? And why would they try, since any win means no more 'freebies' from MS or it's partners ever again?
If you need any further proof of how a monopoly can adversely affect everyone, not just MS competitors, you have it right here.
Max
The only way in which this requirement could possibly be a legal one is if it is a condition of the licence agreement under which either the PC or the OS (or both) was purchased.
And even so, this clearly isn't a legal requirement. Making such a claim stretches contract law beyond the provisions which can be upheld in court.
Although not a lawyer in this or any previous lifetime, I spent a good many years immersed in contract law (among other things) while employed for the government. There are provisions for reasonable expectations, among other things, and this claim by Microsoft simply doesn't meet them. At most Microsoft could claim (and even this probably wouldn't pass judicial muster) that an OEM version of their OS could only be used with the purchased computer; they could not, under any circumstances, require that the OS go with the computer if subsequently sold or donated. If the OEM/hardware tie were to be ruled legal by the court at some later date then what you'd end up with is a useless copy of the OS as you wouldn't be allowed to install it anywhere after you gave away the old PC - but that's it.
Microsoft doesn't make these absurd claims because they honestly believe they're legal. They make them because they know that it'll take a bucket of money to challenge them on it, money school districts (who're being audited and would have to provide the copy of the OS to 'prove' that it's in compliance) aren't willing to pay. Everyone could well be aware that the provision is ludicrous but MS would *still* try to enforce it and the defendent would *still* pay legal fees through the nose to fight it, as well as waste time and manpower. Given that our federal government has rolled over and presented both ass cheeks to Microsoft, it'd be silly for something as local and limited as a school district to make a challenge if MS demanded they buy additional licenses to comply with an audit.
Besides, school districts in many places are strapped for cash and rely on MS 'donations' - with all strings attached - to provide at least some hardware and software. Even if the district won the battle they know they'd never again get anything from Microsoft or any of it's partners. And there's a real fear that Microsoft would find some other way to punish them; they've done it to competitors and (from the district's point of view) there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't find a way to express their vindictiveness with a school district that gave them problems or embarrassed them publicly.
Remember, MS talks about the donator in their guidelines. But it's the audited school districts that'll have to come up with the 'proof' that the machine is in compliance, even if the compliance is a crock - and if the machine is running Linux and you have no copy of the OEM OS, you can bet MS'll throw a fit and blame the district, not the donator. The threat isn't against donations but whoever is receiving the donations.
Max
For all of these reasons, if society thinks it can interfere with the property rights they gave you, then they in fact *can* interfere with those rights.
You can blather on all you like about how you and your neighbors have some mystical 'right' to tell me that for whatever reason (control? to make yourself feel powerful?) you can dictate to me whether or not I have a home security system.
But unless you find out about it - and you won't - there's not a damn thing you can do about it. *That's* reality. Object, wring your hands, issue pronouncements - it won't change anything.
And since there's no reasonable expectation of harm your claims of 'untolerable antisocial behavior' are a crock.
Max
Expirements do tend towards success. Pavlov's is almost certainly irreversible.
Max
And I'll be in front of you in the line of folks asking for Canadian citizenship.
I'd be inclined to fight the good fight, as an American is supposed to do, if I thought my fellow countrymen would join me. But so far as I can tell, with a few exceptions they either don't care or actually approve of anything which limits freedom and moves the government that much closer to totalitarianism. There's not much you can do when the vast majority of folks think that 'freedom' is a dirty word.
Max
You have no more right to demand not to use Microsoft
Sure I do. It's my government. I've every right to object to using proprietary products put out by a company known for its criminal activities. And I've every right to insist that my government use open source methods for implementing this scheme, if I so choose.
It's my tax dollars, son, and this is supposed to be a democracy, remember?
Max