Justice Dept. in the proposed legislation, copyright holders would be required to get approval from the DOJ somehow. They would have to detail who, why, when, and how. Taking action w/o getting approval or acting despite rejection can result in prosecution under normal computer fraud/abuse laws. Hopefully, the DOJ wont make the approval process a rubber-stamping operation.
..is a quick telling of why this would cause problems for even what the RIAA calls "law abiding netziens." The RIAA/MPAA claim that "law abiding" people wont be affected by the proposed legislation.
In actuality, if the RIAA were to launch a DoS attack against a P2P node, other nearby nodes (eg, cable modems) would also become affected from the influx of incoming traffic against that node. The reason for this is because of how computer networks work and operate.
When writing to your congressman, include this tidbit of info and why that it is the case. Include a short discussion of why it's the case in terms they will understand. Analogies work great for things like this.
that's not how iris scanning works. you still stand in front of something and have a scan done, but you dont put your eye up to the scanner like you would a telescope. However, there is an eye scan that does require placing yourself up to the machine where what you describe could happen, but at the moment i cant recall what scan that is. Unfortunately, someone might say that the chances of a disease transmission happening on an eye scanner or pay-per-peek machines are the same as diseases transmitted over public toilets. (IOW, very low)
while that's true, the publisher either holds a right to use the TM (granted by the owner), or the actual owner of the TM considers it good promotion of their TM, where taking action would be counter-productive to their own product.
give us a while to get to use google news. it was just introduced three days ago. we're not all used to it, we're still feeling it out, we're still seeing if it suits our needs, etc. in other words, it's pre-mature to start asking questions like "how has it changed your surfing habits?"
if you want to know for sure, try asking again in a month or two. people by then will have formed more solid opinions and habits of the site to get a more authoritative answer.
it's mostly been a matter of perception. Motorola chips have always been more effencient - meaning similar or equal performance at lower clock speeds (a 500 MHz G4 feels the same as a 1 GHz Pent III), less power draw, less heat generated, etc.
Apple's marketing of the chips has been a big factor. Intel has successfully convinced the general public that the only thing to look for in a CPU is how fast the clock speed is. There was supposed to be this big campaign of "MHz isn't everything" by Apple, but it was just hot air (iow, it never got off the ground). Effiency has it's costs - Motorola's chips cost more than Intel, and then appear slower because of Intel's big focus on the clock speed. This is why AMD abandoned the use of clock speed as the big feature in their ads.
Looks like Apple's best marketing approach is "switch", which focuses on the software side of things, something that's probably much easier to pull off.
try a look at NetBeans. Opensource'd under the Sun Public License, cross platform IDE that's written in Java and works quite well. Works for 1.3 or better.
that's definitely true. what could probably end up happening is something like this: the state could ask for pre-emptive judgement on all future and currently unknown sites, taking the court out of the case for all future cases. assuming judge agrees, when those sites become known, state informs ISPs of new blacklisted sites, ISPs then block them voluntarily or contest them in court. The judge would then decide if a particular site belongs on the list or not.
Or, the state could ask for direct control of the blacklist, though I think the ISP would balk very loudly at that, as it opens the door for the state to toss in any site it chooses. For example, the PA AG is running for governer. He could just "accidently" blacklist sites that promote his opponent. If the ISPs had oppurtunity to contest new entries, possible incidents like that would quickly become known and blocked by a judge.
You are most correct though: It doesnt take much to change a DNS name or an IP address. It becomes a cat and mouse type game, or what anti-spammers call whack-a-mole when it comes to finding open relays.
as far the poster implying that this is a national thing, he's wrong. The ruling only applies to WorldCom/UUNet within PA. Basically, for PA customers, they have to block the sites, but outside PA, they can do as they please (for so long until other states pass similar laws, or the feds do)
For example, I'm in PA. I dont think UUnet is at the backbone of my school's ISP, but if they are, I could not reach the blacklisted sites. OTOH, visit a friend outside the state, and can reach those sites (assuming similar legislation is not in effect there too). (disclaimer: This does not imply that I would want to be looking a kiddie pron)
the problem is that MS (as part of the deal) was to start operating as if the deal were approved right from the get-go, and not wait for the judge's seal of approval.
This could be used show the judge that the deal proposed is not sufficient in controlling MS's behavior.
oops, about the VC -- it may not be necessary. If you back out, the VC may notice and not provide, and/or your client may not consider the VC being as they are suddenly not ready for them.
approach them again about the arrangements and payment. ensure that they aren't missing something. if they continue refusal, simply back out. If they dont hold up their side of the deal, you're under no obligation to either.
But before you do anything: Talk to a lawyer! Most slashdoterrs ANL. (and IANAL)
If at any point you consider a lawsuit, gather evidence to show that you delivered the agreed services (preferably, before backing out). Even your own backup tapes could be used to show that milestone X was reached before date D, as the tape was made shortly after D.
hmmm. I'm from NJ, and I honestly dont know the answer to that, cuz I never drive that expensive excuse for a highway. I always use the (cheaper) I-295 which parallels said highway from Trenton down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
the article says that labels tend to contract 6-8 albums for an artist to produce. I wonder if this is a source of the poor music that has been coming out in recent years. Some artists may simply have one or two hits at the start of their career, getting the attention the labels, thus signing the artist. Then it turns out that the artist, having to roll out that many albums, does not have the talent in them to come up with enough good tunes that people want, leading to a decline in CD sales. All the one-hit-wonders are the ones getting signed by the big labels before the realization that they are one-hit-wonders.
well, that's true. but, most shrink wrapped software asks for registration of some sort, some using a card in the box that you mail in and/or a form that appears during install that sends it over the internet. oftentimes the card asks questions about the platform or the installer will include that information. Things like OS version, CPU type, memory size, etc. It would be very trivial to do this with the software that article talks about.
IIRC, didnt many companies do this with Windows/Macintosh software? This actually saves a LOT on shipping costs (no need to separate the shipments) and eliminates the problem of a user buying for the wrong platform.
now if only Ars Technica would apply those BIOS settings to their servers, they wouldn't be slashdot effect victims, and I'd be able to read the article!
i looked up your post. You only list population for the European Union member nations, whereas I give the population of the full continent. My numbers are also more up-to-date - 2001 vs. 1995. You also dont provide reference. The EU countries are about 382 million, whereas the entire continent (EU + non EU)is around 727mil.
The article discusses the entire continent, not just the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
Justice Dept. in the proposed legislation, copyright holders would be required to get approval from the DOJ somehow. They would have to detail who, why, when, and how. Taking action w/o getting approval or acting despite rejection can result in prosecution under normal computer fraud/abuse laws. Hopefully, the DOJ wont make the approval process a rubber-stamping operation.
..is a quick telling of why this would cause problems for even what the RIAA calls "law abiding netziens." The RIAA/MPAA claim that "law abiding" people wont be affected by the proposed legislation.
In actuality, if the RIAA were to launch a DoS attack against a P2P node, other nearby nodes (eg, cable modems) would also become affected from the influx of incoming traffic against that node. The reason for this is because of how computer networks work and operate.
When writing to your congressman, include this tidbit of info and why that it is the case. Include a short discussion of why it's the case in terms they will understand. Analogies work great for things like this.
that's not how iris scanning works. you still stand in front of something and have a scan done, but you dont put your eye up to the scanner like you would a telescope. However, there is an eye scan that does require placing yourself up to the machine where what you describe could happen, but at the moment i cant recall what scan that is. Unfortunately, someone might say that the chances of a disease transmission happening on an eye scanner or pay-per-peek machines are the same as diseases transmitted over public toilets. (IOW, very low)
while that's true, the publisher either holds a right to use the TM (granted by the owner), or the actual owner of the TM considers it good promotion of their TM, where taking action would be counter-productive to their own product.
give us a while to get to use google news. it was just introduced three days ago. we're not all used to it, we're still feeling it out, we're still seeing if it suits our needs, etc. in other words, it's pre-mature to start asking questions like "how has it changed your surfing habits?"
if you want to know for sure, try asking again in a month or two. people by then will have formed more solid opinions and habits of the site to get a more authoritative answer.
it's mostly been a matter of perception. Motorola chips have always been more effencient - meaning similar or equal performance at lower clock speeds (a 500 MHz G4 feels the same as a 1 GHz Pent III), less power draw, less heat generated, etc.
Apple's marketing of the chips has been a big factor. Intel has successfully convinced the general public that the only thing to look for in a CPU is how fast the clock speed is. There was supposed to be this big campaign of "MHz isn't everything" by Apple, but it was just hot air (iow, it never got off the ground). Effiency has it's costs - Motorola's chips cost more than Intel, and then appear slower because of Intel's big focus on the clock speed. This is why AMD abandoned the use of clock speed as the big feature in their ads.
Looks like Apple's best marketing approach is "switch", which focuses on the software side of things, something that's probably much easier to pull off.
we're already doomed. Ohio Arts has discontinued Etch A Sketch. Looks like we may be stuck using the abacus.
try a look at NetBeans. Opensource'd under the Sun Public License, cross platform IDE that's written in Java and works quite well. Works for 1.3 or better.
that's definitely true. what could probably end up happening is something like this: the state could ask for pre-emptive judgement on all future and currently unknown sites, taking the court out of the case for all future cases. assuming judge agrees, when those sites become known, state informs ISPs of new blacklisted sites, ISPs then block them voluntarily or contest them in court. The judge would then decide if a particular site belongs on the list or not.
Or, the state could ask for direct control of the blacklist, though I think the ISP would balk very loudly at that, as it opens the door for the state to toss in any site it chooses. For example, the PA AG is running for governer. He could just "accidently" blacklist sites that promote his opponent. If the ISPs had oppurtunity to contest new entries, possible incidents like that would quickly become known and blocked by a judge.
You are most correct though: It doesnt take much to change a DNS name or an IP address. It becomes a cat and mouse type game, or what anti-spammers call whack-a-mole when it comes to finding open relays.
as far the poster implying that this is a national thing, he's wrong. The ruling only applies to WorldCom/UUNet within PA. Basically, for PA customers, they have to block the sites, but outside PA, they can do as they please (for so long until other states pass similar laws, or the feds do)
For example, I'm in PA. I dont think UUnet is at the backbone of my school's ISP, but if they are, I could not reach the blacklisted sites. OTOH, visit a friend outside the state, and can reach those sites (assuming similar legislation is not in effect there too). (disclaimer: This does not imply that I would want to be looking a kiddie pron)
the problem is that MS (as part of the deal) was to start operating as if the deal were approved right from the get-go, and not wait for the judge's seal of approval.
This could be used show the judge that the deal proposed is not sufficient in controlling MS's behavior.
oops, about the VC -- it may not be necessary. If you back out, the VC may notice and not provide, and/or your client may not consider the VC being as they are suddenly not ready for them.
approach them again about the arrangements and payment. ensure that they aren't missing something. if they continue refusal, simply back out. If they dont hold up their side of the deal, you're under no obligation to either.
But before you do anything: Talk to a lawyer! Most slashdoterrs ANL. (and IANAL)
If at any point you consider a lawsuit, gather evidence to show that you delivered the agreed services (preferably, before backing out). Even your own backup tapes could be used to show that milestone X was reached before date D, as the tape was made shortly after D.
there is -- Redundant. Oddly enough, it's one that suits the post most, seems like every week there's people trying to tell michael to grow up.
hmmm. I'm from NJ, and I honestly dont know the answer to that, cuz I never drive that expensive excuse for a highway. I always use the (cheaper) I-295 which parallels said highway from Trenton down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
the article says that labels tend to contract 6-8 albums for an artist to produce. I wonder if this is a source of the poor music that has been coming out in recent years. Some artists may simply have one or two hits at the start of their career, getting the attention the labels, thus signing the artist. Then it turns out that the artist, having to roll out that many albums, does not have the talent in them to come up with enough good tunes that people want, leading to a decline in CD sales. All the one-hit-wonders are the ones getting signed by the big labels before the realization that they are one-hit-wonders.
well, that's true. but, most shrink wrapped software asks for registration of some sort, some using a card in the box that you mail in and/or a form that appears during install that sends it over the internet. oftentimes the card asks questions about the platform or the installer will include that information. Things like OS version, CPU type, memory size, etc. It would be very trivial to do this with the software that article talks about.
IIRC, didnt many companies do this with Windows/Macintosh software? This actually saves a LOT on shipping costs (no need to separate the shipments) and eliminates the problem of a user buying for the wrong platform.
remember that advice we got from The Simpsons: dont handle those pennies. they'll get our DNA. it's the only reason they're left in circulation.
now if only Ars Technica would apply those BIOS settings to their servers, they wouldn't be slashdot effect victims, and I'd be able to read the article!
August 9, 1945 - Nagasaki Bombing (iirc, it was the bigger of the two)
hmmm. I only tried submitting an article dealing with that topic last week
i looked up your post. You only list population for the European Union member nations, whereas I give the population of the full continent. My numbers are also more up-to-date - 2001 vs. 1995. You also dont provide reference. The EU countries are about 382 million, whereas the entire continent (EU + non EU)is around 727mil.
The article discusses the entire continent, not just the EU.
read my other post in this thread. your 378 mil is about halfway toward all of Europe's population, not just the EU members.
i stand corrected. According to this - In 2001, Europe has 727 million, North America 316 mil. I doubt that would change much to this year.
Hmm. I wonder if this means that it's NA that's more tech-savvy than Europe?