bzzzzt.... try again. The link you posted leads to http://slashdot.org/eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw. I'm assuming you meant http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw.
Out with the old and in with the new here in Halifax, NS. Nothing broken (well, nothing that wasn't broken before), no mobs rioting (dammit to hell), and my coffee maker is just fine (oh, and my box passed just fine. Thanks to Mr. Torvalds and the fine linux developers).
You may have been trolling, but it was a half decent debate. A few good points were made, on both sides, and a good debate before bedtime clears the evil spirits out:)
> If we have to shift the paradigm of Internet priorities to make it more friendly to business, then I don't have any problem with that.
This about sums it up - why don't the businesses shift -their- paradigm? Why should I change to suit them? If they cannot figure out a way to 'engineer' me to their site, they don't deserve my business. If a business tries to survive on the net with 'impulse buys', they are in for a nasty surprise. This is not television, and they cannot barge into my room with ads blaring for their product. I have to *choose* to go to their site, and if I get sidetracked along the way, they have no one to blame. Not the search engine, not their marketing execs, nobody. Because it was my choice, and I made it (either consciously or not).
> Corporations pay a lot of money for broadband Internet access.
Yes, I'm sure they do. However, they are buying this broadband access for *themselves*. They are not subsidizing the network structure unless they are allowing others to pull data down through their pipes. Some packets may be routed through their routers, but only a small percent, and this could easily be routed by other servers (such as the aforementioned MIT). I do not believe that a medium sized company is going to set up a root server with multiple T3's to add to the net's infrastructure just to be altruistic. Which means, it isn't going to happen.
If a business is to survive on the net, they have to learn that the net is not a captive audience. Only I choose whether to go to their site or not. This is not the same as going to a hardware store in my hometown, as there may be only one store in existence. On the net, there may be many places selling the same product, and only I decide where to buy it. And you can rest assured that when a company pulls a stunt such as this lawsuit, I have already made up my mind not to give them my business.
>Partially, yes, but that's not exactly the point. As I said, the unspecified search engine should also be held liable to some degree. This >isn't all that far-fetched, if you think about it. How many times have you gotten side-tracked on the Web and forgotten what you were >originally looking for?
Yes, this has happened to all of us. However, if I really wanted the item, I would go back for it later. Net loss to the company: $0. And you cannot claim lost revenue based upon the cluelessness or forgetfulness of your customers. Are you going to sue the MacDonalds down the road because when Bob was going to buy a new widget at your store, he dropped in for a burger, got sidetracked, and didn't buy the widget after all?
> Corporations have rights too, you know
No one is suggesting they don't. The corporation has the right to exist and to make a profit. They do not, however, have the right to crush any and all others who dare use their name for something totally unrelated to their business.
> And I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest that these rights be given to these corporations who are, after all, footing the bill.
Footing the bill for what? The lawsuit? They brought it themselves. Footing the bill to keep the 'modern internet' running? They don't. I highly doubt the majority of wan traffic for Europe runs through www.leonardfinance.fr. However, a large chunck of traffing does run through MIT's routers. Please elaborate on what the company is footing the bill for, aside from launching a completely ludicrous lawsuit.
> if we could get all major search engines to sign agreements to return corporate Web matches first...
Again, why should the rights of business come before the rights of common users? You are splitting the groups into A:) businesses, who have the absolute right to use the internet for their purposes, and B:) other irritating peons, who should only be using the net with permission from the companies. _The net was not designed with e-commerce in mind!_ A quick glance at bugtraq will show you that witness the numerous security holes showing up daily). Business came to the net, the net did not come to business, and they would do well to remember that. They are not the rulers and masters of this medium, but rather should be equal players with no more nor fewer rights than anyone else, be they IBM or the newest newbie ever to view webtv.
Are you absolutely mad? The MIT group should be penalized for some absent-minded client surfing around and forgetting his original purpose? So, according to you, the only use for the 'modern internet' is to allow corporations to make as much money as they can and trample the rights of others (who are not even in the same business)? The internet was originally designed for *information sharing* (first by the DoD, then it was by scientists/universities), not corporate greed, and personally, I think it may be better off without corporate lawyers getting into the fray and suing everyone within arms length (and on the net, that can be a damn long arm).
I cannot see this being legitimized by any amount of reasoning. If you believe that the company has the right to summarily and arbitrarily shut down the MIT site for potential loss of earnings, then you might as well go back to believing in the divine right of kings over common folk and live like a serf. Either way, you are forfeiting any rights you have to be treated fairly and equitably.
Being a Canadian (this doesn't, by itself, mean I'm more qualified to answer) I may have heard more about Corel pre-linux than others since it is a Canadian company. Over the years, watching one of the largest, if not the largest, software company in Canada, I have had a distinct impression that Michael Cowpland only supports one thing - himself.
Corel has gotten creamed in the Office software department, losing miserably to MS Office. This is Corels big opportunity to get in on something great on the ground floor. If they can get their products ported and included in linux now, if it turns out to be the Next Big Thing, then they have the market, to some extent, cornered. I do not believe for one second that Corel and Michael Cowpland are supporting Linux out of altruism, or because they "believe" in it. It is for money, pure and simple, and if they can change the licensing without people suing them, they damn well will.
>My computer learned how to blow a power supply last week.
On that same note, NT learned how to crash my 8i instance of Oracle to the point of no return (gee, what a pretty blue background. What does all the white writing mean?). So if you can patent the power supply going bye-bye, can I patent the wanton loss of data by means of computer-generated failure?
>Hmm. My browser (4.7) did just fine, and I reloaded it a couple of times just to make sure. I'd suggest upgrading.
I had upgraded to 4.7, but sadly it seemed to be even more buggy (and choke harder on java-enabled pages) than did earlier versions. Thus I downgraded to 4.61. Sad, really, as I have been using Netscape exclusively on my personal box (sadled with IE occasionally at work) since version 1.1
Interestingly, my browser (Netscape 4.61) crashed on the third page of the report - not once or twice, but four times. Guess it just didn't want to read about the slow demise of its parent company:)
>...considering that my browser uses ever-so-strong 56 bit key encryption...
Why are you using a browser with 56 bit encryption? If it's due to living in the UK, just mosey on over to replay.com and dowload a 128 bit browser. Not located on American soil, not subject to silly American export controls.
Slashdot Mirror
See Godwin's Law.
Um, your retinas contain no pain nerve endings. Looking at the sun _doesn't_ hurt, and therein lies the problem.
Cheers
>And yes, I'd be happy to bury the hatchet.
Between his eyes?
:)
Cheers.
and is now more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
and all programmers.
Close - more like commuters without traffic cops. Wanna guess where that'll end up?
Ah, sweet entropy...
Want to see an interesting 'Survivor'? Strip the participants naked, and throw them onto an island where man in not at the top of the food chain.
>yup.. the two are really comparable, they're supposed to do the same thing. yup. really. And MS excel is a way better spreadsheet than oracle
Considering Oracle is an RDBMS, Excel is a much better *spreadsheet* than Oracle.
>If "buckyballs" were shown to hav QM characteristics, then DMA can have too.
:)
Ah, but what about *ultra* DMA?
bzzzzt.... try again. The link you posted leads to http://slashdot.org/eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw.
I'm assuming you meant http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw.
Well,
Out with the old and in with the new here in Halifax, NS. Nothing broken (well, nothing that wasn't broken before), no mobs rioting (dammit to hell), and my coffee maker is just fine (oh, and my box passed just fine. Thanks to Mr. Torvalds and the fine linux developers).
Cheers, and have a great new year,
GC
You may have been trolling, but it was a half decent debate. A few good points were made, on both sides, and a good debate before bedtime clears the evil spirits out :)
Cheers,
GC
> If we have to shift the paradigm of Internet
priorities to make it more friendly to business, then I don't have any problem with that.
This about sums it up - why don't the businesses shift -their- paradigm? Why should I change to suit them? If they cannot figure out a way to 'engineer' me to their site, they don't deserve my business. If a business tries to survive on the net with 'impulse buys', they are in for a nasty surprise. This is not television, and they cannot barge into my room with ads blaring for their product. I have to *choose* to go to their site, and if I get sidetracked along the way, they have no one to blame. Not the search engine, not their marketing execs, nobody. Because it was my choice, and I made it (either consciously or not).
> Corporations pay a lot of money for broadband Internet access.
Yes, I'm sure they do. However, they are buying this broadband access for *themselves*. They are not subsidizing the network structure unless they are allowing others to pull data down through their pipes. Some packets may be routed through their routers, but only a small percent, and this could easily be routed by other servers (such as the aforementioned MIT). I do not believe that a medium sized company is going to set up a root server with multiple T3's to add to the net's infrastructure just to be altruistic. Which means, it isn't going to happen.
If a business is to survive on the net, they have to learn that the net is not a captive audience. Only I choose whether to go to their site or not. This is not the same as going to a hardware store in my hometown, as there may be only one store in existence. On the net, there may be many places selling the same product, and only I decide where to buy it. And you can rest assured that when a company pulls a stunt such as this lawsuit, I have already made up my mind not to give them my business.
Cheers,
GC
>Partially, yes, but that's not exactly the point. As I said, the unspecified search engine should also be held liable to some degree. This >isn't all that far-fetched, if you think about it. How many times have you gotten side-tracked on the Web and forgotten what you were >originally looking for?
Yes, this has happened to all of us. However, if I really wanted the item, I would go back for it later. Net loss to the company: $0. And you cannot claim lost revenue based upon the cluelessness or forgetfulness of your customers. Are you going to sue the MacDonalds down the road because when Bob was going to buy a new widget at your store, he dropped in for a burger, got sidetracked, and didn't buy the widget after all?
> Corporations have rights too, you know
No one is suggesting they don't. The corporation has the right to exist and to make a profit. They do not, however, have the right to crush any and all others who dare use their name for something totally unrelated to their business.
> And I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest that these rights be given to these corporations who are, after all, footing the bill.
Footing the bill for what? The lawsuit? They brought it themselves. Footing the bill to keep the 'modern internet' running? They don't. I highly doubt the majority of wan traffic for Europe runs through www.leonardfinance.fr. However, a large chunck of traffing does run through MIT's routers. Please elaborate on what the company is footing the bill for, aside from launching a completely ludicrous lawsuit.
> if we could get all major search engines to sign agreements to return corporate Web matches first...
Again, why should the rights of business come before the rights of common users? You are splitting the groups into A:) businesses, who have the absolute right to use the internet for their purposes, and B:) other irritating peons, who should only be using the net with permission from the companies. _The net was not designed with e-commerce in mind!_ A quick glance at bugtraq will show you that witness the numerous security holes showing up daily). Business came to the net, the net did not come to business, and they would do well to remember that. They are not the rulers and masters of this medium, but rather should be equal players with no more nor fewer rights than anyone else, be they IBM or the newest newbie ever to view webtv.
Cheers,
GC
Are you absolutely mad? The MIT group should be penalized for some absent-minded client surfing around and forgetting his original purpose? So, according to you, the only use for the 'modern internet' is to allow corporations to make as much money as they can and trample the rights of others (who are not even in the same business)? The internet was originally designed for *information sharing* (first by the DoD, then it was by scientists/universities), not corporate greed, and personally, I think it may be better off without corporate lawyers getting into the fray and suing everyone within arms length (and on the net, that can be a damn long arm).
I cannot see this being legitimized by any amount of reasoning. If you believe that the company has the right to summarily and arbitrarily shut down the MIT site for potential loss of earnings, then you might as well go back to believing in the divine right of kings over common folk and live like a serf. Either way, you are forfeiting any rights you have to be treated fairly and equitably.
Cheers,
GC
Being a Canadian (this doesn't, by itself, mean I'm more qualified to answer) I may have heard more about Corel pre-linux than others since it is a Canadian company. Over the years, watching one of the largest, if not the largest, software company in Canada, I have had a distinct impression that Michael Cowpland only supports one thing - himself.
Corel has gotten creamed in the Office software department, losing miserably to MS Office. This is Corels big opportunity to get in on something great on the ground floor. If they can get their products ported and included in linux now, if it turns out to be the Next Big Thing, then they have the market, to some extent, cornered. I do not believe for one second that Corel and Michael Cowpland are supporting Linux out of altruism, or because they "believe" in it. It is for money, pure and simple, and if they can change the licensing without people suing them, they damn well will.
Just my $.02 canadian,
GC
>My computer learned how to blow a power supply last week.
On that same note, NT learned how to crash my 8i instance of Oracle to the point of no return (gee, what a pretty blue background. What does all the white writing mean?). So if you can patent the power supply going bye-bye, can I patent the wanton loss of data by means of computer-generated failure?
One word: "Lurk"
>Hmm. My browser (4.7) did just fine, and I reloaded it a couple of times just to make sure. I'd suggest upgrading.
I had upgraded to 4.7, but sadly it seemed to be even more buggy (and choke harder on java-enabled pages) than did earlier versions. Thus I downgraded to 4.61. Sad, really, as I have been using Netscape exclusively on my personal box (sadled with IE occasionally at work) since version 1.1
Cheers,
GC
Interestingly, my browser (Netscape 4.61) crashed on the third page of the report - not once or twice, but four times. Guess it just didn't want to read about the slow demise of its parent company :)
Cheers,
GC
"Ha ha!"
"Um, I think he's really hurt."
"I said 'Ha ha'".
Seems you slashdotted yourself :)
... reads like an article from "TheOnion". Laugh? Cry? .... laugh, it's more fun...
Freudian slip? :)
>...considering that my browser uses ever-so-strong 56 bit key encryption...
Why are you using a browser with 56 bit encryption? If it's due to living in the UK, just mosey on over to replay.com and dowload a 128 bit browser. Not located on American soil, not subject to silly American export controls.