The analogy you give is not valid. This is not a case of an American letting an Australian glance at "his" copy of a newspaper, or website, or whatever. This is a case of an American publication choosing a distributor that happens to distribute internationally - knowing that the distributor distributes internationally, and without making any efforts, effective or even good faith, to have the distribution of the newspaper limited.
Had the DJ IP blocked most of the world except for the US, then the only people outside of the US who'd have been able to read their content would have been those relying on proxies within the US - a more legitimate approximation to your analogy - and those who bought US Internet connections - approximately going to the US and buying your own copy. DJ didn't do this, so the claim that they published internationally is 100% valid.
That doesn't make it any less of a can of worms, but let's keep the analogies reasonable shall we?
Care to comment on the difference between not going to the ballot box, and spoiling your ballot paper (or not marking it at all)?
There are a miriad of ways in which you can boycott an election. Probably the worst and least effective is to not turn up - you send no message whatsoever by staying at home, what difference is there between you and someone who stays at home because they have no sense of civic responsibility?
If Skylarov could sue members of any jury that convicts him for libel, after all, what he's done isn't illegal... in Australia or where the action was committed.
I wonder how far we could take the whole "all of our laws transends national boundaries" thing before the powers that be realise they've fucked things up. This isn't even a 'net thing: Jesse Helmes has been trying to get non-American's assets siezed as punishment for doing business with Cuba for years. The fascist republicunt is retiring, but has sadly waited until after the damage has been done.
I was hoping to be able to walk into Borders and immediately be recognised, be given a list of recommendations based on my previous purchases, another list of recommendations based on my wish list, my wish list, a list of recommendations based on the books I'd just glanced at walking in, three lists of books by people who liked a book I'd read recently...
Now I guess they'll have to give me a damned cookie when I come in, so they can identify me with that. What happens if I eat it?
(Which, for the sake of people reading the above and going 'huh'? actually reads:
"Forth is well known for storing all keywords as three letters and the length of the name. Why was this design decision held onto even after memory became cheap enough for space not to be an issue"
Trust me, Moore will understand it without the need for translation...)
For-- is wel- kno-- for sto---- all key----- as thr-- let---- and the len--- of the nam-. Why was thi- des--- dec----- hel- ont- eve- aft-- mem--- bec--- che-- eno--- for spa-- not to be an iss--?
What is the Windows device driver compatability module based on - is it a ground up rewrite or based on WINE? Do you envisage the compatability module being extended to support normal applications?
Do you think it's necessary to have a degree of Windows compatability to ensure the success of a non-Microsoft operating system?
Ah. You're one of those people who thinks that any joke they don't get is a troll. I gotcha.
Tell me: Did the comment from "My wife" not make it obvious? Did the fact this humble gas station attendant was fueling corporate jets not give the game away? Did the repeated references to Microsoft's two slogans "great products" and "freedom to innovate" not reveal the intentions? Were the humble gas station's examples of the use of Microsoft products not anal enough to demonstrate the article was in jest?
Not that you had to find it funny, oh no. People's ideas of humour are radically different depending on who they are. I, for instance, do not find the HG [southern breakfast], NP [actress, in Phantom Menace], or BC [Linux computers joined up in unison] jokes terribly amusing. You may choose to disagree. For all I know, you spend your monday mornings standing around the water cooler talking about "imagining a BC of these" or whatever, right next to the bores who drone on about Seinfeld.
Whatever the situation though, there are times when clearly the intent is humour, even if you yourself do not find it as such. A clearly ridiculous letter, containing obvious references to ludicrious scenarios, is, for future benefit, not intended to be taken seriously.
Now be off, before a BC of NPs pours HG down your pants.
I but a humble gas station attendant. I earn a dollar an hour pumping gas for the Mobil-Exxon corporation, which I use to support my fifteen children and my wife. I often serve gas to big politicians, driving around in their Lincoln limosines and fancy corporate jets, and know that there is a gap between the concerns of ordinary people like me and the government.
As an ordinary person, average in every way, I wish to express my concern about the continued poor treatment of Microsoft, a company that makes great, innovative software. Why should Microsoft be penalised for being successful? Why should Microsoft be denied the right to innovate, a right they use to produce great products like Windows 98, Microsoft Word, and Excel? Would you rather have a world where operating systems, word processors, and spreadsheets don't exist?
While I have never used one of Microsoft's great products, I know that Microsoft software is, thanks to their freedom to innovate, the fuel that makes the American Capitalist System run. As a gas pump operator, I am all to aware of what happens when you don't put fuel into something. Imagine a future where an office worker is unable to write an Excel macro, or a stockbroker unable to create a shortcut on his desktop to a often accessed directory, simply because the government has forced Microsoft to put America Online icons everywhere.
In summary, I would like to close by saying that this is why ordinary, honest, hard working Americans such as myself support Microsoft's freedom to innovate, and their right to create great products.
PS: My wife here - please don't respond to this letter, as my husband's just died. But it's a real letter, honest.
Well, if you make an attempt to bypass copy prevention mechanisms without manufacturing the device to do so (and in this case, the precedents seem to show that code is a device in this context) then you're right.
I assume you've read paragraph B without seeing the vastly more draconian paragraph (E), which explicitly overrides rule (B) and makes making anything whose primary purpose is to circumvent a technical messure that effectively controls access to a work protected by the DMCA.
I can't see how it's possible in practice to work around this: Indeed, paragraph B's conditions are well known to be toothless in practice, a case of politicians introducing paragraphs to make something look like it addresses an issue without actually doing so.
But, don't worry, you're allowed to decrypt a DVD, as long as you do it by hand.
One of the touted improvements in the technology is that, unlike traditional silicon based chips, which tend to be britle, the technology makes it easier to create more flexible "chips" that can be bent 90 degrees in a millimeter or less of material.
One of the potential advantages of this include being able to "print" the circuit while it's flat, then "corrogate" the results making a chip with a larger surface area in a small space, both miniturising the area needed on a circuit board to support the chip, and making heat transfer away from the chip more efficient.
Another is that the technology can be used on chips where the environment would naturally be flexible, which in some industrial strength situations is a necessity.
It goes back even further - it was William Shakespear who said:
But for no country I say this, for every nation must revolt once in the lifetime of every one of its subjects
What made the comment particularly ironic, given the circumstances, is that Shakespear was refering to the extent of official support that those ripping off his works had. Exasperation turned to anger and polemic as knock offs rolled off the presses within hours of his plays opening. The words, while exaggerated, have been quoted ever since.
--
Slashdot Mirror
That's a load of dingo's kidneys, cobber.
The analogy you give is not valid. This is not a case of an American letting an Australian glance at "his" copy of a newspaper, or website, or whatever. This is a case of an American publication choosing a distributor that happens to distribute internationally - knowing that the distributor distributes internationally, and without making any efforts, effective or even good faith, to have the distribution of the newspaper limited.
Had the DJ IP blocked most of the world except for the US, then the only people outside of the US who'd have been able to read their content would have been those relying on proxies within the US - a more legitimate approximation to your analogy - and those who bought US Internet connections - approximately going to the US and buying your own copy. DJ didn't do this, so the claim that they published internationally is 100% valid.
That doesn't make it any less of a can of worms, but let's keep the analogies reasonable shall we?
Care to comment on the difference between not going to the ballot box, and spoiling your ballot paper (or not marking it at all)?
There are a miriad of ways in which you can boycott an election. Probably the worst and least effective is to not turn up - you send no message whatsoever by staying at home, what difference is there between you and someone who stays at home because they have no sense of civic responsibility?
If Skylarov could sue members of any jury that convicts him for libel, after all, what he's done isn't illegal... in Australia or where the action was committed.
I wonder how far we could take the whole "all of our laws transends national boundaries" thing before the powers that be realise they've fucked things up. This isn't even a 'net thing: Jesse Helmes has been trying to get non-American's assets siezed as punishment for doing business with Cuba for years. The fascist republicunt is retiring, but has sadly waited until after the damage has been done.
I was hoping to be able to walk into Borders and immediately be recognised, be given a list of recommendations based on my previous purchases, another list of recommendations based on my wish list, my wish list, a list of recommendations based on the books I'd just glanced at walking in, three lists of books by people who liked a book I'd read recently...
Now I guess they'll have to give me a damned cookie when I come in, so they can identify me with that. What happens if I eat it?
For-- is wel- kno-- for sto---- all key----- as thr-- let---- and the len--- of the nam-. Why was thi- des--- dec----- hel- ont- eve- aft-- mem--- bec--- che-- eno--- for spa-- not to be an iss--?
Do you think it's necessary to have a degree of Windows compatability to ensure the success of a non-Microsoft operating system?
How ironic. It's also Hillary Clinton's birthday.
Troll?
Ah. You're one of those people who thinks that any joke they don't get is a troll. I gotcha.
Tell me: Did the comment from "My wife" not make it obvious? Did the fact this humble gas station attendant was fueling corporate jets not give the game away? Did the repeated references to Microsoft's two slogans "great products" and "freedom to innovate" not reveal the intentions? Were the humble gas station's examples of the use of Microsoft products not anal enough to demonstrate the article was in jest?
Not that you had to find it funny, oh no. People's ideas of humour are radically different depending on who they are. I, for instance, do not find the HG [southern breakfast], NP [actress, in Phantom Menace], or BC [Linux computers joined up in unison] jokes terribly amusing. You may choose to disagree. For all I know, you spend your monday mornings standing around the water cooler talking about "imagining a BC of these" or whatever, right next to the bores who drone on about Seinfeld.
Whatever the situation though, there are times when clearly the intent is humour, even if you yourself do not find it as such. A clearly ridiculous letter, containing obvious references to ludicrious scenarios, is, for future benefit, not intended to be taken seriously.
Now be off, before a BC of NPs pours HG down your pants.
Thanks! At least you recognised it as crap, which is more than can be said of the other respondee.
Dear Attorney General,
I but a humble gas station attendant. I earn a dollar an hour pumping gas for the Mobil-Exxon corporation, which I use to support my fifteen children and my wife. I often serve gas to big politicians, driving around in their Lincoln limosines and fancy corporate jets, and know that there is a gap between the concerns of ordinary people like me and the government.
As an ordinary person, average in every way, I wish to express my concern about the continued poor treatment of Microsoft, a company that makes great, innovative software. Why should Microsoft be penalised for being successful? Why should Microsoft be denied the right to innovate, a right they use to produce great products like Windows 98, Microsoft Word, and Excel? Would you rather have a world where operating systems, word processors, and spreadsheets don't exist?
While I have never used one of Microsoft's great products, I know that Microsoft software is, thanks to their freedom to innovate, the fuel that makes the American Capitalist System run. As a gas pump operator, I am all to aware of what happens when you don't put fuel into something. Imagine a future where an office worker is unable to write an Excel macro, or a stockbroker unable to create a shortcut on his desktop to a often accessed directory, simply because the government has forced Microsoft to put America Online icons everywhere.
In summary, I would like to close by saying that this is why ordinary, honest, hard working Americans such as myself support Microsoft's freedom to innovate, and their right to create great products.
PS: My wife here - please don't respond to this letter, as my husband's just died. But it's a real letter, honest.
I assume you've read paragraph B without seeing the vastly more draconian paragraph (E), which explicitly overrides rule (B) and makes making anything whose primary purpose is to circumvent a technical messure that effectively controls access to a work protected by the DMCA.
I can't see how it's possible in practice to work around this: Indeed, paragraph B's conditions are well known to be toothless in practice, a case of politicians introducing paragraphs to make something look like it addresses an issue without actually doing so.
But, don't worry, you're allowed to decrypt a DVD, as long as you do it by hand.
One of the potential advantages of this include being able to "print" the circuit while it's flat, then "corrogate" the results making a chip with a larger surface area in a small space, both miniturising the area needed on a circuit board to support the chip, and making heat transfer away from the chip more efficient.
Another is that the technology can be used on chips where the environment would naturally be flexible, which in some industrial strength situations is a necessity.
Exciting stuff indeed!
--
--