Well, they accepted comments supporting exemptions from the DMCA, and also accepted reply comments to those, and are now holding hearings about the proposed exemptions. So they do more with the comments than just forget about them, at least in this case.
They can't make a new law after that fact, but in this case, the law would have existed prior to the action, but would only be applied to an action after it happened.
No, MS can't fully be blamed for it, but they can be blamed for making it almost a necessity to run as the Administrator to do most day-to-day things, or not emphasizing the importance of creating a different user.
The way I read it, that clause definitely provides a benefit to the public domain, by first enticing people to create. Once their work has been created, it enjoys a period of limited monopoly, and then becomes public domain. I don't think it was ever intended to ensure a creator made a profit, but only to give them that oppurtunity.
But then you open up Hotmail accounts to simple DOS attacks. Sending 100 emails isn't that hard, it's something that a person might not mind doing manually, and you could clog up someone's Hotmail account with your messages, denying them access to legit mail which then bounces.
I doubt it. Assuming we do manage to kill him, we'd have to be aware of it, get the order to stop out there, and then have it relayed. Of course, since there's more a regime change than just killing the leader, Bush won't stop with just Saddam.
After all, the Pres has said that he'd spring from jail (in EU) any US citizen convicted of a crime by the International Court. Now who's respecting the international community?
Sorry, but what the hell is the point of even having a country if you're bound by every other country's laws?
This isn't a case of being bound to every other country's laws, this is a case of being bound to internationally accepted law.
You should read Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace, it's mostly focused on the Net and how it could be/should(n't) be regulated by government (and also how other governments might handle it).
Without even making a comparison with TiVO, lots of people who use AOL have VCRs, I'm sure. How many of them are going to want something that does even less?
I don't see TV as any sort of right. Nor, in most cases, is it free (the exception being basic broadcast channels you can pick up with a set of rabbit ears). I pay for the privelege of watching television, and part of my monthly fee goes from my satellite company to the networks, for their license to rebroadcast the network's programming. On top of that, the network shows commercials, and if I'm reimbursing them by watching commercials, I shouldn't be paying part of my monthly fee towards them, and vice versa.
So what do you think is going to happen if conventional advertising is no longer feasable on television? Are networks going to charge a monthly subscription fee like cable/sat?
Even with the monthly fee for cable/sat, there's STILL commercials.
I don't expect things to be free. I pay a fee each month for satellite tv, and even with that I still get commercials. I expect not to have to pay twice to watch a TV show, but I accept that I do need to pay once for it.
But, are people going to stay with a product that amounts to a digital version of their VCR, except they can't skip commercials or watch certain things on it? Even if people flock to it, the question is more of how many will stay with it, or how many would recommend it.
But this isn't just a loss of quality, it's a total loss of features. This device is nothing more than a crippled VCR, except that it stores stuff digitally.
I would assume that a virtual machine compromise would pose no security threat to the rest of the network
A virtual machine poses just as much threat to the network as a physical machine if cracked, because it can be used to do the exact same things. For the machine to function as a honeypot, it would need network connectivity, and obviously that's going to be bidirectional, so if the VM becomes compromised it would have the same result as losing a physical box. It could be argued that it's actually MORE likely for something to happen with that kind of setup, because it's not a production box that would be upgraded at the front of the line, instead remaining several updates behind with possibly holes left open.
I'll concede that particular line was a bad choice, but there are other lines without the possible ambiguity:
The above computer program(s) is/are being made available for copying, through downloading, at the above location without authorization from the copyright owner(s).
Based upon BSA's representation of the copyright owners in anti-piracy matters, we have a good faith belief that none of the materials or activities listed above have been authorized by the rightholders, their agents, or the law.
And yes, I am aware that neither of these mention perjury in any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be there on May 2.
Well, they accepted comments supporting exemptions from the DMCA, and also accepted reply comments to those, and are now holding hearings about the proposed exemptions. So they do more with the comments than just forget about them, at least in this case.
I plan to comment, although since I submitted the story, it's not really all that surprising, I'd expect.
They can't make a new law after that fact, but in this case, the law would have existed prior to the action, but would only be applied to an action after it happened.
No, MS can't fully be blamed for it, but they can be blamed for making it almost a necessity to run as the Administrator to do most day-to-day things, or not emphasizing the importance of creating a different user.
Not a 4th time!
The way I read it, that clause definitely provides a benefit to the public domain, by first enticing people to create. Once their work has been created, it enjoys a period of limited monopoly, and then becomes public domain. I don't think it was ever intended to ensure a creator made a profit, but only to give them that oppurtunity.
Final version, as found on copyright.gov.
But then you open up Hotmail accounts to simple DOS attacks. Sending 100 emails isn't that hard, it's something that a person might not mind doing manually, and you could clog up someone's Hotmail account with your messages, denying them access to legit mail which then bounces.
I doubt it. Assuming we do manage to kill him, we'd have to be aware of it, get the order to stop out there, and then have it relayed.
Of course, since there's more a regime change than just killing the leader, Bush won't stop with just Saddam.
It's terrorism. Not that I support Saddam, but to attack a country like we've done is a form of terrorism.
Read Taco's journal, he just mentioned why they removed it (2 extra queries per page, removed to ease server load).
You should read Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace, it's mostly focused on the Net and how it could be/should(n't) be regulated by government (and also how other governments might handle it).
Unfortunately, forever minus a day isn't forever, which was basically the government's argument in the case.
Without even making a comparison with TiVO, lots of people who use AOL have VCRs, I'm sure. How many of them are going to want something that does even less?
I don't see TV as any sort of right. Nor, in most cases, is it free (the exception being basic broadcast channels you can pick up with a set of rabbit ears). I pay for the privelege of watching television, and part of my monthly fee goes from my satellite company to the networks, for their license to rebroadcast the network's programming.
On top of that, the network shows commercials, and if I'm reimbursing them by watching commercials, I shouldn't be paying part of my monthly fee towards them, and vice versa.
I don't expect things to be free. I pay a fee each month for satellite tv, and even with that I still get commercials. I expect not to have to pay twice to watch a TV show, but I accept that I do need to pay once for it.
But, are people going to stay with a product that amounts to a digital version of their VCR, except they can't skip commercials or watch certain things on it?
Even if people flock to it, the question is more of how many will stay with it, or how many would recommend it.
But this isn't just a loss of quality, it's a total loss of features. This device is nothing more than a crippled VCR, except that it stores stuff digitally.
Exactly. I don't see why people would flock to something that increased the annoyance factor, in place of something that decreased it.
On my way to work from the PA Bus Terminal, I walk past a billboard - "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today?"
I would assume that a virtual machine compromise would pose no security threat to the rest of the network
A virtual machine poses just as much threat to the network as a physical machine if cracked, because it can be used to do the exact same things. For the machine to function as a honeypot, it would need network connectivity, and obviously that's going to be bidirectional, so if the VM becomes compromised it would have the same result as losing a physical box.
It could be argued that it's actually MORE likely for something to happen with that kind of setup, because it's not a production box that would be upgraded at the front of the line, instead remaining several updates behind with possibly holes left open.
I'll concede that particular line was a bad choice, but there are other lines without the possible ambiguity:
The above computer program(s) is/are being made available for copying, through downloading, at the above location without authorization from the copyright owner(s).
Based upon BSA's representation of the copyright owners in anti-piracy matters, we have a good faith belief that none of the materials or activities listed above have been authorized by the rightholders, their agents, or the law.
And yes, I am aware that neither of these mention perjury in any sense.
karlm....hmmm, I think I know exactly who this is.