I don't get this. If you are paying a "piracy tax" then technically, wouldn't you be allowed to copy the software? I was under the assumption that the fundamental reason why piracy is illegal is becaust you are copying data without paying for it. Once you are paying for piracy, wouldn't that be like buying a right to pirate? The music companies thinks that piracy is inevitable and they just want to be reimbursed.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Playing devil's advocate (almost literally as this seems really evil), there is an adage which goes, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." I think in in America, too many people have abused the first ammendment and too many people have not been vigilant about it. If they don't trust their own citizens to act responsibly, it might be better to restrict them rather than face the consequences.
I'm just trying to see this from both sides
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Its always up to the individual to determine their own level of acceptable risk, the government can;t do that for them
Partially. Assume that one of these governments got their hands on a Carnivore-like system. They have complete access to whatever is on the ISP to the point that you might as well should out your e-mails in the street. Add to this severe inhumane punishments and no sane person, no matter how much of an idealist or revolutionary, will use this e-mail systsm.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
What would you do if you had to privately communicate with people in countries like China or Iran where communications are possibly monitored and knowledge of what you are discussing could get the person on the other end in trouble with his or her own government? Is it possible to quietly and privately use the Internet to communicate with these people?
That's not up to the user, but to the foreign government in terms of their policies regarding the internet, privacy and how badly do they want to monitor it. Any encryption available to most people could probably be broken given a sufficeint amount of time and resources which many governments have. They probably also monitor phones and mail, so this would be no different - just that it would take more time.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Harvard justified its decision by claiming that Divinity School rules prohibited personal use of university computers in any way that clashed with its educational mission. But the dean was using his computer at home, not work.
It's irrelevant if the Dean was at work or not. It was the universities computer, and I far I can tell, most religions would consider pornography to "clash" with an educational mission. Reading sports scores might not be one of the principles of the Catholic faith, but it certainly isn't a cardinal sin.
On this one, I have to agree with the university for sticking to its policies. The Dean should have known about them and clearly violated the rules. If it would have been on his own computer in his house, then you'd have a legitamate complaint.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I recall a recent case where a company (sorry, I'm forgetting the parties involved) was sued for "deep linking" into another's site thus bypassing the front page with ads. The courts as I recall ruled that deep liking was legal.
I've been thinking what the differences are between Deep Linking and Metabrowsing. One difference I can come up with offhand is with deep linking and metabrowsing would be dynamic content. If web pages are based on an inventory which and are generated throgh CGI scripts, then and external use of that program might be considred more tresspassing than a hard coded web page. In the law suit cases (and regarding bots) you actually need the other server to generate the information and retrieve the content to be displayed on the web page as opposed to data they freely post.
It's a superficial difference as both require use of the server, but I'm working on figuring this out, and cof course I could be wrong on just about everything. Any ideas?
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Anyone want to bet that all things labeled "Microsoft" or MS-Freindly companies will eventually take priority? Think about it: MS sends a spam e-mail which happens to be labeled "urgent" because if it's from MS, it must be important (probably a security patch to a poorly written program). I could be paranoid, but this could get really evil.
If MS really wanted to stop the information overload, they should find a way to stop the 200 daily spam messages to my hotmail account and not just complain that my account is too large.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Are there going to be campaigns for candidates? Will they have public platforms so the electorate knows what they're doing? By getting so many people invovled we may be doing more harm than good since it is quite possible that many of the voters don't have a clue about the canditates or their positions.
They mention something about this in the article, and I think people should realize that it's not about voting for the sake of voting - it's voting for a person or an idea.
You don't have a right to vote - you have a right to vote responsibly.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Mind you lots of Fingerbang fans are gonna be really annoyed when they waste all that download time
Not really. You can listen to partially downloaded MP3's off of Napster so you can check after a minute if you are really downloading what you think you are.
It still is annoying, but not as bad as you might think.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
The film ends, oddly enough, with a chess match. A white king has been toppled, but a quick glance shows that both sides are playing with translucent pieces.
Shouldn't it have been a grey king as Magneto was the gray king of the Hellfire Club's inner circle? I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the stuff in years. Or it could be one of those endings which only makes sense once you've seen the movie...
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I would find it more useful to have reviews that also say "This book, while it may look like a winner on the shelf, is really a steaming pile of crap and should be avoided."
Slashdot is a resource for many people and is not a site purely for book reviews. I think it's more useful to tell people what's good to sort of "moderate" if you will the book's quality. There are plenty of bad books out there, more than/. can cover. Personally, I think I'm better off being told "buy this book - it's good" than "avoid this like the plague."
I would agree that if there is a popular book or series which many people own or will purchase eventually that/. do a critical review and "tell it like it is."
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
What damages would arise from this? More spam? You may be right, but I'm assuming that in order to sue for damages, damages have to occur. You would probably have better luck going through the breech of contract route.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
But after six months of constant probing, Quova says it's received only 100 complaints. A 1998 Internet mapping project by Bell Labs researcher Bill Cheswick drew 30 complaints after six months of scanning.
Yes, but it's possible many others didn't detect it and would have complained if they knew about it. Look at the last quote:
"...To that end, the company is working to refine its technique, so as to fly stealthily beneath the radar of firewalls and intrusion detection systems. "It's a goal we have," says Muniz. "Someday I'd like to get the system to the point where we don't set off anybody's alarms."
They don't care about the people or their complaints; they just care about getting caught.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
If you read the article, it's talking about sending e-mail from work
"the law so far has been rather clear. You have no right to privacy in your email or use of the Internet at work."
If you send e-mails on company time through the company server, they can check it. Granted, they can't read snail mail sent through their post office, but this isn't the same thing as companies spying on you and you losing your rights on-line.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
All Intel has to do is cut its prices dramatically to squeeze [Transmeta] out of the market
Wouldn't that be illegal? I recall a lawsuit where smaller airlines sued the bigger ones for slashing prices just long enough to put them out of business. When the competition went away, the big airlined rasied prices again.
Since AMD isn't working on the low-powered chips(to my knowledge) would Transmeta be able to sue for unfair competition practices? I'm guessing not based on this quote, but it seems that should Intel slash prices until Transmeta goes under, they could be facing a lawsuit.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Does anyone know why Sony bailed? Sony was "unavailable for comment." Hypothetically, what would some reasons be? Did they think they would lose the case or are they just waiting for more ammunition?
The answer: Yeshiva University which stopped allowing SSH access to the main e-mail server. I heard the reason they gave was they wanted to be able to monitor who was logging on to the system or something like that.
If Afternic is suing for "lost business," their damage claims would probably be hight. If ICANN is already strapped for cash and they lose this case, what happens then? If they go bankrupt, what next?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get this. If you are paying a "piracy tax" then technically, wouldn't you be allowed to copy the software? I was under the assumption that the fundamental reason why piracy is illegal is becaust you are copying data without paying for it. Once you are paying for piracy, wouldn't that be like buying a right to pirate? The music companies thinks that piracy is inevitable and they just want to be reimbursed.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Playing devil's advocate (almost literally as this seems really evil), there is an adage which goes, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." I think in in America, too many people have abused the first ammendment and too many people have not been vigilant about it. If they don't trust their own citizens to act responsibly, it might be better to restrict them rather than face the consequences.
I'm just trying to see this from both sides
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Its always up to the individual to determine their own level of acceptable risk, the government can;t do that for them
Partially. Assume that one of these governments got their hands on a Carnivore-like system. They have complete access to whatever is on the ISP to the point that you might as well should out your e-mails in the street. Add to this severe inhumane punishments and no sane person, no matter how much of an idealist or revolutionary, will use this e-mail systsm.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
What would you do if you had to privately communicate with people in countries like China or Iran where communications are possibly monitored and knowledge of what you are discussing could get the person on the other end in trouble with his or her own government? Is it possible to quietly and privately use the Internet to communicate with these people?
That's not up to the user, but to the foreign government in terms of their policies regarding the internet, privacy and how badly do they want to monitor it. Any encryption available to most people could probably be broken given a sufficeint amount of time and resources which many governments have. They probably also monitor phones and mail, so this would be no different - just that it would take more time.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Harvard justified its decision by claiming that Divinity School rules prohibited personal use of university computers in any way that clashed with its educational mission. But the dean was using his computer at home, not work.
It's irrelevant if the Dean was at work or not. It was the universities computer, and I far I can tell, most religions would consider pornography to "clash" with an educational mission. Reading sports scores might not be one of the principles of the Catholic faith, but it certainly isn't a cardinal sin.
On this one, I have to agree with the university for sticking to its policies. The Dean should have known about them and clearly violated the rules. If it would have been on his own computer in his house, then you'd have a legitamate complaint.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I recall a recent case where a company (sorry, I'm forgetting the parties involved) was sued for "deep linking" into another's site thus bypassing the front page with ads. The courts as I recall ruled that deep liking was legal.
I've been thinking what the differences are between Deep Linking and Metabrowsing. One difference I can come up with offhand is with deep linking and metabrowsing would be dynamic content. If web pages are based on an inventory which and are generated throgh CGI scripts, then and external use of that program might be considred more tresspassing than a hard coded web page. In the law suit cases (and regarding bots) you actually need the other server to generate the information and retrieve the content to be displayed on the web page as opposed to data they freely post.
It's a superficial difference as both require use of the server, but I'm working on figuring this out, and cof course I could be wrong on just about everything. Any ideas?
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Anyone want to bet that all things labeled "Microsoft" or MS-Freindly companies will eventually take priority? Think about it: MS sends a spam e-mail which happens to be labeled "urgent" because if it's from MS, it must be important (probably a security patch to a poorly written program). I could be paranoid, but this could get really evil.
If MS really wanted to stop the information overload, they should find a way to stop the 200 daily spam messages to my hotmail account and not just complain that my account is too large.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Are there going to be campaigns for candidates? Will they have public platforms so the electorate knows what they're doing? By getting so many people invovled we may be doing more harm than good since it is quite possible that many of the voters don't have a clue about the canditates or their positions.
They mention something about this in the article, and I think people should realize that it's not about voting for the sake of voting - it's voting for a person or an idea.
You don't have a right to vote - you have a right to vote responsibly.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Mind you lots of Fingerbang fans are gonna be really annoyed when they waste all that download time
Not really. You can listen to partially downloaded MP3's off of Napster so you can check after a minute if you are really downloading what you think you are.
It still is annoying, but not as bad as you might think.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Imagine the bloodbath if modern engineers and inventors were held accountable that way.
Finally a use for the DMCA: no more excecutions!
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Better than playing marbles with whole galaxies
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
The film ends, oddly enough, with a chess match. A white king has been toppled, but a quick glance shows that both sides are playing with translucent pieces.
Shouldn't it have been a grey king as Magneto was the gray king of the Hellfire Club's inner circle? I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the stuff in years. Or it could be one of those endings which only makes sense once you've seen the movie...
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Sorry, hand slipped. Disregard last line
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I would find it more useful to have reviews that also say "This book, while it may look like a winner on the shelf, is really a steaming pile of crap and should be avoided."
/. can cover. Personally, I think I'm better off being told "buy this book - it's good" than "avoid this like the plague."
/. do a critical review and "tell it like it is."
Slashdot is a resource for many people and is not a site purely for book reviews. I think it's more useful to tell people what's good to sort of "moderate" if you will the book's quality. There are plenty of bad books out there, more than
I would agree that if there is a popular book or series which many people own or will purchase eventually that
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Chapter 11 is posted on Sun's site.
There is also a basic overview of JavaSpaces here (in PDF)
Finally. the JDC
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I mean, getting cash cost for damages
What damages would arise from this? More spam? You may be right, but I'm assuming that in order to sue for damages, damages have to occur. You would probably have better luck going through the breech of contract route.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
...without singling out individuals according to race or other characteristics
Once you're scanning someone's molecules, DNA, or whatever, wouldn't this allow for more types of discrimination not less?
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
But after six months of constant probing, Quova says it's received only 100 complaints. A 1998 Internet mapping project by Bell Labs researcher Bill Cheswick drew 30 complaints after six months of scanning.
Yes, but it's possible many others didn't detect it and would have complained if they knew about it. Look at the last quote:
"...To that end, the company is working to refine its technique, so as to fly stealthily beneath the radar of firewalls and intrusion detection systems. "It's a goal we have," says Muniz. "Someday I'd like to get the system to the point where we don't set off anybody's alarms."
They don't care about the people or their complaints; they just care about getting caught.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
If you read the article, it's talking about sending e-mail from work
"the law so far has been rather clear. You have no right to privacy in your email or use of the Internet at work."
If you send e-mails on company time through the company server, they can check it. Granted, they can't read snail mail sent through their post office, but this isn't the same thing as companies spying on you and you losing your rights on-line.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
If you look at the poll, one of the choices was "MS-Outlook." Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that have been included under Running MS Office?
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
If they are suce "novices" how hard could it be to track the script kiddies down and nail them?
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
All Intel has to do is cut its prices dramatically to squeeze [Transmeta] out of the market
Wouldn't that be illegal? I recall a lawsuit where smaller airlines sued the bigger ones for slashing prices just long enough to put them out of business. When the competition went away, the big airlined rasied prices again.
Since AMD isn't working on the low-powered chips(to my knowledge) would Transmeta be able to sue for unfair competition practices? I'm guessing not based on this quote, but it seems that should Intel slash prices until Transmeta goes under, they could be facing a lawsuit.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Does anyone know why Sony bailed? Sony was "unavailable for comment." Hypothetically, what would some reasons be? Did they think they would lose the case or are they just waiting for more ammunition?
Besides, who doesn't at least use ssh?
The answer: Yeshiva University which stopped allowing SSH access to the main e-mail server. I heard the reason they gave was they wanted to be able to monitor who was logging on to the system or something like that.
Don't ask.
If Afternic is suing for "lost business," their damage claims would probably be hight. If ICANN is already strapped for cash and they lose this case, what happens then? If they go bankrupt, what next?