No. Every two-way high speed internet provided by satellite is done with LEO constelations. As such, most of them have 80% earth coverage (getting internet in the Arctic must be a bitch).
Exactly my thoughts. Anything the greases the wheels of multinational corporate greed has to be a bad thing. So let's introduce more privacy laws. Maybe on a county by county level, and different laws depending on the annual profits of your company and your previously indicated tendency to evil.
On behalf of the Slashdot community I would like to take this opportunity to say that you, a patent examiner, don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do they even train you guys?
Call me crazy, but wouldn't the patent actually cover their particular implementation of a coffee-beer like substance? i.e., wouldn't their patent actually have a formular in there somewhere which describes what they are patenting? Looking at the Abstract for the patent they are pretty specific what it is the patent covers. I don't think Drew Carey specified in his show a technique for making the beer or the specific ratios of methylbutanol to methylbutanol and thioacetates to thiols. Not the mention the fact that Drew Carey made an alcoholic beer, and this patent only covers a process to make a non-alcoholic coffee smelling beer.
But hey, this is Slashdot, don't let any of this stop you from declaring that patents are evil and that nothing deserves patent protection.
I thought Ubuntu/Breezy was going to include Beagle, Tomboy, and all the other hip new desktop apps that havn't made it into any distributions yet. I guess it will probably be next release or something. I saw a demo of integration of instant messaging into a bunch of different desktop apps. So any app that has a list of names becomes a "contact list" that you can click on to send a message. Integration of instant messaging might not sound like much, but instant messaging is probably the most non-integrated technology on the PC. I've probably never seen a URL for instant messaging someone. I presume you could do it, but it's just not as mainstream as, say, mailto:// urls.
They have done, they will continue to do so. Most countries have laws that specifically exempt ISPs from liability, and most ISPs disclaim their responsibility onto their users in the terms of service.
You can't sue someone for a crime. A crime is something the state prosecutes you for. I think it is fair of me to assume that you have a basic understanding of the difference between criminal law and civil law. Unfortunately there are criminal copyright infringement laws, but if the MPAA thought they could get this guy on those laws they wouldn't sue them, they'd just call the police and have them arrested and charged. Thankfully, these laws are not yet draconian enough to be applicable to simple filesharing. But give it time.
I wonder if an unpatched Windows box could be considered an attractive nuisance. How sweet would that be? If I was rich and wanted to fuck with Bill (say, if my name was Steve Jobs) I'd set up a fake lawsuit and get the computer owner to throw it.
Dude, the terms of service state that no-one else is allowed to use it. Unless, of course, you happen to have gotten internet access from some "hip" ISP. But in the typical case, where you signed an agreement that stated that you are the sole user and are responsible for any and all traffic made under that agreement then yes, you're a freakin' bone head to let your flatmates use your computer.
What part of minor language change don't you understand? You can't just go from revolution, "a single complete turn", to revolution, "the overthrow of a government by those who are governed", to revolution, "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving." In one go. We had to adopt the word from the french, play around with its meaning (and spelling!), hand it back to the french, shuffle it through their political upheaval, return it to the english, shuffle it through their political upheaval, nurture it through to modern day and infuse it into the popular culture. In which time the meaning (and spelling) of the word changed a dozen times and the three meanings and one spelling we're left with today and have declared "official" are simply the strongest of those alternatives to survive.
If you wanna see how much spelling has damaged our language, have a look at Japanese. Because they use pheonetic spelling when they're not using pictorial writing, their language is a lot more fluid than ours. More words get made in Japanese every year than new words have been made in English in the last 100 years. Like French, we're slowly becoming a dead language as the speakers of it stop thinking.
Allow me to give you a few examples. What's the English word for the failure of a subculture tourist to recognise the celebrities of that subculture? There isn't one. So how do we deal with people when they exhibit that behaviour? We're incredulous right? We shake our head and think, wow, how can you not know [whoever]? The Japanese have a word for it. I can't even pronounce it, let alone write it, but it exists. So when someone exhibits this behaviour a Japanese person will be familiar with the concept. They won't shake their head and laugh, they will just explain to their friend who this celebrity is and why they are famous. As such, Japanese people are a lot better at forming subcultures, accepting new people into those subcultures and existing in multiple subcultures simultaniously.
Maybe you're on crack, but all of us are talking about liability not crimes. If you lend your machete to your neighbour and he chops off a finger because you failed to keep the handle well maintained you are liable. Libraries have special protections in many countries, but suppose we were talking about an internet cafe.. If they were to turn a blind eye to copyright infringement, or even just fail to have a policy of monitoring the use of their computer, they would be liable for the copyright infringement made on their machines. Why? It's an issue of owner's negligence.
But if you had read my entire post you would have seen that I wasn't condoning these fucked up laws, I was stating that they are so complex and impossible to obey that they should be immediately abolished.
If someone steals your car and hits someone, and you don't have insurance, you are in for a nasty court case if the joyrider can't pay up. Where'd you leave your car? Where'd you leave your keys? Do you have a car alarm? Did you take sufficient care to ensure that your car would not be misused?
Nothing is simple, this is the law we're talking about. Designed to make us all slaves to lawyers and spend our lives looking over our shoulder.
Commercial use.. ya know, what copyright was made for.. to encourage the creation of works by providing to authors for limited times the exclusive right to profit from them. In my opinion, copyright laws should be completely rewritten to declare clearly and entirely that if you are not selling then you are not infringing. None of this bullshit about lot revenue. None of these arguments about how much money you are "saving" by getting a copy off your friend instead of going to a store. And definitely none of this insanity about circumventing copy protection.
First off, that is a horrible analogy. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the steps?
Uhhh.. who's responsible for ensuring the terms of service of the ISP are followed? Why, the person who signed up for the service.. in this case, the grandfather. That aside, the point of my post was to show how complicated both copyright and liability laws are.
Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200,000 for ridiculous Results 1 - 10 of about 1,580,000 for rediculous. Results 1 - 10 of about 95,400,000 for forgotten Results 1 - 10 of about 674,000 for forgotton.
If everyone can get off by claiming that "someone else did it" then why are copyright cases ever litigated? That kind of advice reminds me of housemates I've had who insisted they needed to smoke pot in the lounge room instead of in their own bedroom so that if the cops dropped by they could claim it wasn't theirs because it was in a communal area. It's just nonsense. What do the RIAA/MPAA need to do? Trace people in realtime, kick down their door and catch them in the act?
As for the abolishment of copyright law, you gotta wonder exactly how much shit people will take before they say enough and demand an exemption for home use.
Google says... Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200,000 for ridiculous Results 1 - 10 of about 1,580,000 for rediculous
Seems a heck of a lot of other people prefer to spell the word that way too. The stablization of language leads to the solidification of thought. Before the word 'revolution' was used to refer to an unstoppable uprising, people considered it impossible to rule themselves. You can't have major language change without the freedom of minor language change.
Heh, the fact that 99% of people don't understand copyright laws is another good reason why they should be abolished. How can you be expected to follow the law when even the lawyers can't agree on what is legal and what is not.
BTW, perhaps you should read my entire post before replying, it was only five sentences.
According to TechDirt the grandfather was sued for offering movies for download. Claiming that he isn't liable because his grandson was the one doing it, not him, is about as rediculous as saying that he's not liable if someone cracks their head open on faulty steps in his house because his grandson lives there not him. He owns the line, he's liable for any copyright infringement performed from that line. And no, it doesn't matter if it wasn't his son but some hackers who broke into his computer; if a burglar breaks into your house and puts his back out trying to lug away your safe, you're still liable. Much like copyright law in general, personal liability is insane and should be abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you go fuck yourself? Is clear enough for ya?
No. Every two-way high speed internet provided by satellite is done with LEO constelations. As such, most of them have 80% earth coverage (getting internet in the Arctic must be a bitch).
Uhhh, I'm of the opinion that any laws that hinder big business are a good thing. Be they interstate, multi-national or intergalactic.
If you can ssh through their firewall then it is clearly not intended for censorship as the western media would have us believe.
Can't you use StarBand or some other high speed satellite internet provider in China? Do they have a dome over China I'm not aware of or what?
Exactly my thoughts. Anything the greases the wheels of multinational corporate greed has to be a bad thing. So let's introduce more privacy laws. Maybe on a county by county level, and different laws depending on the annual profits of your company and your previously indicated tendency to evil.
On behalf of the Slashdot community I would like to take this opportunity to say that you, a patent examiner, don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do they even train you guys?
Call me crazy, but wouldn't the patent actually cover their particular implementation of a coffee-beer like substance? i.e., wouldn't their patent actually have a formular in there somewhere which describes what they are patenting? Looking at the Abstract for the patent they are pretty specific what it is the patent covers. I don't think Drew Carey specified in his show a technique for making the beer or the specific ratios of methylbutanol to methylbutanol and thioacetates to thiols. Not the mention the fact that Drew Carey made an alcoholic beer, and this patent only covers a process to make a non-alcoholic coffee smelling beer.
But hey, this is Slashdot, don't let any of this stop you from declaring that patents are evil and that nothing deserves patent protection.
I thought Ubuntu/Breezy was going to include Beagle, Tomboy, and all the other hip new desktop apps that havn't made it into any distributions yet. I guess it will probably be next release or something. I saw a demo of integration of instant messaging into a bunch of different desktop apps. So any app that has a list of names becomes a "contact list" that you can click on to send a message. Integration of instant messaging might not sound like much, but instant messaging is probably the most non-integrated technology on the PC. I've probably never seen a URL for instant messaging someone. I presume you could do it, but it's just not as mainstream as, say, mailto:// urls.
They have done, they will continue to do so. Most countries have laws that specifically exempt ISPs from liability, and most ISPs disclaim their responsibility onto their users in the terms of service.
You can't sue someone for a crime. A crime is something the state prosecutes you for. I think it is fair of me to assume that you have a basic understanding of the difference between criminal law and civil law. Unfortunately there are criminal copyright infringement laws, but if the MPAA thought they could get this guy on those laws they wouldn't sue them, they'd just call the police and have them arrested and charged. Thankfully, these laws are not yet draconian enough to be applicable to simple filesharing. But give it time.
Wow, so if they're not disclaiming responsibility onto you then if you get sued you should just countersue the ISP for negligence.
I wonder if an unpatched Windows box could be considered an attractive nuisance. How sweet would that be? If I was rich and wanted to fuck with Bill (say, if my name was Steve Jobs) I'd set up a fake lawsuit and get the computer owner to throw it.
Dude, the terms of service state that no-one else is allowed to use it. Unless, of course, you happen to have gotten internet access from some "hip" ISP. But in the typical case, where you signed an agreement that stated that you are the sole user and are responsible for any and all traffic made under that agreement then yes, you're a freakin' bone head to let your flatmates use your computer.
What part of minor language change don't you understand? You can't just go from revolution, "a single complete turn", to revolution, "the overthrow of a government by those who are governed", to revolution, "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving." In one go. We had to adopt the word from the french, play around with its meaning (and spelling!), hand it back to the french, shuffle it through their political upheaval, return it to the english, shuffle it through their political upheaval, nurture it through to modern day and infuse it into the popular culture. In which time the meaning (and spelling) of the word changed a dozen times and the three meanings and one spelling we're left with today and have declared "official" are simply the strongest of those alternatives to survive.
If you wanna see how much spelling has damaged our language, have a look at Japanese. Because they use pheonetic spelling when they're not using pictorial writing, their language is a lot more fluid than ours. More words get made in Japanese every year than new words have been made in English in the last 100 years. Like French, we're slowly becoming a dead language as the speakers of it stop thinking.
Allow me to give you a few examples. What's the English word for the failure of a subculture tourist to recognise the celebrities of that subculture? There isn't one. So how do we deal with people when they exhibit that behaviour? We're incredulous right? We shake our head and think, wow, how can you not know [whoever]? The Japanese have a word for it. I can't even pronounce it, let alone write it, but it exists. So when someone exhibits this behaviour a Japanese person will be familiar with the concept. They won't shake their head and laugh, they will just explain to their friend who this celebrity is and why they are famous. As such, Japanese people are a lot better at forming subcultures, accepting new people into those subcultures and existing in multiple subcultures simultaniously.
Maybe you're on crack, but all of us are talking about liability not crimes. If you lend your machete to your neighbour and he chops off a finger because you failed to keep the handle well maintained you are liable. Libraries have special protections in many countries, but suppose we were talking about an internet cafe.. If they were to turn a blind eye to copyright infringement, or even just fail to have a policy of monitoring the use of their computer, they would be liable for the copyright infringement made on their machines. Why? It's an issue of owner's negligence.
But if you had read my entire post you would have seen that I wasn't condoning these fucked up laws, I was stating that they are so complex and impossible to obey that they should be immediately abolished.
If someone steals your car and hits someone, and you don't have insurance, you are in for a nasty court case if the joyrider can't pay up. Where'd you leave your car? Where'd you leave your keys? Do you have a car alarm? Did you take sufficient care to ensure that your car would not be misused?
Nothing is simple, this is the law we're talking about. Designed to make us all slaves to lawyers and spend our lives looking over our shoulder.
Commercial use.. ya know, what copyright was made for.. to encourage the creation of works by providing to authors for limited times the exclusive right to profit from them. In my opinion, copyright laws should be completely rewritten to declare clearly and entirely that if you are not selling then you are not infringing. None of this bullshit about lot revenue. None of these arguments about how much money you are "saving" by getting a copy off your friend instead of going to a store. And definitely none of this insanity about circumventing copy protection.
First off, that is a horrible analogy. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the steps?
Uhhh.. who's responsible for ensuring the terms of service of the ISP are followed? Why, the person who signed up for the service.. in this case, the grandfather. That aside, the point of my post was to show how complicated both copyright and liability laws are.
Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200,000 for ridiculous
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,580,000 for rediculous.
Results 1 - 10 of about 95,400,000 for forgotten
Results 1 - 10 of about 674,000 for forgotton.
I win.
Do you follow me around or what?
If everyone can get off by claiming that "someone else did it" then why are copyright cases ever litigated? That kind of advice reminds me of housemates I've had who insisted they needed to smoke pot in the lounge room instead of in their own bedroom so that if the cops dropped by they could claim it wasn't theirs because it was in a communal area. It's just nonsense. What do the RIAA/MPAA need to do? Trace people in realtime, kick down their door and catch them in the act?
As for the abolishment of copyright law, you gotta wonder exactly how much shit people will take before they say enough and demand an exemption for home use.
Google says...
Results 1 - 10 of about 27,200,000 for ridiculous
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,580,000 for rediculous
Seems a heck of a lot of other people prefer to spell the word that way too. The stablization of language leads to the solidification of thought. Before the word 'revolution' was used to refer to an unstoppable uprising, people considered it impossible to rule themselves. You can't have major language change without the freedom of minor language change.
Heh, the fact that 99% of people don't understand copyright laws is another good reason why they should be abolished. How can you be expected to follow the law when even the lawyers can't agree on what is legal and what is not.
BTW, perhaps you should read my entire post before replying, it was only five sentences.
It's the nature of language. If it didn't change we'd all be speaking like MacBeth.
According to TechDirt the grandfather was sued for offering movies for download. Claiming that he isn't liable because his grandson was the one doing it, not him, is about as rediculous as saying that he's not liable if someone cracks their head open on faulty steps in his house because his grandson lives there not him. He owns the line, he's liable for any copyright infringement performed from that line. And no, it doesn't matter if it wasn't his son but some hackers who broke into his computer; if a burglar breaks into your house and puts his back out trying to lug away your safe, you're still liable. Much like copyright law in general, personal liability is insane and should be abolished.