From what I understand, there's a certain amount of due diligence required by the court, but once thats reached, you're responsible for retrieving your mail. If the court decides that sending an email with a reciept request is sufficent, well.... you're kinda up the creek. Of course, it seems to me, if there's no physical address, how are you going to find them to force them to pay the judgement, or discovery, or any of those other things?
Side note: They're claiming a trademark on RIO SPORTS? Against a company based in Brazil? WTF is the court thinking?
Thats an amazingly fantastic idea and I wish I'd thought of it. Now I'll finally "register" realplayer instead of constantly canceling out of it everytime I play something.
It's interesting, I registed via register.com (I use dns2go for my dynamic DNS, and it's easier/faster to get the domain set up if I register with register.com, who owns them or is a partner or something), and was bracing myself for a flood of spam when they sold me out. So far, not a drop. Makes me really happy. I did make sure to check and uncheck all the approriate boxes, so maybe that actually did something....
No, the proper way, and the way it worked pre-DMCA is that the content stays up until it's proved to be infringing (or a court orders it taken down pre-trial). The ISP, assuming the correctness of the common carrier argument, has nothing to do with it at all. The ISP provisions are there so they can control content posted by people anonymously, or out of the country. It's an open argument as to whether or not this power is worth making ISPs reposonsible to content, but it's apparent which way the legislation went.
You mean kinda like how Google is a general purpose search engine, and shouldn't be held liable for the content it indexes and caches? If Google can be held liable under the DMCA for it's content, then so can AOL.
Wow, what an amazing way to turn this thread into your own pet ranting. Not to mention making assumptions about my beliefs.
Point: allowing people to deprive themselves of rights is a downward spiral (or slippery slope, if you will) for any free society. This is one of the reasons we outlaw indentured servitude.
Point: This is not about the legality of these contracts, it's about being wary of them, and somewhat about the ethics of such clauses.
Now, as for nanny governments depriving you of your ability to do things "for your own good"... try thinking things through for a minute. If you don't WANT to work for my competitors after you quit, you don't have to. If you don't want to tell everyone the trade secrets of my company, you don't have to. Nothing would force you to do so. What such legislation would do (not that I advocate it, this is simply assuming such existed) would prevent you from signing away your rights. If you chose to comply, you still could.
One of the decisions we made as a society is that we won't market and sell humans as objects. Sadly, as we get more and more corporatized (is that a word? I don't care) we lose track of that and do it more and more. Would society really be HARMED if you couldn't sign away IP you create on your own time to your employer? How would that hurt anyone except an unethical employer? if you really WANT your employer having the rights to everything you ever create, whats wrong with requiring it to be done explicity for each item?
In conclusion: Legislation may not (probably is not) the best solution here. Education and (possibly) organized action is. I have to say that I didn't even think about the possibilty that that clause meant EVERYTHING I created, even on my own time - I assumed (reasonably) that things I created on company time, with company equipment was, but thats all. Now, I'm not blaming the state for not protecting me, but it sure would be nice if such broad-reaching (not to mention totally unneccesary) clauses weren't enforcable. I'm sure tilly would agree.
That adresses a specific problem (using SSN to commit identity theft) but doesn't stop the root issue (identity theft). If it's not the SSN, it's something else, which will be used exactly as the SSN is now (rose by any other name and all that). If the key used to specifically identify you is publically available, you are vulnerable to identity theft, simple as that.
May be different in different states, but thats certainly false in California. There may be some misunderstaning about what you have to do when the police ask you for ID - people commonly say that "you must show them ID", which is taken to mean you must have ID on you. That is not true. You must identify yourself to an officer if asked, showing proof of ID if you have it. It's illegal to refuse to give your name (perhaps address? not sure), and if you have ID you have to show it. But they won't (and can't) bust you simply for not having an ID on you.
How exactly does that stop identity theft? Because I can look in the phone book, see that John Smith has the SSN 123-45-6789, look at the guys ID, see that it has his picture, the name John Smith, and that SSN on it and realize it's him?
I worked for a bookstore once, and they called us to ask if we'd be interested in carrying thier books. We told them no. They weoman on the line then got very aggressive and argumentative, insisting to know why we wouldn't carry them (hatred of stupid cult + no money), wanting our names and addresses (home address, not just the store one) and lots of other ridiculous stuff before we hung up on her. Was kinda scary, really.
Except that they aren't, because all the IP they create still belongs to the orignal company, non-competition clauses (isn't a "non-competition" clause the antithesis of the free market?), etc, etc, etc.... Handily, I work for the State (of NY, sadly, I may need to review my contract) and therefore don't have any of that non-competition stuff.
what, you never got told to write a 10,000 word english paper(or a 10 page paper), and padded it by always spelling out contractions and numbers, wide margins, etc?
Besides, while you can compute the time it will take to do a total seach of the keyspace, you could always get lucky and chance upon the key in the first 10 seconds. Shit happens.
As someone who worked in a bookstore, I'd have to dispute that - perhaps it's the case in large chains like Borders, but not for a small one. The industry standard wholesalers rate is 60% - meaning the book store owner pays 60% of the cover price of the book. Thats a pretty tight margin to manage restocking, expansion, and overhead in. If you buy in sufficent quantity, you can possibly get as low as 45%, but that's generally only for (very large) bulk purchase from the publisher, and only distributors or chains that have thier own distribution (Borders, again) can get those prices. It's a tight margin.
Point of fact: Copyright doesn't protect publishers in any way. Thats why they want you to sign it over to them.
If you feel this way, why are you using OpenSSH? Go with a closed source implementation where that's exactly what you'll get - no documentation, no posts, no exploit code. Also no updates, unless they feel like it.
I suspect that "We had to for ACPI to always be on to meet the Windows XP requirements" does not translate to "Microsoft told use we had to have ACPI be always on".
More likely, as a previous poster suggested, theres a problem with the board when ACPI is off, and it doesn't meet the requirements in that mode. If it IS a conspiracy to ship motherboards that don't support BSD/linux, it's a really poor one.
Option 3 is the correct option. In the next version, you include both interfaces, clearly marking one as obselete and to be removed. In the version after that, you remove it. Except that you don't remove it, since windows emphasies backwards compatability to a truly ridiculous degree, and that won't likely change.
Forcing documentation of every API won't do jack to the meaning of Windows compatible, and I'm not sure what you mean by thier ability to define what windows is.
Take a brief look at how Linux handles these problems.
yeah, but, as you said, given the nature of this gel it's alot more use against a peaceful march than it is a random horde of anarchists with firebombs - you don't want to trip someone with a molotov, you want to arrest him, preferably by incapacitating him from a distance. The example given above about using this stuff to prevent, IE, sit ins and other peaceful actions a la MLK is a good one.
i wonder how a judgement against Elcomm would affect the porn sites (and phone services) that host from netherlands, where the legal age limit is lower and the laws less strict. After all, they operate in the US at least as much as Elcomm did - they maintain billing servers in the US, they have employees there, they advertise in US magazines, and they target customers in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Side note: They're claiming a trademark on RIO SPORTS? Against a company based in Brazil? WTF is the court thinking?
Thats an amazingly fantastic idea and I wish I'd thought of it. Now I'll finally "register" realplayer instead of constantly canceling out of it everytime I play something.
It's interesting, I registed via register.com (I use dns2go for my dynamic DNS, and it's easier/faster to get the domain set up if I register with register.com, who owns them or is a partner or something), and was bracing myself for a flood of spam when they sold me out. So far, not a drop. Makes me really happy. I did make sure to check and uncheck all the approriate boxes, so maybe that actually did something....
No, the proper way, and the way it worked pre-DMCA is that the content stays up until it's proved to be infringing (or a court orders it taken down pre-trial). The ISP, assuming the correctness of the common carrier argument, has nothing to do with it at all. The ISP provisions are there so they can control content posted by people anonymously, or out of the country. It's an open argument as to whether or not this power is worth making ISPs reposonsible to content, but it's apparent which way the legislation went.
You mean kinda like how Google is a general purpose search engine, and shouldn't be held liable for the content it indexes and caches? If Google can be held liable under the DMCA for it's content, then so can AOL.
Point: allowing people to deprive themselves of rights is a downward spiral (or slippery slope, if you will) for any free society. This is one of the reasons we outlaw indentured servitude.
Point: This is not about the legality of these contracts, it's about being wary of them, and somewhat about the ethics of such clauses.
Now, as for nanny governments depriving you of your ability to do things "for your own good"... try thinking things through for a minute. If you don't WANT to work for my competitors after you quit, you don't have to. If you don't want to tell everyone the trade secrets of my company, you don't have to. Nothing would force you to do so. What such legislation would do (not that I advocate it, this is simply assuming such existed) would prevent you from signing away your rights. If you chose to comply, you still could.
One of the decisions we made as a society is that we won't market and sell humans as objects. Sadly, as we get more and more corporatized (is that a word? I don't care) we lose track of that and do it more and more. Would society really be HARMED if you couldn't sign away IP you create on your own time to your employer? How would that hurt anyone except an unethical employer? if you really WANT your employer having the rights to everything you ever create, whats wrong with requiring it to be done explicity for each item?
In conclusion: Legislation may not (probably is not) the best solution here. Education and (possibly) organized action is. I have to say that I didn't even think about the possibilty that that clause meant EVERYTHING I created, even on my own time - I assumed (reasonably) that things I created on company time, with company equipment was, but thats all. Now, I'm not blaming the state for not protecting me, but it sure would be nice if such broad-reaching (not to mention totally unneccesary) clauses weren't enforcable. I'm sure tilly would agree.
That adresses a specific problem (using SSN to commit identity theft) but doesn't stop the root issue (identity theft). If it's not the SSN, it's something else, which will be used exactly as the SSN is now (rose by any other name and all that). If the key used to specifically identify you is publically available, you are vulnerable to identity theft, simple as that.
May be different in different states, but thats certainly false in California. There may be some misunderstaning about what you have to do when the police ask you for ID - people commonly say that "you must show them ID", which is taken to mean you must have ID on you. That is not true. You must identify yourself to an officer if asked, showing proof of ID if you have it. It's illegal to refuse to give your name (perhaps address? not sure), and if you have ID you have to show it. But they won't (and can't) bust you simply for not having an ID on you.
776 Park Avenue, Suite 340
Huntington, NY, 11743
631-421-2011
516-421-9350 FAX
It's not him, but give him a call anyway.
How exactly does that stop identity theft? Because I can look in the phone book, see that John Smith has the SSN 123-45-6789, look at the guys ID, see that it has his picture, the name John Smith, and that SSN on it and realize it's him?
I worked for a bookstore once, and they called us to ask if we'd be interested in carrying thier books. We told them no. They weoman on the line then got very aggressive and argumentative, insisting to know why we wouldn't carry them (hatred of stupid cult + no money), wanting our names and addresses (home address, not just the store one) and lots of other ridiculous stuff before we hung up on her. Was kinda scary, really.
Except that they aren't, because all the IP they create still belongs to the orignal company, non-competition clauses (isn't a "non-competition" clause the antithesis of the free market?), etc, etc, etc.... Handily, I work for the State (of NY, sadly, I may need to review my contract) and therefore don't have any of that non-competition stuff.
what, you never got told to write a 10,000 word english paper(or a 10 page paper), and padded it by always spelling out contractions and numbers, wide margins, etc?
afaik, there isn't one, but you can do clever tricks with calling the shutdown API with rundll.exe. I forget the syntax, however.
BDE is ALSO some stupid video viewer that kazaa installs. It doesn't need it, it's a spyware app. it has nothing to do with the Borland engine.
That's cool, except it's not what WHQL is, and hardly anything gets WHQL certified anyway.
Besides, while you can compute the time it will take to do a total seach of the keyspace, you could always get lucky and chance upon the key in the first 10 seconds. Shit happens.
Point of fact: Copyright doesn't protect publishers in any way. Thats why they want you to sign it over to them.
If you feel this way, why are you using OpenSSH? Go with a closed source implementation where that's exactly what you'll get - no documentation, no posts, no exploit code. Also no updates, unless they feel like it.
they'd have to leave the copyright comments in the obfuscated code, too. thats not going to be real helpful, though.
More likely, as a previous poster suggested, theres a problem with the board when ACPI is off, and it doesn't meet the requirements in that mode. If it IS a conspiracy to ship motherboards that don't support BSD/linux, it's a really poor one.
Forcing documentation of every API won't do jack to the meaning of Windows compatible, and I'm not sure what you mean by thier ability to define what windows is.
Take a brief look at how Linux handles these problems.
Well, if you're willing to pay some real money, try sealand. Or there might be a company that'll resell space on it's machines located there.
yeah, but, as you said, given the nature of this gel it's alot more use against a peaceful march than it is a random horde of anarchists with firebombs - you don't want to trip someone with a molotov, you want to arrest him, preferably by incapacitating him from a distance. The example given above about using this stuff to prevent, IE, sit ins and other peaceful actions a la MLK is a good one.
i wonder how a judgement against Elcomm would affect the porn sites (and phone services) that host from netherlands, where the legal age limit is lower and the laws less strict. After all, they operate in the US at least as much as Elcomm did - they maintain billing servers in the US, they have employees there, they advertise in US magazines, and they target customers in the US.