It's no different than sharing the connection between an upstairs computer and a downstairs computer.
Many ISPs prohibit even that under the standard contract. Sure, they don't enforce it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't.
Most ISPs' policies have clauses prohibiting reselling their services, but they'd have a real hard time prohibiting freely sharing the bandwidth that the subscriber has paid for.
The cable companies have no problems doing it. Just use a term such as "single dwelling."
Well, I said "can", not "will". It's certainly possible to live without good credit, but it can make life very difficult, and if you're already in a position where you need the credit rating, a bad rating can certainly ruin you - for various values of ruin, of course. Some people may not consider having to move out of your house and give up the majority of your amenities to be ruined, others may.
I'm still not sure I agree. If you in a position where you need the credit rating, you probably shouldn't be using credit in the first place. If you have to move out of your house and give up the majority of your amenities, it's not the credit reporting agencies fault, it's your own. Either you started missing payments, or you chose a balloon loan.
Let me clarify my point about the difference between Equifax and E-Bay - I can, indeed call them up and say that, but my saying it won't be reflected in the report, it won't adveresly affect the person who gave me the bad rating, and, since the confirmation process in non-transparent, there's no way of me affecting it if the company simply says "Yes, so and so didn't pay us".
It most certainly will be reflected in the report. There will be a note next to the item that says that it is in dispute. Of course, eBay has this as well.
I'm sure some people have had excellent success removing false or misleading entries from thier credit report, but I've never heard of them.
Well, I've had false entries removed from my report, but none of them were actual disputes, just mistakes (such as someone else using my SSN). But the point is that there are a whole lot of federal regulations regarding what credit reporting agencies are allowed to report, and what they are not allowed to report. There are federal laws about who is allowed to access the report, and who must be notified. There are laws about what things have to be removed, and there are laws against making false statements to a credit reporting agency (yes there's also libel laws for eBay but try suing scamman35 in small claims court - there are laws forcing credit reporting agencies to give you the contact information of anyone who makes a report, no such laws for eBay, hell eBay doesn't even have to follow any sort of know your customer laws).
One of the other things that annoys me is how difficult they make it to view your own credit rating - yes, I know anyone who does a check on you has to provide you with a copy of it, but companies consistently make it difficult to actually obtain that.
I mostly agree with you, but TransUnion is a shining exception in that regard. You can check your report online for free if you qualify under the laws of the U.S. or your state. For the rest you have to call or write, which isn't particularly difficult, but it is a pain since they offer it for a fee online.
As for the dividing line, I understand your position, I just can't agree with it. Regulate both, or regulate neither, but don't regulate just one. Then again, maybe I only feel that way because I'm one of the lucky ones with an excellent credit rating (and a 0 eBay rating, 2+ and 2- I think).
I can't call up Equifax and say "Yeah, company blah dinged be for not paying on time, but the reason is that they failed to process my cancellation request on time, and I cancelled because the service sucks anyway".
Actually, yes you can, and they have to remove it from your report until it is confirmed.
Thing's don't have to be black & white - you can think it's okay to regulate an industry that's so ingraned in our economy that they can literally ruin you for life, but still think that a similar industry that affects the users of a particular website, and then to a smaller degree, doesn't need regulation.
You can, but it seems to me like an odd position to take. It's quite easy to live life without credit, so I have to disagree that credit reporting companies can "literally ruin you for life." The fact that eBay has 2 million records and Equifax has 200 million I don't think is a big enough distinction.
You're perfectly free to draw the line somewhere between the two, but it doesn't make any sense to me.
If you replace eBay with Experian (or TransUnion or Equifax), not only do you have something which most Slashdotters would jump on the bandwagon of, you have something which is already the law in the United States.
But since eBay IDs aren't social security numbers, somehow that makes it OK...
Nope, there used to be a rule against using.org for for-profit sites. I'm not sure how heavily it was enforced, but you had to at least claim you were a non-profit when you ordered the domain. That went away sometime around 1997. Of course before 1995, domain names were free.
I'm sure if you are only sending/receiving legal mp3 files you won't run across this worm. And we all know that slashdotters never download illegal files.
False. Oklahoma law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property at *any* time.
I didn't say "at *any* time." I quoted courttv as saying that "several states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, have controversial laws that allow persons to use deadly force to protect property against unwanted intruders (whether or not the property owner is confronted with deadly force)."
Ignoring for the moment the practicalities of killing somebody over the Internet(!?), doesn't the USA already have murder/manslaughter laws?
No. The individual states of the USA have murder/manslaughter laws. The federal government only has murder/manslaughter laws for certain types of murder.
Why does there need to be special legislation depending on the method employed?
Because the federal government can only pass laws about certain types of crimes, for instance, interstate commerce. Thus, if the crime is not committed by an interstate method, it's going to be much harder for the federal government to get jurisdiction. For instance, in the sniper case they used the fact that the police had to shut down interstate highways which were carrying commerce from state to state in order to get jurisdiction.
Congress seems to have asked a reasonable question, are there situations in which hacking sentences should be based on on other things? Are cases possible where it is closer to murder? There many obvious examples of this, such as hacking into a water dam's control system and flooding towns downstream.
That isn't close to murder. It is murder. Just like if you steal a car and use it to run over and kill someone you can be charged with a crime greater than grand theft, if you break into a computer and use it to kill someone you can be charged with a crime greater than hacking/cracking/whateverthepctermis.
What would be an example of a major cyber crime which doesn't involve breaking other laws? I mean, I can see 20 years for someone who steals credit cards off websites, but they could be charged with theft or fraud or whatever in addition to cyber crimes.
If the 15 year old 'cracker' writes his name all over a site (i.e. graffiti) he should get the same as a 15 year-old who scrawls all over his local shopping mall (i.e. fuck all or a safari or something).
And he will - juvenile delinquency.
If however he goes and steals 10000 credit card numbers and uses them to buy every back issue of playboy he should be locked up for a long time.
If he's 15 he probably will still be charged with the same crime - juvenile delinquency. But if he's 18 (or maybe 16) he will be charged with grand theft (or something like that) in addition to hacking. There's no need to add laws that are already covered by existing ones.
Nothing. Let the punishment fit the crime. If you commit a virtual crime, you should get a virtual punishment. Maybe a ban from the internet for several years, at the worst.
Several states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, have controversial laws that allow persons to use deadly force to protect property against unwanted intruders (whether or not the property owner is confronted with deadly force). These are also known informally as "make my day" laws.
Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
It really doesn't matter if newbies can't install or use the distro in the first place. We'll quickly move toward one distro as soon as one distro comes out which is usable for the masses.
Yes, it alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, common law trademark infringment, and breach of contract. It doesn't even charge them with violating the DMCA, as far as I can tell.
In the second amended complaint, 1201(a)(1)(A) (part of the DMCA) is added. Without the DMCA, the server still would have been shut down.
It isn't a stretch since the letter threating Felten specifically cited the DMCA.
It is a stretch to blame that letter on the DMCA. If I threaten to sue you for murder, that doesn't mean laws against murder are to blame.
Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
Such as?
Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, breach of contract, unlawful competition, murder, it really doesn't matter, because none of them, including the DMCA, applies.
What free speech of Dmitry's was censored? Should the actions of AlterSlash be protected as free speech?
As for bnetd, their server was shut down due to violations of regular old copyright law in addition to DMCA violations. All the DMCA did here was keep Blizzard from being allowed to sue the ISP.
As for your third link, I think it's quite a stretch to say that the DMCA is responsible, since the DMCA does not even apply. Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
I think you can definitely question his software innovator-ness if you want to, but talking about how he "ruined" Netscape doesn't acknowledge that he created a web browser that included in-line graphics.
Which browser is that? He didn't create Mosaic. I don't even think he came up with the idea for in-line graphics. Well, obviously he didn't come up with it, because it was done before him, not with an HTML browser, but didn't prodigy and AOL have in-line graphics before Mosaic? I'm sure someone did.
But don't say he doesn't belong in an innovators list because of some bad decisions he later made.
Perhaps I was unclear. I was judging his bad decisions he made from the very beginning as the technical visionary for the company. As was evidenced later (but occurred from the very beginning), he failed miserably.
As for Mosaic, I've never read that he was the main designer for Mosaic. A code monkey perhaps. Chief architect maybe. But the code and architecture of Mosaic are not particularly impressive. The idea is. So where are you basing your assertion that Andreesen is responsible for the idea of Mosaic? Also, I don't feel that in-line graphics was as novel an idea as you are suggesting.
Finally, you are the one who nominated "Marc Andreesen for Mosaic/Netscape." Had you nominated "Marc Andreesen for Mosaic" I wouldn't have mentioned Netscape at all.
Marc Andreesen for Mosaic/Netscape? No way. Andreesen pretty much single handedly ruined Netscape to the point where they had to start over from scratch with Mozilla.
The patent has expired. And who says it can't be built? Maybe it can be built, it's just not cost effective to build it.
Yes, there is a rule that if it can't be built, it can't be patented. Apparently either the patent clerk who reviewed the patent messed up, or this product can in fact be built. In fact maybe it already has been built. The difference between building a working prototype and manufacturing mass quantities is quite a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no different than sharing the connection between an upstairs computer and a downstairs computer.
Many ISPs prohibit even that under the standard contract. Sure, they don't enforce it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't.
Most ISPs' policies have clauses prohibiting reselling their services, but they'd have a real hard time prohibiting freely sharing the bandwidth that the subscriber has paid for.
The cable companies have no problems doing it. Just use a term such as "single dwelling."
Well, I said "can", not "will". It's certainly possible to live without good credit, but it can make life very difficult, and if you're already in a position where you need the credit rating, a bad rating can certainly ruin you - for various values of ruin, of course. Some people may not consider having to move out of your house and give up the majority of your amenities to be ruined, others may.
I'm still not sure I agree. If you in a position where you need the credit rating, you probably shouldn't be using credit in the first place. If you have to move out of your house and give up the majority of your amenities, it's not the credit reporting agencies fault, it's your own. Either you started missing payments, or you chose a balloon loan.
Let me clarify my point about the difference between Equifax and E-Bay - I can, indeed call them up and say that, but my saying it won't be reflected in the report, it won't adveresly affect the person who gave me the bad rating, and, since the confirmation process in non-transparent, there's no way of me affecting it if the company simply says "Yes, so and so didn't pay us".
It most certainly will be reflected in the report. There will be a note next to the item that says that it is in dispute. Of course, eBay has this as well.
I'm sure some people have had excellent success removing false or misleading entries from thier credit report, but I've never heard of them.
Well, I've had false entries removed from my report, but none of them were actual disputes, just mistakes (such as someone else using my SSN). But the point is that there are a whole lot of federal regulations regarding what credit reporting agencies are allowed to report, and what they are not allowed to report. There are federal laws about who is allowed to access the report, and who must be notified. There are laws about what things have to be removed, and there are laws against making false statements to a credit reporting agency (yes there's also libel laws for eBay but try suing scamman35 in small claims court - there are laws forcing credit reporting agencies to give you the contact information of anyone who makes a report, no such laws for eBay, hell eBay doesn't even have to follow any sort of know your customer laws).
One of the other things that annoys me is how difficult they make it to view your own credit rating - yes, I know anyone who does a check on you has to provide you with a copy of it, but companies consistently make it difficult to actually obtain that.
I mostly agree with you, but TransUnion is a shining exception in that regard. You can check your report online for free if you qualify under the laws of the U.S. or your state. For the rest you have to call or write, which isn't particularly difficult, but it is a pain since they offer it for a fee online.
As for the dividing line, I understand your position, I just can't agree with it. Regulate both, or regulate neither, but don't regulate just one. Then again, maybe I only feel that way because I'm one of the lucky ones with an excellent credit rating (and a 0 eBay rating, 2+ and 2- I think).
Oh, you're talking about a granularity greater than h-bar?
I can't call up Equifax and say "Yeah, company blah dinged be for not paying on time, but the reason is that they failed to process my cancellation request on time, and I cancelled because the service sucks anyway".
Actually, yes you can, and they have to remove it from your report until it is confirmed.
Thing's don't have to be black & white - you can think it's okay to regulate an industry that's so ingraned in our economy that they can literally ruin you for life, but still think that a similar industry that affects the users of a particular website, and then to a smaller degree, doesn't need regulation.
You can, but it seems to me like an odd position to take. It's quite easy to live life without credit, so I have to disagree that credit reporting companies can "literally ruin you for life." The fact that eBay has 2 million records and Equifax has 200 million I don't think is a big enough distinction.
You're perfectly free to draw the line somewhere between the two, but it doesn't make any sense to me.
The credit rating companies are providing the information on your credit report.
Please buy a clue and get back to me. The credit rating companies report information they get from third parties.
If you replace eBay with Experian (or TransUnion or Equifax), not only do you have something which most Slashdotters would jump on the bandwagon of, you have something which is already the law in the United States.
But since eBay IDs aren't social security numbers, somehow that makes it OK...
Nope, there used to be a rule against using .org for for-profit sites. I'm not sure how heavily it was enforced, but you had to at least claim you were a non-profit when you ordered the domain. That went away sometime around 1997. Of course before 1995, domain names were free.
I'm sure if you are only sending/receiving legal mp3 files you won't run across this worm. And we all know that slashdotters never download illegal files.
False. Oklahoma law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property at *any* time.
I didn't say "at *any* time." I quoted courttv as saying that "several states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, have controversial laws that allow persons to use deadly force to protect property against unwanted intruders (whether or not the property owner is confronted with deadly force)."
Ignoring for the moment the practicalities of killing somebody over the Internet(!?), doesn't the USA already have murder/manslaughter laws?
No. The individual states of the USA have murder/manslaughter laws. The federal government only has murder/manslaughter laws for certain types of murder.
Why does there need to be special legislation depending on the method employed?
Because the federal government can only pass laws about certain types of crimes, for instance, interstate commerce. Thus, if the crime is not committed by an interstate method, it's going to be much harder for the federal government to get jurisdiction. For instance, in the sniper case they used the fact that the police had to shut down interstate highways which were carrying commerce from state to state in order to get jurisdiction.
But if somebody takes down an entire corporate network, and destroys millions in data loss...that's terrorism, and they probably deserve 20.
So why not charge them with terrorism?
Congress seems to have asked a reasonable question, are there situations in which hacking sentences should be based on on other things? Are cases possible where it is closer to murder? There many obvious examples of this, such as hacking into a water dam's control system and flooding towns downstream.
That isn't close to murder. It is murder. Just like if you steal a car and use it to run over and kill someone you can be charged with a crime greater than grand theft, if you break into a computer and use it to kill someone you can be charged with a crime greater than hacking/cracking/whateverthepctermis.
What would be an example of a major cyber crime which doesn't involve breaking other laws? I mean, I can see 20 years for someone who steals credit cards off websites, but they could be charged with theft or fraud or whatever in addition to cyber crimes.
If the 15 year old 'cracker' writes his name all over a site (i.e. graffiti) he should get the same as a 15 year-old who scrawls all over his local shopping mall (i.e. fuck all or a safari or something).
And he will - juvenile delinquency.
If however he goes and steals 10000 credit card numbers and uses them to buy every back issue of playboy he should be locked up for a long time.
If he's 15 he probably will still be charged with the same crime - juvenile delinquency. But if he's 18 (or maybe 16) he will be charged with grand theft (or something like that) in addition to hacking. There's no need to add laws that are already covered by existing ones.
Nothing. Let the punishment fit the crime. If you commit a virtual crime, you should get a virtual punishment. Maybe a ban from the internet for several years, at the worst.
Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
It really doesn't matter if newbies can't install or use the distro in the first place. We'll quickly move toward one distro as soon as one distro comes out which is usable for the masses.
Have you read the complaint?
Yes, it alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, common law trademark infringment, and breach of contract. It doesn't even charge them with violating the DMCA, as far as I can tell.
In the second amended complaint, 1201(a)(1)(A) (part of the DMCA) is added. Without the DMCA, the server still would have been shut down.
It isn't a stretch since the letter threating Felten specifically cited the DMCA.
It is a stretch to blame that letter on the DMCA. If I threaten to sue you for murder, that doesn't mean laws against murder are to blame.
Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
Such as?
Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, breach of contract, unlawful competition, murder, it really doesn't matter, because none of them, including the DMCA, applies.
What free speech of Dmitry's was censored? Should the actions of AlterSlash be protected as free speech?
As for bnetd, their server was shut down due to violations of regular old copyright law in addition to DMCA violations. All the DMCA did here was keep Blizzard from being allowed to sue the ISP.
As for your third link, I think it's quite a stretch to say that the DMCA is responsible, since the DMCA does not even apply. Without the DMCA the RIAA just would have threatened to sue under some other law.
I think you can definitely question his software innovator-ness if you want to, but talking about how he "ruined" Netscape doesn't acknowledge that he created a web browser that included in-line graphics.
Which browser is that? He didn't create Mosaic. I don't even think he came up with the idea for in-line graphics. Well, obviously he didn't come up with it, because it was done before him, not with an HTML browser, but didn't prodigy and AOL have in-line graphics before Mosaic? I'm sure someone did.
But don't say he doesn't belong in an innovators list because of some bad decisions he later made.
Perhaps I was unclear. I was judging his bad decisions he made from the very beginning as the technical visionary for the company. As was evidenced later (but occurred from the very beginning), he failed miserably.
As for Mosaic, I've never read that he was the main designer for Mosaic. A code monkey perhaps. Chief architect maybe. But the code and architecture of Mosaic are not particularly impressive. The idea is. So where are you basing your assertion that Andreesen is responsible for the idea of Mosaic? Also, I don't feel that in-line graphics was as novel an idea as you are suggesting.
Finally, you are the one who nominated "Marc Andreesen for Mosaic/Netscape." Had you nominated "Marc Andreesen for Mosaic" I wouldn't have mentioned Netscape at all.
whatever manager it is that lets you sit around pondering what to name your Conference rooms. Sounds like a pretty innovative concept.
Marc Andreesen for Mosaic/Netscape? No way. Andreesen pretty much single handedly ruined Netscape to the point where they had to start over from scratch with Mozilla.
The patent has expired. And who says it can't be built? Maybe it can be built, it's just not cost effective to build it.
Yes, there is a rule that if it can't be built, it can't be patented. Apparently either the patent clerk who reviewed the patent messed up, or this product can in fact be built. In fact maybe it already has been built. The difference between building a working prototype and manufacturing mass quantities is quite a lot of money.
So why not raise the money to buy another fabrication factory? Perhaps because it's not cost effective?
Why haven't you built one of these things? Chances are that's the same reason that they haven't yet been built.