What you may need to do is retain a lawyer and sue. You've done well to contact them and try to remedy this outside the courts. However, if you allow them to continue to abuse your copyright, you might end up losing it.
What you sue them for is licensing costs. You figure out what portion of their application is yours and sue based on a percentage of that.
"It depends. If they violated another person, they need both prison and counseling. Looking at a web page is another matter though."
How did the child porn get on that web page? I'll bet some adult exploited them. That violated that young person's innocence. Perhaps that child is also molested or being prostituted. So, you can't say that looking at a web page is another matter.
I'll bet the web site he viewed was subscription-based (yes, I've yet to read the article), so he is supporting such behavior. Additionally, he did not _report_ the discovery of child pornography to authorities. An above post mentions that informing the cops is an affirmative defense to the crime. By not reporting the discovery of kiddie porn, the man becomes an accomplice--an accomplice to those children's exploitation
"No reasonable expectation of privacy exists on the Internet." Remember that phrase. It will appear in the first _Nutt v. U.S._ case where a private citizen sues the Federal Government for accessing his online activities.
Let's face it: as soon as you clear your home router, nothing you do is private. A cop is free to follow you in public and observe everything you do. Why is this any different on the Internet?
This is probably distinguishable from phone conversations. On the telephone, you assume that there is a two-way (or three-way) conversation. There is a point-to-point conversation. (I'm referring to the older model, not the VoIP model). However, since Internet activity routes through several nodes via multiple pathways, then your activity is more observable. The fact that people can packet-sniff in the comfort of their own home evidences this. The cops used to have to wiretap at the phone company to monitor your phone calls. Now they only need your IP address to capture everything you're doing.
So, no "no reasonable expectation of privacy on the Internet."
Of course, if the first person publishes the invention, it will become prior art, and therefore ineligible for patent protection.
Except, on first blush, the law reads that 1) the prior art must be published by the inventor, and not another individual and 2) the publication must precede the patent filing by one year. That means that if somebody publishes, then somebody else could file in a year. That is first blush, of course.
But, first thing you do is change the definition to something easier to manipulate. Then, over time, you slowly change that value until you arrive at a new one.
In a related press release, Microsoft announced security release 1998-0173, fixing problems associated with running Open Office or Word Perfect. The specific security threat would allow users to use other word processing software than MS Word. This security update will prevent these malware products from running.
Also released is Linux security (kernel) release 2.6.8. Not wanting to feel left out. This security release, when installed in place of MS Windows, will effectively block all Windows-based malware and viruses. Unless, you're one of those who are trying to get viruses to run on WINE. If you're one of those, aren't you really an MS mole trying to keep a brother down?
Doesn't that sort of skew perceptions a bit much? I mean, leave we dotters to trash the article, the company, the product and explain why if it ran Linux the world would be a better place. But to come right out and abjectly claim snake oil seems a bit much to me.
Next, you'll be telling me that you can't fit a GB of data on a 1 in. HHD, or that the Flood is not visiting SoCal (the Biblical Flood, not Halo2).
Assuming you're right with the snake oil. At least they're only hurting stock holders and not the Open Source community by suing IBM. Stock holders by the nature of buying stock assume the risk. If this is a press release to induce a pump-and-dump, as seems to be hinted, then the SEC will be looking for them.
But, if they can get faster charging, higher capacity battries, then maybe my laptop can weigh less. I mean, if most car's MPG and tank capacity give them roughly 300 miles of range, why should the industry let you get away with using your laptop unplugged for more than 2 hours?
Seriously, though. The clock was left off. Without it, sailors would not have been able to accurately calculate their longitude. I saw the sextant was listed. However, the importance of gadgets to travel the oceans during the Age of Discover are, I'm sorry, more important than the iPod. Without them, there might not be European domniation of the planet and crackers like me in the US. What has the iPod done that compares?
Except, the Terms of Service of the typical ISP forbids sharing the connection between residences. That's why I'm waiting for Speakeasy to show up in my area. Violation of the Terms of services is at least a breach of contract, and could be illegal in some jurisdictions (such as mine).
". . . its (sic) not really that unethical (although it is illegal) . .."
Yes, it is quite illegal. Most states call it the "Theft of Cable" act, or more recently, "Theft of Information Services." In my state, it's a felony that can get you up to five years on the first offense.
But, more importantly, you are saying that theft is "not that unethical." Or, to put it another way, "theft is ethical." Okay, so when somebody steals your car you won't press charges because it's ethical?
What's that? Not the same thing? I disagree. First of all, both cases of theft are statutorially illegal. Second, you paid for your car (probably still are like most of us), so you should get to decide who uses it. The Cable Companies paid for the infrastructure. Don't they have the right to determine who can use it?
Or, another example? Rental cars. A big company loans you their car. They paid for the car, you can only use it within the limitations of the contract you sign as a renter.
So, while it may seem cheaper to steal cable . . .
Should I? Don't you remember the song, "A country boy can survive?" I was trying to be cheeky, but you had to take me seriously.
Besides, my financial security doesn't rely upon the Coasts. My livelihood is likewise not derived from the Coasts. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who can get by just fine without them.
Freedom? I doubt they'd slap the mid-west with marital law because of an incident on the Coasts. Besides, if they push our freedoms too far, we'll just arm up.
" I think people are far more worried about . . . dirty bomb than a mushroom cloud vaporizing New York or San Francisco."
Well, I for one am not the least bit worried about New York City or San Francisco being vaporized. I live in the Mid-West. In neither case would the fallout drift overhead.
Being a fine, upstanding company, Microsoft will never change its mind. So, you can be certain that they will never "decide" that their once-free product needs to come at a price.
I mean, I turned down their "update" for their product because I didn't want to have to pay for it when they decided to.
Besides, MS security products seem to have a pinchant for being thwarted. I like a 3d party tool to keep MS honest and my computer safe.
First, if the relationship between the Wikipedia and Google can be properly maintained, and boundaries established, I think this is a good thing for the Wikipedia.
People are fearful that Google will attempt to co-opt the Wikipedia. That's what is apparent in the Dvorak article. However, what Wikipedia needs is a slick lawyer to write a contract between Google and Wikipedia. (IANASL)
1. Google will host the Wikipedia as a donation. 2. Google will not restrict access to the Wikipedia except as mutually agreed upon by both parties, and a public page to explain what restrictions and why. At no time will restrictions be based upon subscriptions or charges. 3. Wikipedia will put a slick Google icon somewhere on the page to say "thanks Google for hosting us." 4. This agreement may be terminated with fair notice to the other party at any time.
If Wikipedia is able to maintain its autonomy, and the relationship is clearly labelled a donation of server space, then I think the Wikipedia could be hosted on Google.
"I have to point out, though, that it's actually only a Finite State Machine, like a pocket calculator, not a general-purpose device."
So, does that means it runs Windows? Perhaps it is a special version Windows: Windows RR (as opposed to Windows 958MeNTXP2000CE). Of course, unlike other versions of Windows, it does not crash--it derails.
Thank you. I'll be here all weekend. Please tip your kelnerino.
" What is considered 'left wing' in the US, is considered far right wing in the rest of the world."
Somehow, I doubt that. What you're doing is moving the entire US political spectrum entirely into the right wing, which is very inaccurate. I've encountered born-and-bred Americans who were so far left they see Communism as "centrist." However, I agree that roughly 2/3s of US population is Conservative. But, then again, we've always been different than Europeans.
I noticed this in one of my law school classes. The professor, who is on the left, praised the "progressive" system of government in Europe. He lamented about the medievel "jury" system and why we needed to adopt the civil system of Europe. Something did not seem quite right about that, and then I realized that the "progressive" legal system in much of Europe preceded the Anglo jury system. Joan d'Arc was tried under that system. Very progressive.
I recommend ImHosted.com. I have been with them for a about 15 months. Good, responsive service, unlimited email accounts, web mail & a host of tools. 3Gb of online storage. Only ten dollars per month, with month-to-month service. Additionally, one of my clients hosted with them and had to do a credit card change. It was painless. When I started with them they were a bit shaky, but they have only improved.
Finally, they offer both RedHat Linux boxes and Winders.
if you are going to remote administer a server, you should first SSH into the server. Then as a "localhost" user, you can access the database. You wouldn't remote administer via the port. Or, at least, you should.
You mean like the Iraqi teenager who was seen in Abu Ghraib, lying on the floor with his anus bleeding while US troops discussed sodomizing him with metal objects?
The lad was a Kurd, not Iraqi per se
The person retelling the story is an Iraqi, meaning his fluency in English probably wasn't perfect. Thus, it is quite possible that he picked up some words and put in his own conclusions. Since torture was the practice in Saddami Iraq, why not jump to such conclusions.
The article itself did not say "sodomizing," so you are misquoting an article that is itself dubious. The metal object could be anything. Hell, my Dad was a prison doctor for a time, and spoke of inmates who would swallow razor blades so they could avoid work and hide out in the Infirmary.
But, what does this have to do with Climate change? This whole thread is OT.
"And when you ice dive, you suit-up a long way from the hole, to which you have to walk with the gear on, and when you wear it all around you and on your back"
Or, you could lay on your back and let somebody push you to the hole. After all, it is ice . . .:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What you may need to do is retain a lawyer and sue. You've done well to contact them and try to remedy this outside the courts. However, if you allow them to continue to abuse your copyright, you might end up losing it.
What you sue them for is licensing costs. You figure out what portion of their application is yours and sue based on a percentage of that.
"It depends. If they violated another person, they need both prison and counseling. Looking at a web page is another matter though."
How did the child porn get on that web page? I'll bet some adult exploited them. That violated that young person's innocence. Perhaps that child is also molested or being prostituted. So, you can't say that looking at a web page is another matter.
I'll bet the web site he viewed was subscription-based (yes, I've yet to read the article), so he is supporting such behavior. Additionally, he did not _report_ the discovery of child pornography to authorities. An above post mentions that informing the cops is an affirmative defense to the crime. By not reporting the discovery of kiddie porn, the man becomes an accomplice--an accomplice to those children's exploitation
"No reasonable expectation of privacy exists on the Internet." Remember that phrase. It will appear in the first _Nutt v. U.S._ case where a private citizen sues the Federal Government for accessing his online activities.
Let's face it: as soon as you clear your home router, nothing you do is private. A cop is free to follow you in public and observe everything you do. Why is this any different on the Internet?
This is probably distinguishable from phone conversations. On the telephone, you assume that there is a two-way (or three-way) conversation. There is a point-to-point conversation. (I'm referring to the older model, not the VoIP model). However, since Internet activity routes through several nodes via multiple pathways, then your activity is more observable. The fact that people can packet-sniff in the comfort of their own home evidences this. The cops used to have to wiretap at the phone company to monitor your phone calls. Now they only need your IP address to capture everything you're doing.
So, no "no reasonable expectation of privacy on the Internet."
Of course, if the first person publishes the invention, it will become prior art, and therefore ineligible for patent protection. Except, on first blush, the law reads that 1) the prior art must be published by the inventor, and not another individual and 2) the publication must precede the patent filing by one year. That means that if somebody publishes, then somebody else could file in a year. That is first blush, of course.
Come on, "tween" is for those in their "twenties." That is, if you're twenty-four, you're a tween-ager. Trying to apply this to pre-teens is absurd.
"Length: 4 in. / 10 cm closed -- 6.3 in / 16 cm open"
. . . that's not a knife. This is a knife . . . .
But, first thing you do is change the definition to something easier to manipulate. Then, over time, you slowly change that value until you arrive at a new one.
Happened when the US went off the Gold Standard.
In a related press release, Microsoft announced security release 1998-0173, fixing problems associated with running Open Office or Word Perfect. The specific security threat would allow users to use other word processing software than MS Word. This security update will prevent these malware products from running.
Also released is Linux security (kernel) release 2.6.8. Not wanting to feel left out. This security release, when installed in place of MS Windows, will effectively block all Windows-based malware and viruses. Unless, you're one of those who are trying to get viruses to run on WINE. If you're one of those, aren't you really an MS mole trying to keep a brother down?
"Anyone else think snake oil?"
Doesn't that sort of skew perceptions a bit much? I mean, leave we dotters to trash the article, the company, the product and explain why if it ran Linux the world would be a better place. But to come right out and abjectly claim snake oil seems a bit much to me.
Next, you'll be telling me that you can't fit a GB of data on a 1 in. HHD, or that the Flood is not visiting SoCal (the Biblical Flood, not Halo2).
Assuming you're right with the snake oil. At least they're only hurting stock holders and not the Open Source community by suing IBM. Stock holders by the nature of buying stock assume the risk. If this is a press release to induce a pump-and-dump, as seems to be hinted, then the SEC will be looking for them.
But, if they can get faster charging, higher capacity battries, then maybe my laptop can weigh less. I mean, if most car's MPG and tank capacity give them roughly 300 miles of range, why should the industry let you get away with using your laptop unplugged for more than 2 hours?
The left off the vibrator.
Seriously, though. The clock was left off. Without it, sailors would not have been able to accurately calculate their longitude. I saw the sextant was listed. However, the importance of gadgets to travel the oceans during the Age of Discover are, I'm sorry, more important than the iPod. Without them, there might not be European domniation of the planet and crackers like me in the US. What has the iPod done that compares?
This looks more like an advertisement.
"'IsNot' is different from 'Not equal to'"
IsToo.
Thank you. I'll be here all day. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
Except, the Terms of Service of the typical ISP forbids sharing the connection between residences. That's why I'm waiting for Speakeasy to show up in my area. Violation of the Terms of services is at least a breach of contract, and could be illegal in some jurisdictions (such as mine).
". . . its (sic) not really that unethical (although it is illegal) . . ."
Yes, it is quite illegal. Most states call it the "Theft of Cable" act, or more recently, "Theft of Information Services." In my state, it's a felony that can get you up to five years on the first offense.
But, more importantly, you are saying that theft is "not that unethical." Or, to put it another way, "theft is ethical." Okay, so when somebody steals your car you won't press charges because it's ethical?
What's that? Not the same thing? I disagree. First of all, both cases of theft are statutorially illegal. Second, you paid for your car (probably still are like most of us), so you should get to decide who uses it. The Cable Companies paid for the infrastructure. Don't they have the right to determine who can use it?
Or, another example? Rental cars. A big company loans you their car. They paid for the car, you can only use it within the limitations of the contract you sign as a renter.
So, while it may seem cheaper to steal cable . . .
"You should be."
Should I? Don't you remember the song, "A country boy can survive?" I was trying to be cheeky, but you had to take me seriously.
Besides, my financial security doesn't rely upon the Coasts. My livelihood is likewise not derived from the Coasts. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who can get by just fine without them.
Freedom? I doubt they'd slap the mid-west with marital law because of an incident on the Coasts. Besides, if they push our freedoms too far, we'll just arm up.
" I think people are far more worried about . . . dirty bomb than a mushroom cloud vaporizing New York or San Francisco."
Well, I for one am not the least bit worried about New York City or San Francisco being vaporized. I live in the Mid-West. In neither case would the fallout drift overhead.
Being a fine, upstanding company, Microsoft will never change its mind. So, you can be certain that they will never "decide" that their once-free product needs to come at a price.
I mean, I turned down their "update" for their product because I didn't want to have to pay for it when they decided to.
Besides, MS security products seem to have a pinchant for being thwarted. I like a 3d party tool to keep MS honest and my computer safe.
"I wonder what Lavasoft will do to stay competitive. "
Perhaps continue to provide a superior product?
First, if the relationship between the Wikipedia and Google can be properly maintained, and boundaries established, I think this is a good thing for the Wikipedia.
People are fearful that Google will attempt to co-opt the Wikipedia. That's what is apparent in the Dvorak article. However, what Wikipedia needs is a slick lawyer to write a contract between Google and Wikipedia. (IANASL)
1. Google will host the Wikipedia as a donation.
2. Google will not restrict access to the Wikipedia except as mutually agreed upon by both parties, and a public page to explain what restrictions and why. At no time will restrictions be based upon subscriptions or charges.
3. Wikipedia will put a slick Google icon somewhere on the page to say "thanks Google for hosting us."
4. This agreement may be terminated with fair notice to the other party at any time.
If Wikipedia is able to maintain its autonomy, and the relationship is clearly labelled a donation of server space, then I think the Wikipedia could be hosted on Google.
"I have to point out, though, that it's actually only a Finite State Machine, like a pocket calculator, not a general-purpose device."
So, does that means it runs Windows? Perhaps it is a special version Windows: Windows RR (as opposed to Windows 958MeNTXP2000CE). Of course, unlike other versions of Windows, it does not crash--it derails.
Thank you. I'll be here all weekend. Please tip your kelnerino.
" What is considered 'left wing' in the US, is considered far right wing in the rest of the world."
Somehow, I doubt that. What you're doing is moving the entire US political spectrum entirely into the right wing, which is very inaccurate. I've encountered born-and-bred Americans who were so far left they see Communism as "centrist." However, I agree that roughly 2/3s of US population is Conservative. But, then again, we've always been different than Europeans.
I noticed this in one of my law school classes. The professor, who is on the left, praised the "progressive" system of government in Europe. He lamented about the medievel "jury" system and why we needed to adopt the civil system of Europe. Something did not seem quite right about that, and then I realized that the "progressive" legal system in much of Europe preceded the Anglo jury system. Joan d'Arc was tried under that system. Very progressive.
Would it not be much cheaper to make the images it sends back using Photo Shop? I mean, think of the savings!
I recommend ImHosted.com. I have been with them for a about 15 months. Good, responsive service, unlimited email accounts, web mail & a host of tools. 3Gb of online storage. Only ten dollars per month, with month-to-month service. Additionally, one of my clients hosted with them and had to do a credit card change. It was painless. When I started with them they were a bit shaky, but they have only improved.
Finally, they offer both RedHat Linux boxes and Winders.
if you are going to remote administer a server, you should first SSH into the server. Then as a "localhost" user, you can access the database. You wouldn't remote administer via the port. Or, at least, you should.
But, what does this have to do with Climate change? This whole thread is OT.
"And when you ice dive, you suit-up a long way from the hole, to which you have to walk with the gear on, and when you wear it all around you and on your back"
:-)
Or, you could lay on your back and let somebody push you to the hole. After all, it is ice . . .