Dig (domain information groper) is a flexible command line tool which can
be used to gather information from the Domain Name System servers. Dig
has two modes: simple interactive mode for a single query, and batch mode
which executes a query for each in a list of several query lines. All
query options are accessible from the command line.
It's a big no-no, all right, but obviously one that doesn't make sense on many levels - no sense at all on the technical level, for instance. But similarily, is my one copy being used concurrently when I watch it with friends at home? What if I show it to everyone in the building? What if I use cable to show (ie. broadcast) it to everyone in the building? It's really an arbitrary limitation.
The article says: "He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up."
Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website (also linked in the article):
The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.
He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real...
It's on apple.slashdot.org, and most certainly on-topic. You can disable all articles related to Apple easily in your preferences. Oh wait, maybe you can't, you're an AC. Gosh, sucks to be you.
And how were we supposed to know this? Reading the article is courtesy before commenting on Slashdot, but this doesn't follow from the article at all. And whether this changes anything is arguable, as well. Anyway, others managed to point it out in a normal fashion, there really was no need for name-calling.
Obviously it is needed because the clock speed is so high, since IDE is not properly terminated at the relatively low speeds of UDMA Mode 2, which works fine with 40 wire cable, either. Only the combination makes 80 wire cable necessary.
What's a bunch of crap? That the US is lobbying the rest of the world to implement stricted copyright legislation? Are you kidding? Of course they are! Our European governments are still bloody idiots for implementing stricter legislation, of course. The original posters says as much.
I'm not sure when linking to copyrighted material is considered unlawful and when it isn't. It certainly is not a clear cut issue. Many sites contain a disclaimer saying that the page authors are not responsible for any content on third-party web sites - however, if you're perfectly aware that this third-party website is hosting files in copyright violation, this disclaiming of responsibility probably does not work.
The second question is whether "linking" to files on P2P networks is considered equivalent to the "traditional" linking to other files, e.g. on other web or FTP servers. Technically, it isn't. But in the end the outcome is the same: the reader is acquiring copyrighted material. And in both cases the author's intent and the client user-interface is very much the same: click to download. So if you treat the technical implementation as a black box, P2P downloads and HTTP downloads are quite the same indeed.
(Sorry about the rant, I've spent some time wondering about this since it's quite a vital issue to sites like Sharereactor and all the torrent distribution pages.)
[quote]The logical conclusion would be for/. to run a tracker, because it's obvious from their traffic that they could probably handle it. Maybe even make that a subscriber perk? Taco, are you listening?[/quote]Unlikely at best, for much the same reasons that Slashdot doesn't mirror linked articles. Of course, in this case the distribution of the file in question is expressly encouraged, so the FAQ section doesn't really apply. That's not typically the case though.
You're not totally wrong, but many of your points aren't really valid. I assume (IANAL) the courts will interpret how long a reply exactly may be to still be acceptable, but 100 GB replies are just ridiculous. I'd wager the actual terms will be relative to the original text - a maximum of 10 times the original size would seem appropriate to me. Don't forget content may only be linked - it probably does not have to be on your server, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, especially in the case of private websites, you may refuse to host it yourself. I doubt very much that anything apart from very standard HTML is allowed - maybe even only plaintext, or alternatively the whole reply could be offered as a PDF. Keep in mind a judge can probably decide what's reasonable and what isn't - obviously obscure server side code is just not appropriate for a typical reply!
So there really isn't much to the alleged taking control of your site. I still think it sucks, though, and I doubt it'll be wildly enforced. (Which doesn't mean it should be legislated, obviously, quite to the contrary.)
Actually, yesterday's NTK included quotes of the Guardian article, and a link to this weblog entry, which is a further comment on the article and does include a link. The NTK issue does not have a direct link, that's true, but the original poster certainly is right in saying that the situation was "covered" in the current NTK. In my experience, he's also correct in saying that NTK stories often get reported here on Slashdot the next day - although I'm not saying the author of the story got his inspiration there (and if he did, so what, it is news for nerds after all).
So true, I love Miranda. It's just perfect, exactly what I had always been looking for. After ICQ taking 10 seconds to start up, and Trillian (which I used for a month or so) not being a whole lot faster, Miranda's down-to-earth feature set was really refreshing. I don't use it for anything but ICQ connectivity, but it's a way better ICQ client in every respect than ICQ itself ever was. BTW, it's using 4 MB memory, 2 MB swap file right now (running for 8 hours or so) - I think ICQ never used less than 12. Not sure about Trillian.
My favorite feature probably is that it can be set to display the last n messages that were sent in the persons window. If you start up a conversation, you instantly are reminded what you were talking about the other day, and if you restart it you know what you were talking about earlier. Neat.
Ah well I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I converted every one of my contacts to using Miranda, and it didn't take any convincing, either, they were all sick and tired of hacking ICQ to get rid of the fucking ads.
AFAIK, defending GPL'd software in court is one of the central objectives of the FSF. So there. An (alleged) FSF member has stated above that they are already looking into this issue.
Actually, there are three classes of Bluetooth devices, with different power levels and accordingly different effective ranges: class 3 with 1 mW has a range of about 10 cm, class 2 with 2.5 mW has a range of about 10 metres, and finally class 1 with 100 mW has a range of 100 metres.
I'd think the situation you describe is pretty straightforward (IANAL though). The person who hacked MS never owned the copyright to any of Microsofts software, and thus does not have the right to release the source code under any license. Any licenses he gave would be null and void. If someone would actually download the sources and take the license seriously, he'd definitely have to stop working with them as soon as he is told.I'm not sure whether there would be any further ramifications - I'd assume no, at least not as long as the person who downloads the source is doing so in good faith, that is he really is dumb enough to believe Microsoft released the Windows source under the terms of the GPL.
As for this situation, it's similar, but not the same: AOL, and not Nullsoft, probably owns the rights to WASTE, and so only AOL can release the software under the GPL. However, as a part of AOL, maybe Nullsoft also has the privilege to do so, especially in this case of software they programmed themselves. That'd mean they abused that privilege, and might lead to some kind of trouble for Nullsoft, but in that case the GPL would still hold. On the other hand, maybe the situation is effectively the same as the one with MS, described above, which would mean that Nullsoft had no right to grant any licenses, and as such whoever downloaded WASTE would in fact be required to delete the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Your problem isn't the phones, but rather the service providers.
Um, I know that's what the copyright statement says, I'm saying it does not make sense though. That's the point! :)
You mean they need a reason now? ;)
It's a big no-no, all right, but obviously one that doesn't make sense on many levels - no sense at all on the technical level, for instance. But similarily, is my one copy being used concurrently when I watch it with friends at home? What if I show it to everyone in the building? What if I use cable to show (ie. broadcast) it to everyone in the building? It's really an arbitrary limitation.
(Not that you implied anything to the contrary.)
Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website (also linked in the article):He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real
Working URL
:)
Actually the original URL is fine, there's just a whitespace character added by ever helpful Slashcode.
It's on apple.slashdot.org, and most certainly on-topic. You can disable all articles related to Apple easily in your preferences. Oh wait, maybe you can't, you're an AC. Gosh, sucks to be you.
Yay, more Nintendo-time!
And how were we supposed to know this? Reading the article is courtesy before commenting on Slashdot, but this doesn't follow from the article at all. And whether this changes anything is arguable, as well. Anyway, others managed to point it out in a normal fashion, there really was no need for name-calling.
Hell, there's no arguing that. ;)
Obviously it is needed because the clock speed is so high, since IDE is not properly terminated at the relatively low speeds of UDMA Mode 2, which works fine with 40 wire cable, either. Only the combination makes 80 wire cable necessary.
What's a bunch of crap? That the US is lobbying the rest of the world to implement stricted copyright legislation? Are you kidding? Of course they are! Our European governments are still bloody idiots for implementing stricter legislation, of course. The original posters says as much.
I'm not sure when linking to copyrighted material is considered unlawful and when it isn't. It certainly is not a clear cut issue. Many sites contain a disclaimer saying that the page authors are not responsible for any content on third-party web sites - however, if you're perfectly aware that this third-party website is hosting files in copyright violation, this disclaiming of responsibility probably does not work.
The second question is whether "linking" to files on P2P networks is considered equivalent to the "traditional" linking to other files, e.g. on other web or FTP servers. Technically, it isn't. But in the end the outcome is the same: the reader is acquiring copyrighted material. And in both cases the author's intent and the client user-interface is very much the same: click to download. So if you treat the technical implementation as a black box, P2P downloads and HTTP downloads are quite the same indeed.
(Sorry about the rant, I've spent some time wondering about this since it's quite a vital issue to sites like Sharereactor and all the torrent distribution pages.)
[quote]The logical conclusion would be for /. to run a tracker, because it's obvious from their traffic that they could probably handle it. Maybe even make that a subscriber perk? Taco, are you listening?[/quote]Unlikely at best, for much the same reasons that Slashdot doesn't mirror linked articles. Of course, in this case the distribution of the file in question is expressly encouraged, so the FAQ section doesn't really apply. That's not typically the case though.
(Months after a PC tech alpha was leaked.)
SCNR
You're not totally wrong, but many of your points aren't really valid. I assume (IANAL) the courts will interpret how long a reply exactly may be to still be acceptable, but 100 GB replies are just ridiculous. I'd wager the actual terms will be relative to the original text - a maximum of 10 times the original size would seem appropriate to me. Don't forget content may only be linked - it probably does not have to be on your server, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, especially in the case of private websites, you may refuse to host it yourself.
I doubt very much that anything apart from very standard HTML is allowed - maybe even only plaintext, or alternatively the whole reply could be offered as a PDF. Keep in mind a judge can probably decide what's reasonable and what isn't - obviously obscure server side code is just not appropriate for a typical reply!
So there really isn't much to the alleged taking control of your site. I still think it sucks, though, and I doubt it'll be wildly enforced. (Which doesn't mean it should be legislated, obviously, quite to the contrary.)
Actually, yesterday's NTK included quotes of the Guardian article, and a link to this weblog entry, which is a further comment on the article and does include a link. The NTK issue does not have a direct link, that's true, but the original poster certainly is right in saying that the situation was "covered" in the current NTK.
In my experience, he's also correct in saying that NTK stories often get reported here on Slashdot the next day - although I'm not saying the author of the story got his inspiration there (and if he did, so what, it is news for nerds after all).
So true, I love Miranda. It's just perfect, exactly what I had always been looking for. After ICQ taking 10 seconds to start up, and Trillian (which I used for a month or so) not being a whole lot faster, Miranda's down-to-earth feature set was really refreshing. I don't use it for anything but ICQ connectivity, but it's a way better ICQ client in every respect than ICQ itself ever was. BTW, it's using 4 MB memory, 2 MB swap file right now (running for 8 hours or so) - I think ICQ never used less than 12. Not sure about Trillian.
My favorite feature probably is that it can be set to display the last n messages that were sent in the persons window. If you start up a conversation, you instantly are reminded what you were talking about the other day, and if you restart it you know what you were talking about earlier. Neat.
Ah well I could go on and on. Suffice to say, I converted every one of my contacts to using Miranda, and it didn't take any convincing, either, they were all sick and tired of hacking ICQ to get rid of the fucking ads.
I know it's a joke, it works just fine, though. Fun to do it once, although I don't see myself deleting mIRC just yet. :)
AFAIK, defending GPL'd software in court is one of the central objectives of the FSF. So there. An (alleged) FSF member has stated above that they are already looking into this issue.
Actually, there are three classes of Bluetooth devices, with different power levels and accordingly different effective ranges: class 3 with 1 mW has a range of about 10 cm, class 2 with 2.5 mW has a range of about 10 metres, and finally class 1 with 100 mW has a range of 100 metres.
HTH.
Who hasn't?.
(Well, to be honest, I haven't. The most I can accomplish is 70 wpm. Oh well.)
I'm a CS student in my second semester, and I only got two or three of those. Guess I'll have to pay more attention my analysis classes. ;)
I'd think the situation you describe is pretty straightforward (IANAL though). The person who hacked MS never owned the copyright to any of Microsofts software, and thus does not have the right to release the source code under any license. Any licenses he gave would be null and void.
If someone would actually download the sources and take the license seriously, he'd definitely have to stop working with them as soon as he is told.I'm not sure whether there would be any further ramifications - I'd assume no, at least not as long as the person who downloads the source is doing so in good faith, that is he really is dumb enough to believe Microsoft released the Windows source under the terms of the GPL.
As for this situation, it's similar, but not the same: AOL, and not Nullsoft, probably owns the rights to WASTE, and so only AOL can release the software under the GPL. However, as a part of AOL, maybe Nullsoft also has the privilege to do so, especially in this case of software they programmed themselves. That'd mean they abused that privilege, and might lead to some kind of trouble for Nullsoft, but in that case the GPL would still hold. On the other hand, maybe the situation is effectively the same as the one with MS, described above, which would mean that Nullsoft had no right to grant any licenses, and as such whoever downloaded WASTE would in fact be required to delete the software.