The ability to search a property is a standard police warrant.
Under the patriot act, the police have been given the ability to enter a property, without notification of the owner for a limited time, to conduct a search, but may not remove property.
However, the police still need a warrant, they just need not notify the property owner for a period of time as determined by the court where such notification would reasonably jepordize the search.
There's a gag order on the subpoena. That means he can't talk about the specifics of the subpoena. That doesn't mean he doesn't have free speech. It means his freedom has been restricted, for a limited time, on one particular topic. He can still spout his anarchist bullshit (and the "press release" is evidence of this) all he wants.
Odd then, that this person isn't being locked up. He's not even being restrained. He's being suppeoned. He's being asked about something which he did not do, but which he may have information on. He's being questioned as part of an investigation, it's standard police work.
When they start locking him up for free speech, then come back.
They do. gag orders generaly expire at either the conclusion of the investigation or the conclusion of the trial. In the worst case, the information will become declassified in later years as all government documents do.
While the RAM issue is certainly present, given that for the time being it's unlikey you're going to give up your PC, why not put the old mac mini ram into your PC?
But that aside, yes the mini is rather tough to upgrade if you like to resuse stuff.
You don't need to pay a whole lot to add an additional drive, just put the old (or new) drive into an external case.
But if it's the internal expansion you crave, why not pick up a used/refub G4 tower?
It may cost a hair more, but if the expandability is what you want, that may be the price you have to pay.
Fine, you choose nothing. In the mean time, I'll eat 3 full meals a day, and know that my ideas are actualy being used where as yours are being put on some geocities site.
It's not a matter of brainwashing, it's a matter of common sense. Unless you want to invest the time, and energy into creating, distributing and supporting your own idea, on top of working another job, there's a 99% chance your idea will NEVER see the light of day.
Coders are artists, they like to see their work on display, and personaly, I would rather see google using my code than not see my code at all.
You don't have to break the DRM. The discussion was about an archival copy. You are allowed to make an archival copy. In order to make such a copy in the first place, you need to have bought it. Inorder to have bought it, you need to be able to legaly play it. So your archival copy is sufficiently legal and you can play it legaly.
A couple grand bonus is nothing to scoff at if your idea wouldn't have made it to daylight without any google code, or the time your were paid for, or the other people to help you, or Google's name attached.
Think about it, some guy programs a Dock like program.
That's nothing new, and certainly no one really cares.
Untill google's name is attached to it. Then it's front page slashdot and linked to all over the web.
Never underestimate the power a brand name can give to your pet project.
I am a little unclear on why you would think this.
Simple. If microsoft contends that windows would not work properly without Windows Media Player (that is, without a Media Player) and in order to get a windows without WMP that worked fully, Real had to install their own software, then microsoft is correct in their assertation in as far as no company should be required to ship their competator's products.
The question isn't so much do you need a media player to play media, but rather when will Microsoft offer an OS version that doesn't stifle media player competition?
They did. Infact, not only did they remove the player EXE but they took out all the codecs so that you wouldn't even have to use's microsofts codec package. You want to play media? Get your own codecs. The ultimate freedom for the consumer right?
The problem is, now people want all the media codecs and capabilities, just not the front end. The question is, why should microsoft give you all the support, but not the front end?
I am sure that the EU did not put their directives simply at all and it is possible that thier directions were not quite right. I am sure that Microsoft is exploiting anything they think they can to twist this remedy to their advantage. Simply put, it is in Microsoft's best interests to do so, until such time as the EU proves that such activities are and will continue to be otherwise counterproductive.
I'm sure they are too. I don't blame them. They're being beat into the ground for a very common practice. No one complains when your happy meal comes with McDonalds fries. No one complains when your Chevy comes with a GM engine. No one gives two rats asses when Linux ships with mplayer.
Sure, microsoft is convicted of monopoly abuse, but last I checked, I can still delete windows media player (unlike the explorer problem) and I can use any media player I want.
Out of curiosity, have you ever asked a correllary of this, like, "Why should that convicted embezzeler leave his house and family and spend all that time in that prison facility?"
That's irellevant. You are allowed to make an archival copy. The fact that you need specific equiptment to use that archival copy is NOT an infringement on your rights.
I think you need to do some reading. Specificaly the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. I quote:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If fair use is the only thing keeping copyright alive, but fair use was created by the supreme court, would that mean that the supreme court modified the constitution?
The desktop was intended as a work environment, just like your current desktop is. It's an extention from the real world. If the desktop was ment as simply a launcher device, they would have made it a launcher.
Why would non-power users want a new folder on the desktop? Maybe to put some files in. Maybe they want to clean up their desktop. Maybe it's so full of shortcuts to other places on their computer they decided organizing it a bit would be useful.
It is. Dragging to the trash unmounts the disk and ejects removable media. Since a hard drive is not removeable media, all it will do is unmount the media.
That's why Apple chooses to support it but not force it. How many people do you know still use the menus for copy and paste? Personaly, I know more than those who use the keyboard or the context menu. Unfortunately, these days, so many softwares have features that are only accesable through the context menus, and that's wrong.
A good example, put a new folder on your desktop in windows without using the context menu and without using the keyboard shortcuts.
Ease of use indeed. And when the user removes their disk while it's being written to? I can't tell you how many times I saw that happen while I was in highschool, and still see it happen with USB drives today. Someone grabs a bunch of files, drags them to the disc, and without even waiting for it to finish copying, hits the eject button or pulls the drive out.
No, that's not fair use at all, that's doctrine of first sale.
Fair use is a series of tests which, under some circumstances, can allow unauthorized copying. For example, citing a paragraph somewhere in a research paper is almost always fair use. And, more relevant to DRM, including a short clip from a DVD when discussing, for example, if Hans fired first.
Thank you for being pedantic. Most people these days are including first sale in the fair use rights, but if you want to separate them, fine. THe point still stands, first sale is about the original medium, not the content of the medium.
The fact that no one else can use the file legally is very relevent. People are prohibited by law from using it.
That is in direct opposition to copyright caselaw, which says we have an inherit right to resell anything we own, and an inherit right to use anything we own in any way with the sole exception of copying it.
I don't know why you're not grasping this. The courts actually ruled that it was illegal to restrict first sale, that people had a right that could not be removed by contract, and then decades later not only are companies doing so again, this time the government is helping them.
Anyone who buys such a file from you may also legaly purchase the rights to decode siad file from you. They just merely have to purchase your authentication. Or you could give it to them. But it's still legal. But nothing about that has removed YOUR right to resell the item. You can resell it any time you want. You have that right. The fact that the buyer may have to break laws to use the product after they have bought it is not a violation of your right of first sale. It may be a violation of their right to fair use, however, that hasn't been tested in court, and using DVDJon's software isn't going to help you get there.
Copyright isn't a type of contract at all, at least, not with the purchasers of material. Copyright is a set of restrictions that copyright holders have placed on society. In return for that, they are supposed to create work, so I guess you could claim some sort of implicit contract with them.
But not with people who buy stuff from them and are restricted. What the heck do they need a contract for? What do they gain out of a contract? Nothing. Copyright law has restricted what they can do, and they got nothing out of it.
Sure they did. THe people who buy stuff are part of society. Society gains works in exchange for copyright, therefore they gained something.
The EU ordered them to remove the media player system. The codecs some of which they developed on their own, are part of the system. A media player is worthless without it's codecs, and the codecs are worthless without a media player. Since word is not a standard install on a windows disc, it's therefore unnessesary for their to be codecs to handle the word calls.
Nothing. But what obigation does microsoft have to make sure every part of their system is worth something to the user without the user doing some extra work? After all, the reason they got dragged through the courts in the first place was because they were tying things together. So now, not only are they not ofrcing WMP down your throats, but you don't even have to use their codecs anymore. Who cares if it breaks other functionality without codecs. Get your own or live without it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it ISN'T granted by the PATRIOT ACT.
The ability to search a property is a standard police warrant.
Under the patriot act, the police have been given the ability to enter a property, without notification of the owner for a limited time, to conduct a search, but may not remove property.
However, the police still need a warrant, they just need not notify the property owner for a period of time as determined by the court where such notification would reasonably jepordize the search.
There's a gag order on the subpoena. That means he can't talk about the specifics of the subpoena. That doesn't mean he doesn't have free speech. It means his freedom has been restricted, for a limited time, on one particular topic. He can still spout his anarchist bullshit (and the "press release" is evidence of this) all he wants.
No it gets declassified after (i believe) 50 years.
Right, and in any state of freedom, you aren't a slave yet.
Odd then, that this person isn't being locked up. He's not even being restrained. He's being suppeoned. He's being asked about something which he did not do, but which he may have information on. He's being questioned as part of an investigation, it's standard police work.
When they start locking him up for free speech, then come back.
And any read through a standard political discussion on slashdot shows that isn't the case in the US.
They do. gag orders generaly expire at either the conclusion of the investigation or the conclusion of the trial. In the worst case, the information will become declassified in later years as all government documents do.
While the RAM issue is certainly present, given that for the time being it's unlikey you're going to give up your PC, why not put the old mac mini ram into your PC?
But that aside, yes the mini is rather tough to upgrade if you like to resuse stuff.
You don't need to pay a whole lot to add an additional drive, just put the old (or new) drive into an external case.
But if it's the internal expansion you crave, why not pick up a used/refub G4 tower?
It may cost a hair more, but if the expandability is what you want, that may be the price you have to pay.
Fine, you choose nothing. In the mean time, I'll eat 3 full meals a day, and know that my ideas are actualy being used where as yours are being put on some geocities site.
It's not a matter of brainwashing, it's a matter of common sense. Unless you want to invest the time, and energy into creating, distributing and supporting your own idea, on top of working another job, there's a 99% chance your idea will NEVER see the light of day.
Coders are artists, they like to see their work on display, and personaly, I would rather see google using my code than not see my code at all.
You don't have to break the DRM. The discussion was about an archival copy. You are allowed to make an archival copy. In order to make such a copy in the first place, you need to have bought it. Inorder to have bought it, you need to be able to legaly play it. So your archival copy is sufficiently legal and you can play it legaly.
A couple grand bonus is nothing to scoff at if your idea wouldn't have made it to daylight without any google code, or the time your were paid for, or the other people to help you, or Google's name attached.
Think about it, some guy programs a Dock like program.
That's nothing new, and certainly no one really cares.
Untill google's name is attached to it. Then it's front page slashdot and linked to all over the web.
Never underestimate the power a brand name can give to your pet project.
I think the idea is to get people to play with code on their own ideas, without corporate overhead.
I am a little unclear on why you would think this.
Simple. If microsoft contends that windows would not work properly without Windows Media Player (that is, without a Media Player) and in order to get a windows without WMP that worked fully, Real had to install their own software, then microsoft is correct in their assertation in as far as no company should be required to ship their competator's products.
The question isn't so much do you need a media player to play media, but rather when will Microsoft offer an OS version that doesn't stifle media player competition?
They did. Infact, not only did they remove the player EXE but they took out all the codecs so that you wouldn't even have to use's microsofts codec package. You want to play media? Get your own codecs. The ultimate freedom for the consumer right?
The problem is, now people want all the media codecs and capabilities, just not the front end. The question is, why should microsoft give you all the support, but not the front end?
I am sure that the EU did not put their directives simply at all and it is possible that thier directions were not quite right. I am sure that Microsoft is exploiting anything they think they can to twist this remedy to their advantage. Simply put, it is in Microsoft's best interests to do so, until such time as the EU proves that such activities are and will continue to be otherwise counterproductive.
I'm sure they are too. I don't blame them. They're being beat into the ground for a very common practice. No one complains when your happy meal comes with McDonalds fries. No one complains when your Chevy comes with a GM engine. No one gives two rats asses when Linux ships with mplayer.
Sure, microsoft is convicted of monopoly abuse, but last I checked, I can still delete windows media player (unlike the explorer problem) and I can use any media player I want.
Out of curiosity, have you ever asked a correllary of this, like, "Why should that convicted embezzeler leave his house and family and spend all that time in that prison facility?"
WTF?
It can be used legaly. In order for you to have bought it, you must be able to use it legaly.
That's irellevant. You are allowed to make an archival copy. The fact that you need specific equiptment to use that archival copy is NOT an infringement on your rights.
I think you need to do some reading. Specificaly the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. I quote:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If fair use is the only thing keeping copyright alive, but fair use was created by the supreme court, would that mean that the supreme court modified the constitution?
The desktop was intended as a work environment, just like your current desktop is. It's an extention from the real world. If the desktop was ment as simply a launcher device, they would have made it a launcher.
Why would non-power users want a new folder on the desktop? Maybe to put some files in. Maybe they want to clean up their desktop. Maybe it's so full of shortcuts to other places on their computer they decided organizing it a bit would be useful.
It is. Dragging to the trash unmounts the disk and ejects removable media. Since a hard drive is not removeable media, all it will do is unmount the media.
That's why Apple chooses to support it but not force it. How many people do you know still use the menus for copy and paste? Personaly, I know more than those who use the keyboard or the context menu. Unfortunately, these days, so many softwares have features that are only accesable through the context menus, and that's wrong.
A good example, put a new folder on your desktop in windows without using the context menu and without using the keyboard shortcuts.
Ease of use indeed. And when the user removes their disk while it's being written to? I can't tell you how many times I saw that happen while I was in highschool, and still see it happen with USB drives today. Someone grabs a bunch of files, drags them to the disc, and without even waiting for it to finish copying, hits the eject button or pulls the drive out.
Thankfuly for you and your sense of justice. The person in question has repeatedly stated that he was in the wrong.
No, that's not fair use at all, that's doctrine of first sale.
Fair use is a series of tests which, under some circumstances, can allow unauthorized copying. For example, citing a paragraph somewhere in a research paper is almost always fair use. And, more relevant to DRM, including a short clip from a DVD when discussing, for example, if Hans fired first.
Thank you for being pedantic. Most people these days are including first sale in the fair use rights, but if you want to separate them, fine. THe point still stands, first sale is about the original medium, not the content of the medium.
The fact that no one else can use the file legally is very relevent. People are prohibited by law from using it.
That is in direct opposition to copyright caselaw, which says we have an inherit right to resell anything we own, and an inherit right to use anything we own in any way with the sole exception of copying it.
I don't know why you're not grasping this. The courts actually ruled that it was illegal to restrict first sale, that people had a right that could not be removed by contract, and then decades later not only are companies doing so again, this time the government is helping them.
Anyone who buys such a file from you may also legaly purchase the rights to decode siad file from you. They just merely have to purchase your authentication. Or you could give it to them. But it's still legal. But nothing about that has removed YOUR right to resell the item. You can resell it any time you want. You have that right. The fact that the buyer may have to break laws to use the product after they have bought it is not a violation of your right of first sale. It may be a violation of their right to fair use, however, that hasn't been tested in court, and using DVDJon's software isn't going to help you get there.
Copyright isn't a type of contract at all, at least, not with the purchasers of material. Copyright is a set of restrictions that copyright holders have placed on society. In return for that, they are supposed to create work, so I guess you could claim some sort of implicit contract with them.
But not with people who buy stuff from them and are restricted. What the heck do they need a contract for? What do they gain out of a contract? Nothing. Copyright law has restricted what they can do, and they got nothing out of it.
Sure they did. THe people who buy stuff are part of society. Society gains works in exchange for copyright, therefore they gained something.
The EU ordered them to remove the media player system. The codecs some of which they developed on their own, are part of the system. A media player is worthless without it's codecs, and the codecs are worthless without a media player. Since word is not a standard install on a windows disc, it's therefore unnessesary for their to be codecs to handle the word calls.
Nothing. But what obigation does microsoft have to make sure every part of their system is worth something to the user without the user doing some extra work? After all, the reason they got dragged through the courts in the first place was because they were tying things together. So now, not only are they not ofrcing WMP down your throats, but you don't even have to use their codecs anymore. Who cares if it breaks other functionality without codecs. Get your own or live without it.
You can. It's an archival copy, and a perfect replica at that. You can play it all you want, provided you authorize your conputer