o if I (being 12) type in muffdiver.com then if muffdiver.com and muffdiver.com.xxx are the same host, my restricted computer echos 199.181.132.250 or the like.
What's 199.181.132.250? I hope that isn't on your internal network. Anyway, that'd be legal, but somewhat impractical, as you can block any site by registering site.xxx. Also, what motivation does muffdiver have for registering a.xxx?
Would you be willing to give up your freedom (as well as fellow drivers) to speed to be a lot safer?
>
No. It wouldn't decrease the accident rate much at all, as most accidents are caused by driving like an idjit. It would, however, make it really hard to take your car out for track day. My car does 120 with no problems, and a WRX will do 145. Why limit them?
It's easy to imagine situations where you can only accelerate to avoid the crash.
Don't have to. I was turning left on a yellow when the guy in the opposing left lane decided to run the light. If I stopped, I'd get creamed, so I put it in 2nd and stomped it, lighting up all 4 tires and booking it out of the intersection. I heart the WRX.
If they had the chutzpah to do that, it wouldn't be hard to show that the article was up on your own site first. You could point to a cached version at Google or the Wayback Machine, for example.
Are you forgetting the army of lawyers they would have? I doubt you could afford to defend yourself.
When the cost of duplication is zero, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "ripping off". The copy that's on a newspaper's web site doesn't detract from the copy that's on your own web site.
Bullshit. It still takes time to write the piece, so cost of duplication is irrelevant, and a normal person seeing the same thing in two places will be as likely to think you ripped the paper off and backdated it, so it does detract.
I'm against copyright laws. If a company with ten floors of an office building and ten million dollars of print equipment "steals" my work, I would use it to my advantage to self-promote. The newspaper industry is a dying breed, these maneuvers are just proof of that.
What happens when they sue you for copyright infringement?
Copyright may have been important until 1990. The Internet allows instant cutting, pasting, linking and RSS pulls. Information has almost zero cost, infinite supply and low demand.
That's why copyright is important - when the cost of duplication is zero, the only way to stop someone from ripping off your work is with a legal club.
It's not strictly "plagarism" because companies and groups that put out press releases HOPE that their release and info gets picked up. A press release won't have "copyright" just for this reason.
It's still copyrighted, amd regardless of PD issues, stamping your name on somebody else's work is always plaigarism.
make a BOOT (ie the big yellow/orange things they put on when you don't pay your meter/parking fees- see simpsons episode for demonstration) with some sort of encryption that cannot be unlocked without reverse engineering the encryption or knowing the code.
Does an angle grinder count as reverse engineering?
Does the boot control access to a copywrited work?
How are you planning to sue someone for violating a criminal law, anyway?
Obviously this violates the laws against lock-picking.
Wait, there's a law against that? I doubt anybody could really prosecute you for doing so even if it is illegal - it's necessary in order to remove a hazardous item from your property.
The software is the protection device used to prevent copying of the CD, put there (according to Sony) with the user's permission as part of the terms of use.
Except that it does a whole lot more than the TOU claims and, further, may install before the TOU document is displayed (not sure on this).
By publishing that the software exists, and how to remove it, you're publishing a method to circumvent a protection device.This knowledge can be used to allow a user to make illegal copies of a CD.
Oddly enough, if you don't install the software at all, you can copy the CD legally.
someone needs to make a bunch of boots for cars that have some sort of encryption (rot13?) that would make it illegal to remove and then just start booting senators cars.
The RIAA sees no threat there. They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.
I don't recall a referendum on the DMCA, just a bunch of Senators, so what you really mean is that Congress supported it. I rather doubt a majority of people would support the law if they knew its implications.
Or what if the system malfunctions and your SUV full of NUNS and PARAPLEGIC CHILDREN cuts out just as you're in the middle of a LEVEL CROSSING and a TRAIN is coming?????
What if it only stopped ignition? Then you'd always disable the car in a parking spot, pretty much.
Slashdot Mirror
o if I (being 12) type in muffdiver.com then if muffdiver.com and muffdiver.com.xxx are the same host, my restricted computer echos 199.181.132.250 or the like.
What's 199.181.132.250? I hope that isn't on your internal network. Anyway, that'd be legal, but somewhat impractical, as you can block any site by registering site.xxx. Also, what motivation does muffdiver have for registering a .xxx?
Would you be willing to give up your freedom (as well as fellow drivers) to speed to be a lot safer?
>No. It wouldn't decrease the accident rate much at all, as most accidents are caused by driving like an idjit. It would, however, make it really hard to take your car out for track day. My car does 120 with no problems, and a WRX will do 145. Why limit them?
It's easy to imagine situations where you can only accelerate to avoid the crash.
Don't have to. I was turning left on a yellow when the guy in the opposing left lane decided to run the light. If I stopped, I'd get creamed, so I put it in 2nd and stomped it, lighting up all 4 tires and booking it out of the intersection. I heart the WRX.
Heh, I can see it now:
I actually think that's an excellent idea.. assign them in duo for a time of year or two, then end the old ones.
How do you justify ending the old domain? Running a porn site on muffdiver.com is not illegal.
Worse: what about a 90kg woman in stilletto heels. Can you imagine that ?
Yeah: in my imagination, she boarded an airplane and got stuck in the floor.
But whose definition of pirates are you using?
You know, pirates jack ships, kill the crew, and burn them to the waterline. And there are more of them of late, just not around the USA.
Hopefully yes, because that's how the upper classes DO perpetuate themselves in the capitalist system:
Oddly enough, most US millionaires are first generation.
If you pass a law that says "Anybody who sells a Playboy to a 12 year old gets fined $1000," guess what magazine stores will stop carrying.
I give up, what magazine? They already made that illegal and I can buy playboy just about anywhere I want.
If they had the chutzpah to do that, it wouldn't be hard to show that the article was up on your own site first. You could point to a cached version at Google or the Wayback Machine, for example.
Are you forgetting the army of lawyers they would have? I doubt you could afford to defend yourself.
When the cost of duplication is zero, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "ripping off". The copy that's on a newspaper's web site doesn't detract from the copy that's on your own web site.
Bullshit. It still takes time to write the piece, so cost of duplication is irrelevant, and a normal person seeing the same thing in two places will be as likely to think you ripped the paper off and backdated it, so it does detract.
So why don't you send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP? They're distributing your copyrighted works, aren't they?
I'm against copyright laws. If a company with ten floors of an office building and ten million dollars of print equipment "steals" my work, I would use it to my advantage to self-promote. The newspaper industry is a dying breed, these maneuvers are just proof of that.
What happens when they sue you for copyright infringement?
Copyright may have been important until 1990. The Internet allows instant cutting, pasting, linking and RSS pulls. Information has almost zero cost, infinite supply and low demand.
That's why copyright is important - when the cost of duplication is zero, the only way to stop someone from ripping off your work is with a legal club.
It's not strictly "plagarism" because companies and groups that put out press releases HOPE that their release and info gets picked up. A press release won't have "copyright" just for this reason.
It's still copyrighted, amd regardless of PD issues, stamping your name on somebody else's work is always plaigarism.
I'm still baffled by the concept that anyone with a blog would say anything even remotely worth plagiarizing.
Here's a bunch of stuff worth plagiarizing
make a BOOT (ie the big yellow/orange things they put on when you don't pay your meter/parking fees- see simpsons episode for demonstration) with some sort of encryption that cannot be unlocked without reverse engineering the encryption or knowing the code.
If they can afford to sell it with the rebate and still make a profit, the product is definitely worth less than the price minus the rebate.
Nope, the product is worth the price - rebate + value of your info, because that's what you paid.
Obviously this violates the laws against lock-picking.
Wait, there's a law against that? I doubt anybody could really prosecute you for doing so even if it is illegal - it's necessary in order to remove a hazardous item from your property.
And won't it be exciting to own a DVD player that can shake a robot finger at you for playing DVDs without CSS encryption?
What, porn?
The software is the protection device used to prevent copying of the CD, put there (according to Sony) with the user's permission as part of the terms of use.
Except that it does a whole lot more than the TOU claims and, further, may install before the TOU document is displayed (not sure on this).
By publishing that the software exists, and how to remove it, you're publishing a method to circumvent a protection device.This knowledge can be used to allow a user to make illegal copies of a CD.
Oddly enough, if you don't install the software at all, you can copy the CD legally.
someone needs to make a bunch of boots for cars that have some sort of encryption (rot13?) that would make it illegal to remove and then just start booting senators cars.
Since when is a car a copyrighted work?
The RIAA sees no threat there. They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.
I don't recall a referendum on the DMCA, just a bunch of Senators, so what you really mean is that Congress supported it. I rather doubt a majority of people would support the law if they knew its implications.
The woman is being accused of commiting a crime.
No, this is civil court, which hs a different legal standard and no possibility of jail time.
I'm not sure what level of sarcasm to read into your comment, but it's labelled "Windows Firewall"...
Just because it says firewall, don't make it one. Firewalls come in a box and plug into your network, not install on your pc.
I see people filling their car up with the engine running all the time during the winter months.
This is actually safe, as the sibling poster points out. It is, however illegal in some places.
We're all just noise on the wires..
All hail Banks ;)
Or what if the system malfunctions and your SUV full of NUNS and PARAPLEGIC CHILDREN cuts out just as you're in the middle of a LEVEL CROSSING and a TRAIN is coming?????
What if it only stopped ignition? Then you'd always disable the car in a parking spot, pretty much.