Indeed...if you're a newbie to web server administration, you don't want to learn by just going out there and downloading the software and installing it. That's where we get incorrectly configured sites and security holes. The best way to learn is to get a feel for the software hands-on using a server that you can mess around with under the eye of a trained administrator. Once you've figured out the basics of security and efficiency, then you can be ready to install the software on your own, and you'll know which one meets your needs the most.
And then you got Guttman deletion, which uses 35 passes, each of which, when combined together, basically flips the bits so much that the data is really unrecoverable. It's even designed to get around caching and the various encoding standards for hard drives.
Sometimes. A lot of times companies come into Chapter 11 with the intent of reorganizing, but the court puts too many restrictions on the company to keep it viable at all. I don't hold out much hope for Mandrake, it's just a poor company in terms of managing its money.
The prohibition on illegal search and seizure extends only to government searches. The standard is somewhat lower when it's a private citizen/organization that collects the evidence without the help or urging of the government.
And don't forget Froogle. Once it's out of beta and the interface is refined a bit, I can see that being a serious competitor for Pricewatch's business. Whereas businesses submit their prices to Pricewatch, Froogle updates prices directly from the sites of these companies, so you can always find the lowest price available online.
Actually, after the merger, most groups were put under control of former AOL managers. A lot of Time editors balked at having a boss that didn't know a thing about paper media. Over the past few years, the AOL side of the deal has been the major force, and only in the last few months have we really seen Time Warner management take a step up. This was an orderly transition, really starting with Gerald Levin's resignation.
It may be called that, but a certain subset of RFCs, including the one at issue here, become de facto standards in the Internet community. And when they become de facto standards, it's at very least good practice to follow these standards to ensure interoperability. Guess who's not?
Technicality: O'Connor didn't rule that CA doesn't have jurisdiction, all she did was say that she wasn't convinced by the DVD CCA's arguments for continuing the stay. As for now, the ruling only applies in California, and a judge in, say, Oregon could very well rule the opposite way, since it hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet and thus isn't federal law.
It's dicey as to whether a private citizen, acting by his own volition, can be considered to be an agent of the press. Laws regarding freedom of speech are often odd in regards to enforcement, and if I was ESR I would feel more comfortable having at least one plausible defense that I can rely on if it ever comes down to that.
Don't forget that his writings have been given as one of the main reasons that Netscape went open-source (here's a document from his site, and there are multiple references to this fact if you Google for them). Say what you want about Mozilla, but there's no denying that it's had a positive impact on the open-source movement in the last year or two and has finally broken the Internet away from the 98%+ market share that IE used to enjoy.
Yes, of course there are laws against discrimination. Unfortunately, as with most other things, these laws are carefully tailored to specific purposes and prosecuted rarely. In our litigious country, I'm surprised someone hasn't sued over this yet. Another item of note is that in America, copyright laws are heavily biased in the favor of larger companies and not the original creators. Even for these organizations, copyright extends for close to a century, well beyond what is required to protect a work.
In other words, your logical viewpoint on this doesn't fit in well with the American system of lawmaking. That's how our country works, and it's a rather unfortunate thing.
What I meant is if you're merely _playing_ the game, not creating one, then you're merely serving as a client. Sorry for my bad choice of words at 2AM;)
They are guilty by default. Regardless of _what_ they're sharing via P2P, they're still running a server. TOS agreements prohibit servers.
P2P == server
server == prohibited
therefore: P2P == prohibited
I do enjoy P2P as much as the next person, but we've got to realize that we're not going to change anything to sitting on Slashdot complaining about this or that ISP, we need to get the laws changed and show our elected representatives that we want to have the right to download freely. The ISPs are only protecting their bandwidth, that's not where the problem is. The antiquated laws in our country are.
It's a moot point whether they were actually sharing copyrighted files or not. The main reason service can be cut off is because they're running a server. Even if they were trading legal files from the server, they still were violating the TOS when it says "no servers allowed on our network." The complaint need not be substantiated to prove this violation of the TOS, since it's blatantly obvious these people were running servers for whatever legal or illegal purpose.
Prior restraint refers to _government_ censorship before publication. This is done by a private company, which is free to do whatever it wants with their network. Not only that, but they're punishing you for the act _after_ you commit it, not before.
You can play online games. The game that you're playing initiates a connection to an external server, so buy definition your game is a client, not a server. Now, if you're talking about creating games, then yes, you are creating a server. And most ISPs out there prohibit you creating game servers. The only games I can think of that don't create servers are those based on Battle.net (Diablo, Starcraft, etc.) because those are done through intermediary servers.
Actually, it is. Take the Gnutella network for instance. The program you use to connect to the network is called a servent, a contraction of "server" and "client." Each node serves as both. You're a client when you request files from another computer, and you're a server when you're the computer sending those files. This system extends to Kazaa and any other P2P app out there, because all make a direct connection between the requesting client and the node that serves the files.
Under the domain name dispute rules ICANN adopted, it doesn't matter if you register a domain name that includes a trademark. What does matter if one of the following is true:
1. You bought the domain name specifically for the purpose of selling it to the trademark owner.
2. You have a past history of registering domains with trademarks specifically for the purpose of using them improperly.
3. You registered the domain specifically to disrupt the business of another company.
4. You intentionally registered the domain for the purpose of attracting people away from a legitimate company (note the inclusion of the word intentional).
Those are the rules under ICANN. Unfortunately, judges rarely follow these rules, instead using ancient laws concerning trademarks to turn over domain names to companies who sue specifically because they know ICANN won't give them the domain name. It's a pity, really.
<i>Look at where the first "no javascript in email", "no remote images in email", "disable popup windows", "no animated images" options have appeared.</i>
I remember Opera having these features a while before Mozilla officially had them integrated into the browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed...if you're a newbie to web server administration, you don't want to learn by just going out there and downloading the software and installing it. That's where we get incorrectly configured sites and security holes. The best way to learn is to get a feel for the software hands-on using a server that you can mess around with under the eye of a trained administrator. Once you've figured out the basics of security and efficiency, then you can be ready to install the software on your own, and you'll know which one meets your needs the most.
And then you got Guttman deletion, which uses 35 passes, each of which, when combined together, basically flips the bits so much that the data is really unrecoverable. It's even designed to get around caching and the various encoding standards for hard drives.
Sometimes. A lot of times companies come into Chapter 11 with the intent of reorganizing, but the court puts too many restrictions on the company to keep it viable at all. I don't hold out much hope for Mandrake, it's just a poor company in terms of managing its money.
You know Red Hat's stuff is cooler anyways :)
The prohibition on illegal search and seizure extends only to government searches. The standard is somewhat lower when it's a private citizen/organization that collects the evidence without the help or urging of the government.
And don't forget Froogle. Once it's out of beta and the interface is refined a bit, I can see that being a serious competitor for Pricewatch's business. Whereas businesses submit their prices to Pricewatch, Froogle updates prices directly from the sites of these companies, so you can always find the lowest price available online.
Actually, after the merger, most groups were put under control of former AOL managers. A lot of Time editors balked at having a boss that didn't know a thing about paper media. Over the past few years, the AOL side of the deal has been the major force, and only in the last few months have we really seen Time Warner management take a step up. This was an orderly transition, really starting with Gerald Levin's resignation.
And then we had the September that never ended...sheesh...
It may be called that, but a certain subset of RFCs, including the one at issue here, become de facto standards in the Internet community. And when they become de facto standards, it's at very least good practice to follow these standards to ensure interoperability. Guess who's not?
Technicality: O'Connor didn't rule that CA doesn't have jurisdiction, all she did was say that she wasn't convinced by the DVD CCA's arguments for continuing the stay. As for now, the ruling only applies in California, and a judge in, say, Oregon could very well rule the opposite way, since it hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet and thus isn't federal law.
It's dicey as to whether a private citizen, acting by his own volition, can be considered to be an agent of the press. Laws regarding freedom of speech are often odd in regards to enforcement, and if I was ESR I would feel more comfortable having at least one plausible defense that I can rely on if it ever comes down to that.
Don't forget that his writings have been given as one of the main reasons that Netscape went open-source (here's a document from his site, and there are multiple references to this fact if you Google for them). Say what you want about Mozilla, but there's no denying that it's had a positive impact on the open-source movement in the last year or two and has finally broken the Internet away from the 98%+ market share that IE used to enjoy.
Yes, of course there are laws against discrimination. Unfortunately, as with most other things, these laws are carefully tailored to specific purposes and prosecuted rarely. In our litigious country, I'm surprised someone hasn't sued over this yet. Another item of note is that in America, copyright laws are heavily biased in the favor of larger companies and not the original creators. Even for these organizations, copyright extends for close to a century, well beyond what is required to protect a work. In other words, your logical viewpoint on this doesn't fit in well with the American system of lawmaking. That's how our country works, and it's a rather unfortunate thing.
That's almost right. It's actually life + 70 years, which is a pretty long time, too long in my opinion.
Likewise, you could also be misspelling Clinton. :)
What I meant is if you're merely _playing_ the game, not creating one, then you're merely serving as a client. Sorry for my bad choice of words at 2AM ;)
They are guilty by default. Regardless of _what_ they're sharing via P2P, they're still running a server. TOS agreements prohibit servers. P2P == server server == prohibited therefore: P2P == prohibited I do enjoy P2P as much as the next person, but we've got to realize that we're not going to change anything to sitting on Slashdot complaining about this or that ISP, we need to get the laws changed and show our elected representatives that we want to have the right to download freely. The ISPs are only protecting their bandwidth, that's not where the problem is. The antiquated laws in our country are.
It's a moot point whether they were actually sharing copyrighted files or not. The main reason service can be cut off is because they're running a server. Even if they were trading legal files from the server, they still were violating the TOS when it says "no servers allowed on our network." The complaint need not be substantiated to prove this violation of the TOS, since it's blatantly obvious these people were running servers for whatever legal or illegal purpose.
Prior restraint refers to _government_ censorship before publication. This is done by a private company, which is free to do whatever it wants with their network. Not only that, but they're punishing you for the act _after_ you commit it, not before.
You can play online games. The game that you're playing initiates a connection to an external server, so buy definition your game is a client, not a server. Now, if you're talking about creating games, then yes, you are creating a server. And most ISPs out there prohibit you creating game servers. The only games I can think of that don't create servers are those based on Battle.net (Diablo, Starcraft, etc.) because those are done through intermediary servers.
Actually, it is. Take the Gnutella network for instance. The program you use to connect to the network is called a servent, a contraction of "server" and "client." Each node serves as both. You're a client when you request files from another computer, and you're a server when you're the computer sending those files. This system extends to Kazaa and any other P2P app out there, because all make a direct connection between the requesting client and the node that serves the files.
As my civics teacher used to say, you can sue for anything, but that doesn't mean you'll win. In this case, that's unfortunately true.
Under the domain name dispute rules ICANN adopted, it doesn't matter if you register a domain name that includes a trademark. What does matter if one of the following is true:
1. You bought the domain name specifically for the purpose of selling it to the trademark owner.
2. You have a past history of registering domains with trademarks specifically for the purpose of using them improperly.
3. You registered the domain specifically to disrupt the business of another company.
4. You intentionally registered the domain for the purpose of attracting people away from a legitimate company (note the inclusion of the word intentional).
Those are the rules under ICANN. Unfortunately, judges rarely follow these rules, instead using ancient laws concerning trademarks to turn over domain names to companies who sue specifically because they know ICANN won't give them the domain name. It's a pity, really.
OK, OK, so I forgot I had extrans enabled, but you get the point, eh? :)
Good points, but one clarification:
<i>Look at where the first "no javascript in email", "no remote images in email", "disable popup windows", "no animated images" options have appeared.</i>
I remember Opera having these features a while before Mozilla officially had them integrated into the browser.