The fact that it only sends the broken sheets to Opera 7 would indicate that someone at MSN wants to hurt the reputation of Opera's latest offering.
If you read the discussion and set your filter below "+5 for loudly bashing MS", you would notice that Opera6.0 had a problem that was FIXED BY -30 OFFSET. So what you're looking at is the inability to distinguish between opera6.0 and opera7.0. Or, essentially bashing for the (somewhat screwd up) fix of opera6.0.
What truly amazes me is that opera.com description of the problem fails to mention that. I have to say that MSN guys come out looking *far better* than the Opera.
Please mod the parent up if you have any points. As much as I enjoy the discussion that bashes MS, this is the most insightful/informative post that I have seen.
And, not to defend MS or anything... but how come EVEN THE OPERA.COM SITE NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT OPERA6.0 HAD A +30 BUG WHEN RENDERING CSS SHEETS?? Who is sabotaging who here?!?
The difference is that the examples you listed all have serious drawbacks.
I think the drawbacks are potentially the same if not worse. Someone brought up one issue -- how do you detect bad food (bad milk, etc)? As a student, I frequently have to test the unidentified items in the fridge by smell and taste (smell first:). And once they can block the taste, they would probably go for the smell too.
Something has to encourage manufacturers to produce good quality items. An ability to easily block and alter the taste of the product is not a way to incourage them.
Well, I beg to differ. It does things to content that INFRINGE on MY rights. If they had a DRM that forbids me from illegaly distributing the content and NOTHING else, that would be great.
Problem is, many of rights/conviniences are trampled in the way. Take DVD... the goal is to prevent me from illegaly copying the movies. As a result --
1. I can't *legally* copy the disk for backup.
2. I can't make a MPEG video to keep my DVD on my hard-drive (and let me tell you, my ATI DVD player refuses to start properly pretty often)
3. Somehow I can't even skip FBI warnings, commercials and other crap that plays *every* time I want to watch a DVD (another reason to keep it on hard drive, btw).
Ehm, no. If you purchase an art booklet and draw leaves over pictures there (or pay someone to do it for you), that is perfectly fine. Remeber, this is all *voluntary*, no one is forcing anyone to do or see anything (besdies the studios wanting to control what you see, that is)
I see your point. Yet the author-ship nag banners tend to appear BEFORE you have paid for the software. And the idea is that once you DO pay, the are gone.
So I can see how it's illegal to edit a DVD I got for a free preview... but how does that translate into a DVD for which I shelled out 10-20 bucks?
I think they are thinking about starting to show advertisements on DVDs preety soon
They already do! Infrequently, and non-specific yet (I swear to return a DVD that would have an AOL commercial on it). But your point is well made... a filter can exist to skip the FBI warning and whatever other crap studios make unskippable...
... is that survey shows that 18% of people think. No, I have not right do do anything AT HOME with MY DVD that might interfere with copyright as the corporations understand it. Hopefully those are people on Hollywood payroll. But if not, that is a serious problem.
This kind of 'cos there's no right or wrong answers, humanities must be easy' crap is just illiterate carping.
Maybe flaimbait was not the purpose of that post afterall... Not to say that humanities are useless, but there seems to be a conceptual difference between science and humanities. There IS in fact the issue that it is possible to get 100% on a science test (and prove that you deserve a 100% when you got less). Yet it is much harder to argue that you deserve 100% on an essay. I've definately seen cases where a essay got a C+ while being touted as a best essay in last 5 years (really!).
I am guessing that the story is similar to that of Adobe? Once the shit has hit the fan, PCI-SIG reconsidered their stance. Adobe dropped the charges vs Sklyarov when the outrage begun as well.
And yes, this is a good thing in both cases. But not *quite* as good as same thing happening without the public outrage. I wonder how many stories like that go unnoticed and thus unchanged...?
Any proof? I have not seen any closing stores yet, but I have seen an OPENING one (due in a month). If they close 107 stores and open 108, that's not quite the same as just closing 107 stores...
The average cost of a compact disc, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying group which represents recording companies, is $14.21.
What is the average cost of a DVD? An audio tape? judging by the prices, the audio tape costs much less on average, yet it's the same music...?
I could not agree more... Fortunately, I have not seen a DVD that has courage to *notify* me that it is disallowing me to skip the FBI warning (I would return such a DVD player, why didn't you?) But my software DVD player does have forward buttons disabled on such warnings and I can't very well return the software player.
What I find even more distirbing (and I have commented about it) is how hypocritical and pointless such tactic is. It is unlikely that people who illegaly copy a movie from DVD will include the FBI warning when copying. Even if they do, the pirated version uses some mpeg player and will be able to skip anything. Yet I, a *legal* owner of the DVD, have no way of skipping the warning aimed at people who don't see that warning. What do they expect, that I will recite it to people that use P2P??
The best of it is that they can put these guys behind bars while skipping right by the free speech issue.
As mentioned, fraud is not protected by free speech clause... but even more importantly who is being put behind bars? The executives of MonsterHut...? They are being asked not to do this anymore from what I understand... sorta like MS.
You could be right, but as far as I can see any technology can be disabled as long as I can get my hands on it.
One question: Can you skip over the FBI piracy warning/commercials when your playing a DVD in your DVD player? One that you can get your hands on? Oh, wait...
Wouldn't it be funny if all the file were fake? Ie they either used that Kazaa cheating program which makes it seem like you have more files then you do, or they just renamed some text files Brittney_Spear_mp3.
Ah, but no, it would not be:(. Problem is, RIAA will not be slammed down if they are wrong. The person they are after is sure as hell not going to counter sue them. He will be searched and will lose the computer as "evidence". And if maybe, MAYBE, he can prove innocence, he MIGHT get back his stuff... so RIAA takes no risks.
They already have reason to believe that this person has downloaded the files.
And rather than going to Verizon with their "reason to believe", they should go to a JUDGE and PROVE their "reasons to believe" to a judge. Once they have a warrant, police will search the suspect's computer/home,etc. It seems to me that RIAA wants to skip the judge part, replacing the legal system with their rules.
..is that as I am going to need new tyres for my car, I will probably think twice before buying Michelins.
That was the first thought in my head. what bothers me, however, is that other companies are likely to adapt this (Gilette is going to have RFIDs embedded in your razor blade soon...). Now once ALL companies have RFIDs in tires, it is unlikely that I will smuggle tires or make them at home...
You car already HAS a unique identifier tacked on it, your liscence plate which is illegal to remove or alter.
Yes, yes, we already have licence plates.... BUT does any corporation own the database of licence plates? I would hope that no one but a cop can pull up the info on my car. I trust the police much more than Michelin corporation...
Incidentaly, it is probably legal to alter or fry these things... though that might change.
I understand and agree with all your points. But surely there are things for which the copyright has expired? Or that were released by the author? Surely the public domain (though dwindled) still exists?
I don't have to claim my work is "original", it is sufficient that my work is copy or derivative from public domain. I am appaled that a tax like that could pass at all, when there are plenty of cases where it is ridiculously wrong
Hell, in the end, using computers for anything but content CREATION may be pirating.
Well, what annoys me even more is that when I create original content (like record my own song) I am STILL being charged the tax for the blank CD... so even content creation does not save you from guilt assumption
paying a tax to cover alleged piracy as reported by an organisation that can't count CD burners?
Can anyone expand on that? How much is the blank media in US? When and how was it passed? Is EFF anyone lobbying to have it repealed as ridiculous??
Can someone please spell out the argument against "linking" in general and why it's so offensive to anyone?
Well, the first reason has already been mentioned -- people are not educated enough to look at the URL and figure out where they are. They might not be aware that the server changed (remember disclaimers on merchanidizer's sites? "You are about to leave foo.com and go to our sponsor bar.com. We are not responsible for bar.com")
Another reason, which I actualy do sympathize with is as follows: People who own server B link to a file (CoolDemo.zip, located on server A) and post a review and ads on server B. Now you view the review/ads and decide to download the demo. But the problem is, server B gets the credit and comissions, but server A gets to bear the download of a huge file and pay for that bandwidth. See what the problem is?
I agree with you -- but just one question. Is the blank CD tax a law? When did it pass? How? I would be concerned that this one can follow the same path.
the ISPs will probably just start port blocking and not pay the RIAA.
Blocking what? All ports? Each software sharing program uses its own, right? Smart ones will probably go through port 80 or something. If RIAA just assumes everybody is pirating, would it back off because some ports are blocked? Next thing is taxing everybody who has good hearing, I guess... because of increased quality of music consumed.
Lawyers I know tend to believe that many judges are, essentially, political appointees: they got the judgeship as a political favor for being a good soldier in the local party machinery (like becoming the ambassador to Bermuda, on a much smaller scale.
That's is unfortunate... but the judges DO have to have a law degree, right?
But, I have learned my lesson--I will not mention the coffee case in the future, even in jest. I'll start using the tobacco cases.
No, no, that would be bad. It's a valid point and a valid opinion. The issue has been brought up (and flamed) many times, but you're the first person to go beyond "What sort of idiot should get money for burning herself with hot cofee!" and actually argue your point legibly... *and* you're the first person who actually knows the details (rather than the one sentense description) and still argues that lawsuit was bad.
they are generally elected (meaning appointed by the controlling party since these races are not hotly contested) so your contention as to their competence is pretty weak, in my Humble opinion.
I honestly do not know much about the process, but I assume that the judges are selected from people with law degrees (or relevant), rather than going out to the street and looking there? Now law degree is something that none of slashdot readers seem to have, and I'd like to claim that it matters...
As to being sued for falling from high places, see below:
The point is that the suit is not for the hot coffee or for hight places, the lawsuits are about negligence. And if I can show that the damage was due to someone's negligence (in front of the judge and jury, mind you), than I am entitled to damages as compensation for the negligence. Complaining about not being warned that coffee is hot is ridiculus. Yet showing that I was burned due to someone's negligence is a completely different thing
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the discussion and set your filter below "+5 for loudly bashing MS", you would notice that Opera6.0 had a problem that was FIXED BY -30 OFFSET. So what you're looking at is the inability to distinguish between opera6.0 and opera7.0. Or, essentially bashing for the (somewhat screwd up) fix of opera6.0.
What truly amazes me is that opera.com description of the problem fails to mention that. I have to say that MSN guys come out looking *far better* than the Opera.
And, not to defend MS or anything... but how come EVEN THE OPERA.COM SITE NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT OPERA6.0 HAD A +30 BUG WHEN RENDERING CSS SHEETS?? Who is sabotaging who here?!?
I think the drawbacks are potentially the same if not worse. Someone brought up one issue -- how do you detect bad food (bad milk, etc)? As a student, I frequently have to test the unidentified items in the fridge by smell and taste (smell first :). And once they can block the taste, they would probably go for the smell too.
Something has to encourage manufacturers to produce good quality items. An ability to easily block and alter the taste of the product is not a way to incourage them.
Problem is, many of rights/conviniences are trampled in the way. Take DVD... the goal is to prevent me from illegaly copying the movies. As a result --
1. I can't *legally* copy the disk for backup.
2. I can't make a MPEG video to keep my DVD on my hard-drive (and let me tell you, my ATI DVD player refuses to start properly pretty often)
3. Somehow I can't even skip FBI warnings, commercials and other crap that plays *every* time I want to watch a DVD (another reason to keep it on hard drive, btw).
Seems like a slight overkill...
Ehm, no. If you purchase an art booklet and draw leaves over pictures there (or pay someone to do it for you), that is perfectly fine. Remeber, this is all *voluntary*, no one is forcing anyone to do or see anything (besdies the studios wanting to control what you see, that is)
So I can see how it's illegal to edit a DVD I got for a free preview... but how does that translate into a DVD for which I shelled out 10-20 bucks?
They already do! Infrequently, and non-specific yet (I swear to return a DVD that would have an AOL commercial on it). But your point is well made... a filter can exist to skip the FBI warning and whatever other crap studios make unskippable...
... is that survey shows that 18% of people think. No, I have not right do do anything AT HOME with MY DVD that might interfere with copyright as the corporations understand it. Hopefully those are people on Hollywood payroll. But if not, that is a serious problem.
Maybe flaimbait was not the purpose of that post afterall... Not to say that humanities are useless, but there seems to be a conceptual difference between science and humanities. There IS in fact the issue that it is possible to get 100% on a science test (and prove that you deserve a 100% when you got less). Yet it is much harder to argue that you deserve 100% on an essay. I've definately seen cases where a essay got a C+ while being touted as a best essay in last 5 years (really!).
And yes, this is a good thing in both cases. But not *quite* as good as same thing happening without the public outrage. I wonder how many stories like that go unnoticed and thus unchanged...?
Any proof? I have not seen any closing stores yet, but I have seen an OPENING one (due in a month). If they close 107 stores and open 108, that's not quite the same as just closing 107 stores...
The average cost of a compact disc, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying group which represents recording companies, is $14.21.
What is the average cost of a DVD? An audio tape? judging by the prices, the audio tape costs much less on average, yet it's the same music...?
What I find even more distirbing (and I have commented about it) is how hypocritical and pointless such tactic is. It is unlikely that people who illegaly copy a movie from DVD will include the FBI warning when copying. Even if they do, the pirated version uses some mpeg player and will be able to skip anything. Yet I, a *legal* owner of the DVD, have no way of skipping the warning aimed at people who don't see that warning. What do they expect, that I will recite it to people that use P2P??
As mentioned, fraud is not protected by free speech clause... but even more importantly who is being put behind bars? The executives of MonsterHut...? They are being asked not to do this anymore from what I understand... sorta like MS.
One question: Can you skip over the FBI piracy warning/commercials when your playing a DVD in your DVD player? One that you can get your hands on? Oh, wait...
Ah, but no, it would not be :(. Problem is, RIAA will not be slammed down if they are wrong. The person they are after is sure as hell not going to counter sue them. He will be searched and will lose the computer as "evidence". And if maybe, MAYBE, he can prove innocence, he MIGHT get back his stuff... so RIAA takes no risks.
And rather than going to Verizon with their "reason to believe", they should go to a JUDGE and PROVE their "reasons to believe" to a judge. Once they have a warrant, police will search the suspect's computer/home,etc. It seems to me that RIAA wants to skip the judge part, replacing the legal system with their rules.
That was the first thought in my head. what bothers me, however, is that other companies are likely to adapt this (Gilette is going to have RFIDs embedded in your razor blade soon...). Now once ALL companies have RFIDs in tires, it is unlikely that I will smuggle tires or make them at home...
Yes, yes, we already have licence plates.... BUT does any corporation own the database of licence plates? I would hope that no one but a cop can pull up the info on my car. I trust the police much more than Michelin corporation...
Incidentaly, it is probably legal to alter or fry these things... though that might change.
I understand and agree with all your points. But surely there are things for which the copyright has expired? Or that were released by the author? Surely the public domain (though dwindled) still exists?
I don't have to claim my work is "original", it is sufficient that my work is copy or derivative from public domain. I am appaled that a tax like that could pass at all, when there are plenty of cases where it is ridiculously wrong
Well, what annoys me even more is that when I create original content (like record my own song) I am STILL being charged the tax for the blank CD... so even content creation does not save you from guilt assumption
paying a tax to cover alleged piracy as reported by an organisation that can't count CD burners?
Can anyone expand on that? How much is the blank media in US? When and how was it passed? Is EFF anyone lobbying to have it repealed as ridiculous??
Well, the first reason has already been mentioned -- people are not educated enough to look at the URL and figure out where they are. They might not be aware that the server changed (remember disclaimers on merchanidizer's sites? "You are about to leave foo.com and go to our sponsor bar.com. We are not responsible for bar.com")
Another reason, which I actualy do sympathize with is as follows: People who own server B link to a file (CoolDemo.zip, located on server A) and post a review and ads on server B. Now you view the review/ads and decide to download the demo. But the problem is, server B gets the credit and comissions, but server A gets to bear the download of a huge file and pay for that bandwidth. See what the problem is?
I agree with you -- but just one question. Is the blank CD tax a law? When did it pass? How? I would be concerned that this one can follow the same path.
Blocking what? All ports? Each software sharing program uses its own, right? Smart ones will probably go through port 80 or something. If RIAA just assumes everybody is pirating, would it back off because some ports are blocked? Next thing is taxing everybody who has good hearing, I guess... because of increased quality of music consumed.
That's is unfortunate... but the judges DO have to have a law degree, right?
But, I have learned my lesson--I will not mention the coffee case in the future, even in jest. I'll start using the tobacco cases.
No, no, that would be bad. It's a valid point and a valid opinion. The issue has been brought up (and flamed) many times, but you're the first person to go beyond "What sort of idiot should get money for burning herself with hot cofee!" and actually argue your point legibly... *and* you're the first person who actually knows the details (rather than the one sentense description) and still argues that lawsuit was bad.
I honestly do not know much about the process, but I assume that the judges are selected from people with law degrees (or relevant), rather than going out to the street and looking there? Now law degree is something that none of slashdot readers seem to have, and I'd like to claim that it matters...
As to being sued for falling from high places, see below:
The point is that the suit is not for the hot coffee or for hight places, the lawsuits are about negligence. And if I can show that the damage was due to someone's negligence (in front of the judge and jury, mind you), than I am entitled to damages as compensation for the negligence. Complaining about not being warned that coffee is hot is ridiculus. Yet showing that I was burned due to someone's negligence is a completely different thing