This might be useful for future Rover missions (or, um Beagle missions). You'll lose accuracy, but at least you wouldn't hit the ground like a falling rock.
Or maybe for falling capsules...(just in case someone plugs something in upside down)
I'm saying that fair use allows usage of copyrighted materials in certain ways. Of course it's not just a blanket thing that lets you copy whatever you want, but the point is that it's not just a black and white "all copying is illegal and wrong" kind of issue.
It seems worth noting as well that the things people are doing today were within the law 10 or 20 years ago.
I really have no idea what exactly the best way to go about all of this is, but we're a country founded by people who took the powerful people who were in charge "by the throat." Just a thought.
I was disappointed to see this myself... I wanted to see how cool it would be to go to a different site than it says...damn me for keeping my system patched!
(After that, I noticed that the original link mentions that IE SP2 is safe)
Not that New York is the only place on earth I'd want to advertise FireFox
The NY Times sees national distribution. It's one of the most read papers in the country. I know that someplace on spreadfirefox.com there is a faq that explains this and also mentions that they they may advertise in other areas (ie europe) in the future as well, and I'd love to link to it but it seems to have been hit by the slashdot effect already...:)
And you're right, you can still contribute. They probably raised a lot more money than they need for the advertisement here. The extra just goes to helping out in other areas. You can always donate straight money, or like you said, buy a shirt. You can also contribute by spreading the word about firefox, posting flyers, and of course by using it.
The RIAA or any plaintiff in a civil action is likely to go after wherever the big money is. In this case, it's the university, not the starving students.
You must not have seen the previous lawsuits. Traditional logic doesn't really apply. They will sueanyoneno matterwhat
This is an organization that doesn't care one bit. You can be 12 or 60. You can be a student. It doesn't matter. They're out to make an example out of people. They don't care what anyone thinks about them and they're not in it for the money. They'd be more than happy to take the $10,000 you have in your bank account.
Not that I can imagine a more effective way of getting people to buy CD's...ha
Here's a few spins that aren't against the law: fair use, GPL, Creative Commons,... Those are all things that allow legal trading of copyrighted material.
To be fair as well, there is an awful lot of money backing the law as is (not to mention making it more restrictive). It's certainly good to try to change the law, but I'm doubting it's going to happen here.
As long as you vote, you're part of a democracy, and that means your government reflects you (the people).
It is only a very small reflection though....
The government doesn't have to act in accordance with what the majority of people want. This may put them out of office a year or two down the line, but in the meantime, it is what it is. Furthermore, even if every decision made were an accurate reflection of what the "country" wanted, it would be a majority decision. Any way you look at it, there will be millions of people opposed to just about anything that gets done. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if I only was going to do one thing with government, my time would be better spent writing letters/talking to congressmen than it would be actually voting.
I work in the digital television industry, and sometime, within the next year, I expect that I will most likely be adding broadcast flag support to a product or two of ours.
See, now I think that's different. While I certainly don't think that the broadcast flag is a good thing, I'd be doing the same if I were in your shoes. This is at least something within the scope of the law. Not that I'm trying to say that people coding for spammers is against the law, but spamming by and large is just a whole different level of low...way down there. On top of that, the broadcast flag is a mandate, so even your employer doesn't have a choice (at least on a level of to do or not to do).
That said, I was thinking of the whole thing from the angle of the article. That would be people taking jobs specifically for spammers. It becomes a whole different situation if your current employer decides they suddenly want to start spamming and want you to write some software. That would be a bit more tricky, especailly in a slow job market. On the other hand, like I said, spamming is just a whole different level of low from a lot of other things out there, so if you were already working for someone and they decided they needed to start spamming, then that might be a good clue it's not the best company to work for anyways..:)
On a final note though, spamming software could be a very fuzzy area. It all depends on how it's put to use. Your employer could order up a fully configurable (I just mean lots of options so they can fake their sending address and other spammer tricks) mass mailer that could just as easily be put to a legitimate use. It all depends if they want to use their customer mailing list or that INTERNET_ALL list they just bought..:)
I am a very moral person with a strict code of ethics... that can be purchased for a price when working
Ahh, so then you'd kill someone for the right price? Not the best analogy, but I'd say that a "strict code of ethics that can be purchased" is an oxymoron.
This wasn't framed as a gentle negotiation, it's a line in the sand -- you don't do this, then the threat is [your product is dropped].'
Does walmart ever conduct a gentle negotiation? They do this kind of thing all the time. I've even heard that there have been cases where they just started paying less for the stuff they bought, regardless of what their supplier was "charging" them.
P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay....Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's
Although I totally agree with your premise, guns don't make a good analogy because that is spelled out in the constitution. A knife or a crowbar might be a better example.
Did you read what was written? It isn't that firefox has less problems, its that so few people use it that it isn't as likely to come up as a target. All software has bugs, and people are going to exploit them where they can get the most bang for their buck. As long as 90% (or whatever) of people are using IE, it can never be secure, no matter how much MS works on it. People will find the bugs and exploit them just because it does the most damage and because hey, it's MS we're talking about (who wouldn't want to throw a pie in their face?)
I know a guy who used to own a bar. He sometimes had live music with local bands. He said he had some guys visit him from ASCAP one time. They tried to get him to buy into some license that would allow him to play ASCAP music. He told them that they wouldn't be playing any. The guys then told him that they would have no problem sending people in, and if they heard even one of their songs then they'd be after him. He tossed them to the curb and never heard from them again.
Yeah I'm not ready to call this guy a liar yet either.
I have to agree, it's possible. I drive a 2003 Saturn VUE, which also uses ETC. I've never had it just open up the throttle, but I did have one occation where suddenly I couldn't drive over about 20mph (it just wouldn't go) and when I let off the gas, the idle was so low that it kept on almost stalling out. A simple reboot did the trick, and that was over a year ago now..
We'll see more and more of this though. Cars are going to become more and more electronic. They're talking about steer by wire, break by wire, and an interesting combined starter/alternator that will actually allow the engine to shut off when you stop at lights and then get you going again just like if it were running. Check out info on 42 volt for more information. This is the way the industry is heading (slowly but most probably surely).
I can concieve of such a thing, I just have never seen it:)
Really though, I could understand such a thing happening, but how do you ever really know? I mean, next year, there could be budget cuts or even just reduction in budget increases. It would be easy to pawn it off on any number or reasons, but it could really be because of this thing the fundee wasn't supposed to be doing.
Saddly, this is just how the government (US) works. (to an extent this is how business works as well...) I'll admit that I'm too paranoid to just out and out believe what you're saying, but it's certainly something I'd like to believe. Maybe someday I'll take off my tinfoil hat..;)
The BBC is funded by government, but thats where the relationship ends. The UK government has absolutely no say whatsoever in what the BBC spends its money on
Unfortunetly, that's not how policts work. If the government is directly funding the BBC, then they have lots of say over what goes on. If they don't like what the money's being used for, all they have to do is take it away.
-Downloading music from the net that you don't have permission to download is not ethical. -Uploading music to the net that you don't have permission to distribute is not ethical.
Although I generally agree with you, ethics are of a personal nature, and it really isn't one person's place to tell everyone else what is or isn't ethical. My ethics are my ethics as yours are yours. I mean no disrespect in all of this, but I just feel as though you're sounding a little bit preachy.
Now if you want to talk about what is or isn't ethical to society as a whole, then it's a different story. Of course, I'd say that we're divided to a good extent on that one.
But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.
Exactly, although I would say that the accuracy relies on "representavity"... I suppose I'm probably not thinking of accuracy in the right terms though come to think of it....I just mean that in the end the numbers are bad:)
Don't forget that we're we're only polling slashdot readers here, and we're a horrible representation for the country/world as a whole. As a group, we tend to think alike to some extent, and there's no way we're representative of the group of ALL ipod users that Balmer is talking about. On top of that, any survey that allows just anyone to participate if they want to is never accurate. (maybe 10% of everyone has a strong opinion on said issue, and that group of people may make up 80% of the votes you get).
Slashdot Mirror
This might be useful for future Rover missions (or, um Beagle missions). You'll lose accuracy, but at least you wouldn't hit the ground like a falling rock.
Or maybe for falling capsules...(just in case someone plugs something in upside down)
I'm saying that fair use allows usage of copyrighted materials in certain ways. Of course it's not just a blanket thing that lets you copy whatever you want, but the point is that it's not just a black and white "all copying is illegal and wrong" kind of issue. It seems worth noting as well that the things people are doing today were within the law 10 or 20 years ago. I really have no idea what exactly the best way to go about all of this is, but we're a country founded by people who took the powerful people who were in charge "by the throat." Just a thought.
Doesn't work in my IE 6 under Windows XP SP2
I was disappointed to see this myself... I wanted to see how cool it would be to go to a different site than it says...damn me for keeping my system patched!
(After that, I noticed that the original link mentions that IE SP2 is safe)
Not that New York is the only place on earth I'd want to advertise FireFox
:)
And you're right, you can still contribute. They probably raised a lot more money than they need for the advertisement here. The extra just goes to helping out in other areas. You can always donate straight money, or like you said, buy a shirt. You can also contribute by spreading the word about firefox, posting flyers, and of course by using it.
The NY Times sees national distribution. It's one of the most read papers in the country. I know that someplace on spreadfirefox.com there is a faq that explains this and also mentions that they they may advertise in other areas (ie europe) in the future as well, and I'd love to link to it but it seems to have been hit by the slashdot effect already...
The RIAA or any plaintiff in a civil action is likely to go after wherever the big money is. In this case, it's the university, not the starving students.
You must not have seen the previous lawsuits. Traditional logic doesn't really apply. They will sue anyone no matter what
This is an organization that doesn't care one bit. You can be 12 or 60. You can be a student. It doesn't matter. They're out to make an example out of people. They don't care what anyone thinks about them and they're not in it for the money. They'd be more than happy to take the $10,000 you have in your bank account.
Not that I can imagine a more effective way of getting people to buy CD's...ha
Here's a few spins that aren't against the law: fair use, GPL, Creative Commons, ... Those are all things that allow legal trading of copyrighted material.
To be fair as well, there is an awful lot of money backing the law as is (not to mention making it more restrictive). It's certainly good to try to change the law, but I'm doubting it's going to happen here.
As long as you vote, you're part of a democracy, and that means your government reflects you (the people).
It is only a very small reflection though.... The government doesn't have to act in accordance with what the majority of people want. This may put them out of office a year or two down the line, but in the meantime, it is what it is. Furthermore, even if every decision made were an accurate reflection of what the "country" wanted, it would be a majority decision. Any way you look at it, there will be millions of people opposed to just about anything that gets done. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if I only was going to do one thing with government, my time would be better spent writing letters/talking to congressmen than it would be actually voting.
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... music?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
The fucking computer language is stupid for not making this kind of ambiguity easy to detect
True true. It would be nice to have a compiler that would at least give a warning when something like this happens
I work in the digital television industry, and sometime, within the next year, I expect that I will most likely be adding broadcast flag support to a product or two of ours.
:)
:)
See, now I think that's different. While I certainly don't think that the broadcast flag is a good thing, I'd be doing the same if I were in your shoes. This is at least something within the scope of the law. Not that I'm trying to say that people coding for spammers is against the law, but spamming by and large is just a whole different level of low...way down there. On top of that, the broadcast flag is a mandate, so even your employer doesn't have a choice (at least on a level of to do or not to do).
That said, I was thinking of the whole thing from the angle of the article. That would be people taking jobs specifically for spammers. It becomes a whole different situation if your current employer decides they suddenly want to start spamming and want you to write some software. That would be a bit more tricky, especailly in a slow job market. On the other hand, like I said, spamming is just a whole different level of low from a lot of other things out there, so if you were already working for someone and they decided they needed to start spamming, then that might be a good clue it's not the best company to work for anyways..
On a final note though, spamming software could be a very fuzzy area. It all depends on how it's put to use. Your employer could order up a fully configurable (I just mean lots of options so they can fake their sending address and other spammer tricks) mass mailer that could just as easily be put to a legitimate use. It all depends if they want to use their customer mailing list or that INTERNET_ALL list they just bought..
I am a very moral person with a strict code of ethics... that can be purchased for a price when working
Ahh, so then you'd kill someone for the right price? Not the best analogy, but I'd say that a "strict code of ethics that can be purchased" is an oxymoron.
This wasn't framed as a gentle negotiation, it's a line in the sand -- you don't do this, then the threat is [your product is dropped].'
Does walmart ever conduct a gentle negotiation? They do this kind of thing all the time. I've even heard that there have been cases where they just started paying less for the stuff they bought, regardless of what their supplier was "charging" them.
P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay....Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's
Although I totally agree with your premise, guns don't make a good analogy because that is spelled out in the constitution. A knife or a crowbar might be a better example.
That's only in a court of law, and /. ain't no stinkin' court o' law.
But surely we're at least as impartial...
He's a witch, burn him!
Give our impartiality, it's only fair that we put him on a scale with a duck on the other side and find out for sure.
Did you read what was written? It isn't that firefox has less problems, its that so few people use it that it isn't as likely to come up as a target. All software has bugs, and people are going to exploit them where they can get the most bang for their buck. As long as 90% (or whatever) of people are using IE, it can never be secure, no matter how much MS works on it. People will find the bugs and exploit them just because it does the most damage and because hey, it's MS we're talking about (who wouldn't want to throw a pie in their face?)
It's more like the mafia.
I'll throw in the RIAA, MPAA, etc...
I know a guy who used to own a bar. He sometimes had live music with local bands. He said he had some guys visit him from ASCAP one time. They tried to get him to buy into some license that would allow him to play ASCAP music. He told them that they wouldn't be playing any. The guys then told him that they would have no problem sending people in, and if they heard even one of their songs then they'd be after him. He tossed them to the curb and never heard from them again.
Yeah I'm not ready to call this guy a liar yet either.
I have to agree, it's possible. I drive a 2003 Saturn VUE, which also uses ETC. I've never had it just open up the throttle, but I did have one occation where suddenly I couldn't drive over about 20mph (it just wouldn't go) and when I let off the gas, the idle was so low that it kept on almost stalling out. A simple reboot did the trick, and that was over a year ago now..
We'll see more and more of this though. Cars are going to become more and more electronic. They're talking about steer by wire, break by wire, and an interesting combined starter/alternator that will actually allow the engine to shut off when you stop at lights and then get you going again just like if it were running. Check out info on 42 volt for more information. This is the way the industry is heading (slowly but most probably surely).
I can concieve of such a thing, I just have never seen it :)
Really though, I could understand such a thing happening, but how do you ever really know? I mean, next year, there could be budget cuts or even just reduction in budget increases. It would be easy to pawn it off on any number or reasons, but it could really be because of this thing the fundee wasn't supposed to be doing.
Saddly, this is just how the government (US) works. (to an extent this is how business works as well...) I'll admit that I'm too paranoid to just out and out believe what you're saying, but it's certainly something I'd like to believe. Maybe someday I'll take off my tinfoil hat.. ;)
The BBC is funded by government, but thats where the relationship ends. The UK government has absolutely no say whatsoever in what the BBC spends its money on
Unfortunetly, that's not how policts work. If the government is directly funding the BBC, then they have lots of say over what goes on. If they don't like what the money's being used for, all they have to do is take it away.
-Downloading music from the net that you don't have permission to download is not ethical.
-Uploading music to the net that you don't have permission to distribute is not ethical.
Although I generally agree with you, ethics are of a personal nature, and it really isn't one person's place to tell everyone else what is or isn't ethical. My ethics are my ethics as yours are yours. I mean no disrespect in all of this, but I just feel as though you're sounding a little bit preachy.
Now if you want to talk about what is or isn't ethical to society as a whole, then it's a different story. Of course, I'd say that we're divided to a good extent on that one.
But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.
But at least we get to vote for them.
Exactly, although I would say that the accuracy relies on "representavity" ... I suppose I'm probably not thinking of accuracy in the right terms though come to think of it....I just mean that in the end the numbers are bad :)
Don't forget that we're we're only polling slashdot readers here, and we're a horrible representation for the country/world as a whole. As a group, we tend to think alike to some extent, and there's no way we're representative of the group of ALL ipod users that Balmer is talking about. On top of that, any survey that allows just anyone to participate if they want to is never accurate. (maybe 10% of everyone has a strong opinion on said issue, and that group of people may make up 80% of the votes you get).
Actually, Joanne Woodward had the first star.
yes, all the links are dead except "media center" and "about"