Your comment was somewhat intelligent until you switched into slashdot-speak with the bait and switch comment. You should have stopped after the 1st sentence.
Did you consider that palladium is just 1 more feature that wine needs to support? It's like any other change MS makes to Windows that wine must support. In this case however, linux must support palladium as well, so someone should start working on that. palladium will be very useful for linux. Not including it will limit the multimedia content available while using linux.
You might want to look up irony in the dictionary. I don't think you understand what it means. Also, you don't seem to understand that pc's under Windows do more than Macs, based on the far greater software base (including this rendezvous feature). What's ironic is that you are criticizing the price of some MS toy when Apple charged you way too much for your Mac.
The point of turbotax is that it takes only a day because it simplifies things for you. Again, piracy is to blame for their licensing policy. Don't complain about companies protecting their IP when piracy is rampant. If you don't like the policy, discourage piracy. Slashdotters love to support policies that protect piracy, and then wonder why software companies start ewnforcing stricter licensing policies.
A union doesn't give you job security. They simply negotiate contracts between workers and a companies to determine pay rates, benefits, etc. If a company decides to lay people off, the union can't do anything about it in most cases. The only real (legal) power unions have is the ability to call a strike, which severely curtails production if scabs can't be found to replace the striking workers. This power is sufficient however to prevent many abuses that occurred during the industrial revolution by companies against workers.
"The court ruled there was "no evidence" that either Johansen or others had used the decryption code (called DeCSS) for illegal purposes. Johansen therefore couldn't be convicted on such grounds, nor for acting as an accessory to other alleged illegal activity, wrote judge Irene Sogn in the court's ruling."
The prosecution must have really sucked. People routinely use DeCSS to decrypt dvd's, convert the content to lower quality video, and burn onto a cd-rom or share on p2p networks. Probably difficult to actually find someone doing this given the anonymous nature of the internet however. Impossible to get an ISP to give up the name of a violator.
Yeah right. The programs only good for one tax year. That means, one day for the average user, where he inputs the data and prints out his tax return. I think Intuit has a right to impose the draconian licensing scheme given that the average person buys the software and then shares it with 5 friends. If you don't like their policy, go after the pirates, but don't blame the company for protecting their IP.
Your argument is like saying, we shouldn't have public roads, because then we'd need to pass laws limiting the speed at which people drive for safety reasons. This of course is an attack on a person's freedom to drive as fast as they want. There's no inherent right to information that you didn't produce. If you check out an e-book, you are entering into a contract whereby you agree to relinquish the information after a certain period of time. DRM is there to insure you hold up your end of the contract.
You're a real dumass. The primary reason to bypass the ms software is to run illegal games. Despite what yyou read in slashdot, the average person doesn't give a shit about running linux on an xbox. This before you insult me, asshole.
My point is the author and original publisher get screwed, lowering the incentive to write and publish new works. This is a bad thing. IN the case of patents, they limit them since no invention is built from nothing. A book or film however, is a unique work which deserve protection.
In this case Redhat gets nothing for their money, instead of the programmer getting nothing for his time. They merely subsist off of byproducts, such as support, and selling the software to people who can't or don't know how to download it. Therefore, my point is still valid, and your counterexample shown to be a weak arguement.
ok, that's bullshit. If proprietary software wasn't worth anything, people wouldn't buy it. Obviously it has some value to the consumer, or he wouldn't spend hard earned money on it.
Yes. The idea behind open source is, I write code and give it away, with the hope that others do the same, I may get the rest of the code I need for free, thus getting a lot of code for the price of writing a little code. This is a standard communist principle. The result is inevitable. Most people use the code without contributing anything, expecting the few talented people able to write the code to keep doing so without compensation for their benefit.
The point is no ones paying any of these people for actually writing the code. They get paid for developing hardware, applications, or support for the code.
Lessig talks about a bounty for spammers, but doesn't mention who will pay the bounty. Although I dislike spam, I don't want my tax dollars paying bounties to catch spammers. If ISPs want to pay the bounty to save themselves money, however, that would seem more reasonable.
The DMCA is intended to protect copy-protected material. As the article mentions, no one at Tivo designed any sort of copy-protection into Tivo, so if someone figures out how to swap files, they haven't circumvented any copy-protection. As far as older laws go, fair use says you can share recorded material with friends, I believe. Only if you share the content p2p with strangers, do I see any possible violation of the law.
Seems to me if these books become popular, another publisher can simply ride the coat tails of the original publisher. That is, print an identical copy, which should cost no more, and sell it slightly cheaper since no royalties need to be paid to the author and the promotional costs have already been taken care of by the original publisher.
Everybody on slashdot whines about the DMCA, but activities such as this show that the DMCA is a practical law, even though it is unconstitutional. And people wonder why no one else has sympathy for slashdot causes. Regardless of the intent, these cause end up furthering illegal activity.
One of the issues at hand is that the inventors of DVD want their licensing fee for software DVD players. By reverse engineering their encryption scheme, you've discovered their trade secret, and bypassed their licensing fee "simply to watch DVD's that you own". Not sure what the legal implications of reverse engineering something declared a trade secret.
Great. So now I get to look forward to campaign pop-up ads and spam. What a great idea.
Dow complaint seems valid
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped them.
"but there are millions of new PCs sold each year."
So a pc maker buys 1 copy of Mandrake, gets support for that 1 copy, and sells 1 million pcs. Mandrake still only sold 1 copy and the pc maker didn't do anything illegal. Hell, if he knows what he's doing, he probably doesn't need the support and can buy 0 copies.
If you are distributing your pro-democracy journal in China, I think their laws would apply. That what's happening in this case. If you don't want to get in trouble with US law, don't break US law in the US.
You make the assumption that all killing is wrong. Yes, a gun was designed to kill. Killing an animal with a gun can be a good thing if you're hungry. Killing an assailant who is attacking you is not considered murder, and therefore, not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing in the article that claims you can't run a non-trusted OS using their BIOS. It simply tells the system what it found.
Your comment was somewhat intelligent until you switched into slashdot-speak with the bait and switch comment. You should have stopped after the 1st sentence.
Did you consider that palladium is just 1 more feature that wine needs to support? It's like any other change MS makes to Windows that wine must support. In this case however, linux must support palladium as well, so someone should start working on that. palladium will be very useful for linux. Not including it will limit the multimedia content available while using linux.
You might want to look up irony in the dictionary. I don't think you understand what it means. Also, you don't seem to understand that pc's under Windows do more than Macs, based on the far greater software base (including this rendezvous feature). What's ironic is that you are criticizing the price of some MS toy when Apple charged you way too much for your Mac.
The point of turbotax is that it takes only a day because it simplifies things for you. Again, piracy is to blame for their licensing policy. Don't complain about companies protecting their IP when piracy is rampant. If you don't like the policy, discourage piracy. Slashdotters love to support policies that protect piracy, and then wonder why software companies start ewnforcing stricter licensing policies.
A union doesn't give you job security. They simply negotiate contracts between workers and a companies to determine pay rates, benefits, etc. If a company decides to lay people off, the union can't do anything about it in most cases. The only real (legal) power unions have is the ability to call a strike, which severely curtails production if scabs can't be found to replace the striking workers. This power is sufficient however to prevent many abuses that occurred during the industrial revolution by companies against workers.
"The court ruled there was "no evidence" that either Johansen or others had used the decryption code (called DeCSS) for illegal purposes. Johansen therefore couldn't be convicted on such grounds, nor for acting as an accessory to other alleged illegal activity, wrote judge Irene Sogn in the court's ruling."
The prosecution must have really sucked. People routinely use DeCSS to decrypt dvd's, convert the content to lower quality video, and burn onto a cd-rom or share on p2p networks. Probably difficult to actually find someone doing this given the anonymous nature of the internet however. Impossible to get an ISP to give up the name of a violator.
Yeah right. The programs only good for one tax year. That means, one day for the average user, where he inputs the data and prints out his tax return. I think Intuit has a right to impose the draconian licensing scheme given that the average person buys the software and then shares it with 5 friends. If you don't like their policy, go after the pirates, but don't blame the company for protecting their IP.
Your argument is like saying, we shouldn't have public roads, because then we'd need to pass laws limiting the speed at which people drive for safety reasons. This of course is an attack on a person's freedom to drive as fast as they want. There's no inherent right to information that you didn't produce. If you check out an e-book, you are entering into a contract whereby you agree to relinquish the information after a certain period of time. DRM is there to insure you hold up your end of the contract.
You're a real dumass. The primary reason to bypass the ms software is to run illegal games. Despite what yyou read in slashdot, the average person doesn't give a shit about running linux on an xbox. This before you insult me, asshole.
My point is the author and original publisher get screwed, lowering the incentive to write and publish new works. This is a bad thing. IN the case of patents, they limit them since no invention is built from nothing. A book or film however, is a unique work which deserve protection.
In this case Redhat gets nothing for their money, instead of the programmer getting nothing for his time. They merely subsist off of byproducts, such as support, and selling the software to people who can't or don't know how to download it. Therefore, my point is still valid, and your counterexample shown to be a weak arguement.
ok, that's bullshit. If proprietary software wasn't worth anything, people wouldn't buy it. Obviously it has some value to the consumer, or he wouldn't spend hard earned money on it.
Yes. The idea behind open source is, I write code and give it away, with the hope that others do the same, I may get the rest of the code I need for free, thus getting a lot of code for the price of writing a little code. This is a standard communist principle. The result is inevitable. Most people use the code without contributing anything, expecting the few talented people able to write the code to keep doing so without compensation for their benefit.
The point is no ones paying any of these people for actually writing the code. They get paid for developing hardware, applications, or support for the code.
Lessig talks about a bounty for spammers, but doesn't mention who will pay the bounty. Although I dislike spam, I don't want my tax dollars paying bounties to catch spammers. If ISPs want to pay the bounty to save themselves money, however, that would seem more reasonable.
The DMCA is intended to protect copy-protected material. As the article mentions, no one at Tivo designed any sort of copy-protection into Tivo, so if someone figures out how to swap files, they haven't circumvented any copy-protection. As far as older laws go, fair use says you can share recorded material with friends, I believe. Only if you share the content p2p with strangers, do I see any possible violation of the law.
Seems to me if these books become popular, another publisher can simply ride the coat tails of the original publisher. That is, print an identical copy, which should cost no more, and sell it slightly cheaper since no royalties need to be paid to the author and the promotional costs have already been taken care of by the original publisher.
Everybody on slashdot whines about the DMCA, but activities such as this show that the DMCA is a practical law, even though it is unconstitutional. And people wonder why no one else has sympathy for slashdot causes. Regardless of the intent, these cause end up furthering illegal activity.
One of the issues at hand is that the inventors of DVD want their licensing fee for software DVD players. By reverse engineering their encryption scheme, you've discovered their trade secret, and bypassed their licensing fee "simply to watch DVD's that you own". Not sure what the legal implications of reverse engineering something declared a trade secret.
Great. So now I get to look forward to campaign pop-up ads and spam. What a great idea.
If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped them.
"but there are millions of new PCs sold each year."
So a pc maker buys 1 copy of Mandrake, gets support for that 1 copy, and sells 1 million pcs. Mandrake still only sold 1 copy and the pc maker didn't do anything illegal. Hell, if he knows what he's doing, he probably doesn't need the support and can buy 0 copies.
If you are distributing your pro-democracy journal in China, I think their laws would apply. That what's happening in this case. If you don't want to get in trouble with US law, don't break US law in the US.
You make the assumption that all killing is wrong. Yes, a gun was designed to kill. Killing an animal with a gun can be a good thing if you're hungry. Killing an assailant who is attacking you is not considered murder, and therefore, not illegal.