I can't tell if you are telling me what you think is the law, or you are just speaking about what you wish were the law.
The later.
You'd think in the abstract that as money increased, there'd be more assumption that the public had some ownership in it.
(Those who purchased it should have some ownership rather than the public, right?)
While I see your point, I think the law should treat free content over the Internet as a special case. The Internet is a public resource with relatively small fees for access and free alternatives, such as libraries. If you use the public infrastructure to distribute your content free of charge, I think it should become part of the public record simply for purposes of posterity. The Internet is the modern day speaker's stump. If you make a speech on the town square and channel 4 tapes it for the evening news, can you sue them under copyright law?
I also understand that my opinion differs from existing copyright law, but it's simply how we all use the Internet. At its most basic, the Internet is a public forum. Unlike printed material, the cost for distribution is minimal ($100/year for a hosted web site.) I don't think the courts should indulge those who want to use copyright to "cover their tracks." This encourages poor quality content rather than providing incentive to content creators. I find that the quality content comes from those who publish based on internal motivation and lack of cost/barriers to publication. Many blogs, for example, are quite interesting. Blogs sponsored and forced by profit-motivated companies tend to be less interesting.
I completely agree that the law should protect those who want to retain control over how their content is used. In my opinion, it just shouldn't be the default. If you're willing to give your content to anyone who happens to point their browser to your domain, then you should already know how it's going to be used. Sites like the Internet Archive, who aren't reselling the work, but simply keeping a record of it, should have the right to do so. To have your content protected, I think you should have to make the user aware of how (s)he is allowed to use the content and build your own darn network or use some other means to limit its distribution (such as a login).
And yes, I know that if anyone took me seriously there would probably be a host of legal issues to work out, such as "What if the Internet Archive displays ads," and "Do you have to preserve content in its entirety", but I still think it should somehow fall under fair use.
Possibly I've misused the term "public domain" in ignorance, and for that I apologize. I'm not suggesting that by posting something on the Internet you've given up your ownership of the work. AOL and MSN should be required to preserve the work in its original form, including any byline you've attached to it, or appropriately site the original source (be it still available online or not). They also shouldn't be able to charge for access to other's works without the author's consent.
What if I didn't like your reply to my post, however? You did disagree with me, after all. Should I be able to remove my post (assuming./ gave me the ability to do so) and demand anyone who had a copy of it delete that as well? Of course not. You posted a valid editorial of a comment that I choose to make available for free by posting it online. If I don't like it, my recourse is this reply, not the ability to demand all record of my original post be deleted.
I just think that once you've posted something for free to the public, you can't go back and tell everyone that they have to delete any copies they may have. If Newsweek was sued for liable over something they published, they couldn't just send all of their subscribers a letter demanding the subscriber throw away any old copies of some issue of the magazine. The publisher has the ability to remove the source by which most people access online works, but that shouldn't give him or her the right to dictate what others do with their copies. If you want that type of control, you should have to get the user to positively acknowledge agreement to those terms before allowing them to access your work.
See what I mean. The PDF probably is online for free somewhere, but the time it might take me to find it is worth more than the $20 it would take me to buy it (unless someone wants to post the free link here;).
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a bad experience with Lumenlabs.
covers warning customers about drug interactions ('you previously purchased Drug ABC').
This sounds more like something that should be required by law than something that should be restricted by patent. I want a tax refund from the USPTO & the FDA.
But copying the entire of everything everywhere in anticipation of something being needed for a lawsuit sounds to me to be a questionable thing.
Isn't this exactly how backup has worked since magnetic media was first invented?
I also don't like all the analogies about books and signs in windows. Current copyright laws simply shouldn't apply to the Internet because it's a different beast. If I publish a book or a magazine, I create a limited number of copies and people have to buy my publication. The Internet is different, because I make unlimited numbers of copies of my content and give it away for free.
While copyright should apply to e-books and possibly to any HTTP request protected by some sort of logon (yes, you do have to protect your images too. IIS7 will help with this on Windows with Forms authentication), any content published to the public on the Internet should immediatly be considered public domain because that's how the content owner has implicitly made it available. It's simply a defacto standard, and anything that circumvents that, such as treating robots.txt a legal contract, would be an undue burden on the user of the content. The burden to protect the content should fall on the publisher.
Does this mean you've bought from Lumenlabs? Do you know their products suck? These posts are great if they're truly independent opinions of how cool Lumenlabs products are. Since I haven't seen any post saying "I've used lumenlabs and it sucks," I'm inclined to believe the positive posts.
Do any of these posts have the before pictures. I did a scan with April 05 updates and got the ignore then too. While I agree they should mark it as remove, did MS Antispyware EVER mark it as remove? See my screenshots here.
Try running OpenGL-based animation with texturing, full screen DVD playback, or full screen TV capture.
Okay, point taken. I'm not a gamer (though blender is nice), I'm not about to try to watch a DVD on a 17" monitor, and I don't have a TV capture card.
OSS's dependency hell is really snowballing
I'm not sure what a dependency is (I use Debian/apt and Gentoo/portage) though, so you're rant confuses me.
Apparently, Bill's wet dreams land in fertil soil (though they take longer than the usual 9 months). For stories on Longhorn, see Paul Thurrott
I dont know about you guys, but I agree with Radak totally. Apostrophie's just can't be used lightly. Bush put a lot of money into No Child Left Behind, and I'm disgusted at it's inability to teach American's proper grammer. Its sickening. If you don't know how to use apostrophys' then there are schools', books', web'sites', and all kind's of resources for you to better your's'e'l'f.
I was unaware of the huge penelty. I run linux (quite comfortably) on a PII with 128 Mb ram and on a P4 with 512 MB RAM. I use both boxes as an X client and as an X server, depending on where I am in my house. Granted, this is harley a heavily loaded multi-user scenario (and I stick to IceWM when the PII is my Xserver), but performance has never been an issue. The UI is fine even when compiling a kernel in the background on the PII.
Plus, compare it to the stories I've heard about Longhorn and X can't possibly have significant overhead.
As a programmer, I wouldn't call it a victory.
Patents are good on things that are genuinely innovative and were developed at a great expense. The problem is that patent office (at least the USPTO) seems
tobecompletelyincompetent.
The analogy is poor because I agree to use MS software on only one computer when I buy it. I don't agree to use my Internet service with only one computer when I sign up with my ISP. It is VERY different because, while software scales to unlimited users so long as you keep adding new computers, my bandwidth is fixed no matter how many computers I have behind my router. If I want to let my neighbors or even perfect strangers suck up my bandwidth, that's none of my ISP's business.
Does anyone know if the ISP would have any legal standing with such an argument?
While it would be freaky if someone was outside your house for no reason, this guy clearly had a reason (mooching the Internet). If I were Dinon, as long as I didn't notice any performance loss in my connection, my computers didn't get hacked and he wasn't blocking my driveway, I wouldn't really care.
Actually, X-Windows is the only part of the Linux desktop experience that doesn't suck. The ability to have a program display its window on any computer on the network is so awsome that it makes me put up with the rest of the crappy linux desktop shit. Why the heck haven't other desktop platforms picked up on this feature? And don't say RDP because I don't want may whole darn desktop, I just want one program!
I'm glad someone had the huevos to say it first. I also agree with the other reply that it's possible to have a career and children, but only with some careers. The majority of us have to choose between careers/minimum standard of living and children.
If we could find some measurement more meaningful than money, I think we'd find out that America is far from the world's richest nation. (And yes, I'm sure someone has done such a study, but I'll leave it to another to google on the subject and post the link.)
Sure you will, you just have to block it at your firewall. Now what we really need is some Linux firewall software that uses RSS to get the latest updates of ports and domains that MS products contact for blocking purposes. Then Linksys and Netgear need to build this technology in to their DSL/Cable Modem routers and switches so home protection is as simple as a checkbox.
The Denver Post seemed to help Ping hype up its open source roots, but I was at the Digital ID World confrence and the solution that impressed me as both a consumer and site developer was SXIP (pronounced skip). This is a PKI-like solution where any web sit you log on to can be a Home site and any web site you want to access without loging on to can be a Member site. Once I've logged on to the homesite of my choice, member sites can easily get any info about me that I've allowed from my home site with homesite lookup and encryption handled by the SXIP root site. Kind of like MS Passport, but I choose exactly who gets what information and I only have to establish an account with my favorite login site (such as, say, slashdot).
I work in the internal audit department for a large technology company, so I get to talk to everyone from programmers to EVPs. I think the "unskilled labor" statement simply shows a lack of understanding. It implies that all those workers in China and India are unskilled. Actually, the programmers there are educated and quite skilled, but cheaper (hince the problem).
The difference between the jobs being moved overseas and those staying here is not a matter of skill, but a mater of navigating the complex power structures of organization. The project manager, even though often clueless about technology, is the channel of communication to upper management, and therefor cannot be geographically or socially distant.
So the truly skilled workers who make the world go round are at the bottom while those that play the game rise to the top.
We all know that the best code is written at 3:00 am... Of course that's powered heavily by Mtn. Dew and Chee-tos, and probably didn't start until 9:00 pm, so I guess those aren't really long hours.
If I understand correctly, hotmail does encrypt the transmission of the password, but not the data session. I imagine the software is just reads the network traffic, but has not locally installed component. Maybe we should all get usb keychain hard drives on which to store our private PGP/GPG keys and use hotmail as the transport layer. Plus, there has to be a free webmail service out there that supports https (My old college account does: webmail.colostate.edu).
Softwares market were recently explained to me thusly:
Phase 1: Expensive custom development
Phase 2: Marketing of custom development (still expensive but less so)
Phase 3: High Use/Low price/No customization
Phase 4: High Competition/Very Low Price as new players enter the market.
I think Web/form-based UI business software, be it for HR/CRM/Acctg/whaterver is in Phase 3 or 4 (we all know how easy it is to slap together an RDBMS with some Perl, J2EE, asp, etc.), but business people, who always see their business or application as unique, believe they have a phase 1 or 2 project.
That's why we should all release any questionable code anonymously. Just uploade it a few places from your local internet cafe and let the net do the rest. If there's no target for the suits, the patent becomes uninforcable, just like trying to sue everyone who downloads an copyrighted MP3.
Free the Information, Man!
Slashdot Mirror
The later.
You'd think in the abstract that as money increased, there'd be more assumption that the public had some ownership in it.
(Those who purchased it should have some ownership rather than the public, right?)
While I see your point, I think the law should treat free content over the Internet as a special case. The Internet is a public resource with relatively small fees for access and free alternatives, such as libraries. If you use the public infrastructure to distribute your content free of charge, I think it should become part of the public record simply for purposes of posterity. The Internet is the modern day speaker's stump. If you make a speech on the town square and channel 4 tapes it for the evening news, can you sue them under copyright law?
I also understand that my opinion differs from existing copyright law, but it's simply how we all use the Internet. At its most basic, the Internet is a public forum. Unlike printed material, the cost for distribution is minimal ($100/year for a hosted web site.) I don't think the courts should indulge those who want to use copyright to "cover their tracks." This encourages poor quality content rather than providing incentive to content creators. I find that the quality content comes from those who publish based on internal motivation and lack of cost/barriers to publication. Many blogs, for example, are quite interesting. Blogs sponsored and forced by profit-motivated companies tend to be less interesting.
I completely agree that the law should protect those who want to retain control over how their content is used. In my opinion, it just shouldn't be the default. If you're willing to give your content to anyone who happens to point their browser to your domain, then you should already know how it's going to be used. Sites like the Internet Archive, who aren't reselling the work, but simply keeping a record of it, should have the right to do so. To have your content protected, I think you should have to make the user aware of how (s)he is allowed to use the content and build your own darn network or use some other means to limit its distribution (such as a login).
And yes, I know that if anyone took me seriously there would probably be a host of legal issues to work out, such as "What if the Internet Archive displays ads," and "Do you have to preserve content in its entirety", but I still think it should somehow fall under fair use.
What if I didn't like your reply to my post, however? You did disagree with me, after all. Should I be able to remove my post (assuming ./ gave me the ability to do so) and demand anyone who had a copy of it delete that as well? Of course not. You posted a valid editorial of a comment that I choose to make available for free by posting it online. If I don't like it, my recourse is this reply, not the ability to demand all record of my original post be deleted.
I just think that once you've posted something for free to the public, you can't go back and tell everyone that they have to delete any copies they may have. If Newsweek was sued for liable over something they published, they couldn't just send all of their subscribers a letter demanding the subscriber throw away any old copies of some issue of the magazine. The publisher has the ability to remove the source by which most people access online works, but that shouldn't give him or her the right to dictate what others do with their copies. If you want that type of control, you should have to get the user to positively acknowledge agreement to those terms before allowing them to access your work.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a bad experience with Lumenlabs.
This sounds more like something that should be required by law than something that should be restricted by patent. I want a tax refund from the USPTO & the FDA.
Isn't this exactly how backup has worked since magnetic media was first invented?
I also don't like all the analogies about books and signs in windows. Current copyright laws simply shouldn't apply to the Internet because it's a different beast. If I publish a book or a magazine, I create a limited number of copies and people have to buy my publication. The Internet is different, because I make unlimited numbers of copies of my content and give it away for free.
While copyright should apply to e-books and possibly to any HTTP request protected by some sort of logon (yes, you do have to protect your images too. IIS7 will help with this on Windows with Forms authentication), any content published to the public on the Internet should immediatly be considered public domain because that's how the content owner has implicitly made it available. It's simply a defacto standard, and anything that circumvents that, such as treating robots.txt a legal contract, would be an undue burden on the user of the content. The burden to protect the content should fall on the publisher.
Does this mean you've bought from Lumenlabs? Do you know their products suck? These posts are great if they're truly independent opinions of how cool Lumenlabs products are. Since I haven't seen any post saying "I've used lumenlabs and it sucks," I'm inclined to believe the positive posts.
Do any of these posts have the before pictures. I did a scan with April 05 updates and got the ignore then too. While I agree they should mark it as remove, did MS Antispyware EVER mark it as remove? See my screenshots here.
Try running OpenGL-based animation with texturing, full screen DVD playback, or full screen TV capture.
Okay, point taken. I'm not a gamer (though blender is nice), I'm not about to try to watch a DVD on a 17" monitor, and I don't have a TV capture card.
OSS's dependency hell is really snowballing
I'm not sure what a dependency is (I use Debian/apt and Gentoo/portage) though, so you're rant confuses me.
Apparently, Bill's wet dreams land in fertil soil (though they take longer than the usual 9 months). For stories on Longhorn, see Paul Thurrott
I dont know about you guys, but I agree with Radak totally. Apostrophie's just can't be used lightly. Bush put a lot of money into No Child Left Behind, and I'm disgusted at it's inability to teach American's proper grammer. Its sickening. If you don't know how to use apostrophys' then there are schools', books', web'sites', and all kind's of resources for you to better your's'e'l'f.
I was unaware of the huge penelty. I run linux (quite comfortably) on a PII with 128 Mb ram and on a P4 with 512 MB RAM. I use both boxes as an X client and as an X server, depending on where I am in my house. Granted, this is harley a heavily loaded multi-user scenario (and I stick to IceWM when the PII is my Xserver), but performance has never been an issue. The UI is fine even when compiling a kernel in the background on the PII.
Plus, compare it to the stories I've heard about Longhorn and X can't possibly have significant overhead.
As a programmer, I wouldn't call it a victory. Patents are good on things that are genuinely innovative and were developed at a great expense. The problem is that patent office (at least the USPTO) seems to be completely incompetent.
The analogy is poor because I agree to use MS software on only one computer when I buy it. I don't agree to use my Internet service with only one computer when I sign up with my ISP. It is VERY different because, while software scales to unlimited users so long as you keep adding new computers, my bandwidth is fixed no matter how many computers I have behind my router. If I want to let my neighbors or even perfect strangers suck up my bandwidth, that's none of my ISP's business.
Does anyone know if the ISP would have any legal standing with such an argument?
While it would be freaky if someone was outside your house for no reason, this guy clearly had a reason (mooching the Internet). If I were Dinon, as long as I didn't notice any performance loss in my connection, my computers didn't get hacked and he wasn't blocking my driveway, I wouldn't really care.
Actually, X-Windows is the only part of the Linux desktop experience that doesn't suck. The ability to have a program display its window on any computer on the network is so awsome that it makes me put up with the rest of the crappy linux desktop shit. Why the heck haven't other desktop platforms picked up on this feature? And don't say RDP because I don't want may whole darn desktop, I just want one program!
Does this lend credability to the link in this thread that all japanese people are robots?
I'm glad someone had the huevos to say it first. I also agree with the other reply that it's possible to have a career and children, but only with some careers. The majority of us have to choose between careers/minimum standard of living and children.
If we could find some measurement more meaningful than money, I think we'd find out that America is far from the world's richest nation. (And yes, I'm sure someone has done such a study, but I'll leave it to another to google on the subject and post the link.)
> but you won't be able to turn it off.
Sure you will, you just have to block it at your firewall. Now what we really need is some Linux firewall software that uses RSS to get the latest updates of ports and domains that MS products contact for blocking purposes. Then Linksys and Netgear need to build this technology in to their DSL/Cable Modem routers and switches so home protection is as simple as a checkbox.
The Denver Post seemed to help Ping hype up its open source roots, but I was at the Digital ID World confrence and the solution that impressed me as both a consumer and site developer was SXIP (pronounced skip). This is a PKI-like solution where any web sit you log on to can be a Home site and any web site you want to access without loging on to can be a Member site. Once I've logged on to the homesite of my choice, member sites can easily get any info about me that I've allowed from my home site with homesite lookup and encryption handled by the SXIP root site. Kind of like MS Passport, but I choose exactly who gets what information and I only have to establish an account with my favorite login site (such as, say, slashdot).
I work in the internal audit department for a large technology company, so I get to talk to everyone from programmers to EVPs. I think the "unskilled labor" statement simply shows a lack of understanding. It implies that all those workers in China and India are unskilled. Actually, the programmers there are educated and quite skilled, but cheaper (hince the problem). The difference between the jobs being moved overseas and those staying here is not a matter of skill, but a mater of navigating the complex power structures of organization. The project manager, even though often clueless about technology, is the channel of communication to upper management, and therefor cannot be geographically or socially distant. So the truly skilled workers who make the world go round are at the bottom while those that play the game rise to the top.
We all know that the best code is written at 3:00 am...
Of course that's powered heavily by Mtn. Dew and Chee-tos, and probably didn't start until 9:00 pm, so I guess those aren't really long hours.
If I understand correctly, hotmail does encrypt the transmission of the password, but not the data session. I imagine the software is just reads the network traffic, but has not locally installed component. Maybe we should all get usb keychain hard drives on which to store our private PGP/GPG keys and use hotmail as the transport layer. Plus, there has to be a free webmail service out there that supports https (My old college account does: webmail.colostate.edu).
- Phase 1: Expensive custom development
- Phase 2: Marketing of custom development (still expensive but less so)
- Phase 3: High Use/Low price/No customization
- Phase 4: High Competition/Very Low Price as new players enter the market.
I think Web/form-based UI business software, be it for HR/CRM/Acctg/whaterver is in Phase 3 or 4 (we all know how easy it is to slap together an RDBMS with some Perl, J2EE, asp, etc.), but business people, who always see their business or application as unique, believe they have a phase 1 or 2 project.That's why we should all release any questionable code anonymously. Just uploade it a few places from your local internet cafe and let the net do the rest. If there's no target for the suits, the patent becomes uninforcable, just like trying to sue everyone who downloads an copyrighted MP3. Free the Information, Man!