The poster seems to have a misunderstanding of the concept of Free Speech. Free Speech means you're allowed to say what you want -- with minor limitations regarding libel and shouting "Fire" in inappropriate places -- without fear of punishment. It does not mean that others are requried to carry your speech regardless. Looks to me like they're telling your ISP to clean up its act and get off the list. If you've got a bad ISP you should move to a new one who doesn't offend Internet society so badly. That's the free market. Instead you complain and demand everything be made right by your standards, instead of anyone else's. Typical liberal clap-trap. If you think there's a demand for a better form of ISP that doesn't do all these terrible things, why don't you go out and start one yourself?
Oh, wait. That would be real work.
Oh, btw, preventing users from researching spammers and their resources is in both the ISP's, and the Internet's best interests. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why.
Lastly, anyone who wants to visit your site that badly is likely going through a proxy, or using ToR already anyway.
So which is it. An article of general interest, or a rant because some ISP doesn't like your web-site? While I believe in net neutrality in the pure sense, and not the sense when used at the title of a bill that attempts just the opposite, I also like truth in labeling and the use of proper [rant]...[/rant] tags.
How about a GM mosquito that displaces the natural pest, and then dies out entirely in a 100 generations. Or is this starting to sound like Bladerunner?
I felt like I was in the classroom listening to the instructor drone on as I read this article summary. While this may be worthwhile to know, it's unexciting to the point of boring. The slownewsday tagger was correct.
If they stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees, then the issue becomes moot.
If they situplate to the reasonableness of Mr. Foster's fees, does that make it reasonable to claim that amount of fees in other cases? After all, does this become a benchmark amount of what it takes to defend against an RIAA suit?
What's clear to me is that, if they could, Viacom and the rest of the industry would like to charge you every single time you ever watched a piece of their content. They haven't managed to yet devise a successful system to accomplish this (remember DIVX DVD's, or RCA SelectVision videodiscs that actually wore out on use), but they have never given up on this dream. And these kind of lawsuits are just more small steps along the path to the Utopia of having full control over every second of music, and every frame of film forever.
I hope this hurts them (the RIAA) in a place where they didn't want to be hurt. And that it somehow helps out in other trials as well. It least we might find out just how much effort they're willing to put into a case like this.
Now if you could only get a hold of the procedures Media Sentry is trying so desperately to keep secret.
This is really no different than having the.xxx TLD. Not only will it be opposed for the same reasons, but also those not wishing to have their adult content blocked will simply ignore the division and shove their stuff through the "Family Channels". Total waste of time.
Just one question here: If the RIAA can't prove who was using a computer for filesharing, how can someone prove who was using the computer for Google searching? Even if you have the computer and the searches still on it, does that say who was at the keyboard? Consider, maybe the husband was researching how to kill his wife, she found out, and got him first.
Just what is a Usable Solid? To me it's one that's easily manufactured, non-polluting, cheap, safe to transport, and leaves no residue behind.
If there is a residue, then it's a new Storage Container, and not a Usable Solid. If that's the case, then it needs to be easily rechargeable/refillable, quickly rechargeable/refillable, cheaply rechargeable/refillable, safely rechargeable/refillable/transportable, and provide good energy density for its overall weight and volume.
Does this system meet all these requirements? Hard to tell.
The dream for Myth TV would be to have it work on your game console. Game consoles come with processors, memory, hard drives, television interfaces, and controllers. To be able to feed in a television signal through USB, or view more freely through a number of legal streaming sites (major TV networks are offering more of their shows over the Internet), on cheap, dual-use (e.g. gaming) hardware that already plays DVD's for you and has a spot in the living room and on your televisions video inputs, seems much better than a PC-based solution.
1: Their lack of an officially supported 30-second instant skip any longer.
2: No price guarantee against future increases any time they feel like it.
3: Their kowtowing to the movie/television industry to automatically delete recorded programs, again any time they feel like it.
4: Their changing their Terms of Service, again any time they feel like it.
Comcast needs to be sued for false advertising, and for specific performance. They said it downloads this fast, costs this much, and nothing in the advertising or ToS says anything about specific download limits. To act otherwise is both fraud, and Bait & Switch. Why hasn't a lawyer already gone after them for this? They're a monopoly most places, and that places them under tighter play-nice rules -- or should!
Considering that Dell already loads the latest version of MSOffice on their Dimensions even when you don't order it, and it takes up disc space and nags you to activate it in trial mode, or buy and put in your key, and causes update hassles with your older, legal version of MSOffice that you transfered from your old machine to you new one, hell yes, Dell could afford to include OO on the hard drive.
The question is, how does one surf anonymously at work when you're forced to use your employer's proxy to get through the firewall. Tried configuring Tor to encrypt and hide my queries before the ISA proxy ever saw them, but never could figure out how to get FireFox to work with it, nor find any Tor help sites or discussion groups for what should be a simple enough question.
Slashdot Mirror
You've had time to read this twice already?!?!?!
Oh, wait. That would be real work.
Oh, btw, preventing users from researching spammers and their resources is in both the ISP's, and the Internet's best interests. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why.
Lastly, anyone who wants to visit your site that badly is likely going through a proxy, or using ToR already anyway.
So which is it. An article of general interest, or a rant because some ISP doesn't like your web-site? While I believe in net neutrality in the pure sense, and not the sense when used at the title of a bill that attempts just the opposite, I also like truth in labeling and the use of proper [rant]...[/rant] tags.
Upload infringing content to iFilm.
Well, someone has to say it.
Looks like Bad Ideas can manage this just fine.
How about a GM mosquito that displaces the natural pest, and then dies out entirely in a 100 generations. Or is this starting to sound like Bladerunner?
I felt like I was in the classroom listening to the instructor drone on as I read this article summary. While this may be worthwhile to know, it's unexciting to the point of boring. The slownewsday tagger was correct.
Glad to know that other lawyers are paying attention to this issue -- and on Slashdot, of all places.
If they situplate to the reasonableness of Mr. Foster's fees, does that make it reasonable to claim that amount of fees in other cases? After all, does this become a benchmark amount of what it takes to defend against an RIAA suit?
It may only be 326 lines, but SCO wants statutory damages of $750.00 per character infringed.
If Google didn't matter, then Ballmer wouldn't be talking about them all the time.
What's clear to me is that, if they could, Viacom and the rest of the industry would like to charge you every single time you ever watched a piece of their content. They haven't managed to yet devise a successful system to accomplish this (remember DIVX DVD's, or RCA SelectVision videodiscs that actually wore out on use), but they have never given up on this dream. And these kind of lawsuits are just more small steps along the path to the Utopia of having full control over every second of music, and every frame of film forever.
Whose side? Screw Viacom. Once they're broadcast it over free television, they're not allowed to restrict or charge for it again. Clear enough?
Now if you could only get a hold of the procedures Media Sentry is trying so desperately to keep secret.
Now we know the price Novell has paid to Microsoft for their deal. Hope it includes knee-pads.
Why is Google getting any favorable press at all for this? They never should have been doing it in the first place.
This is really no different than having the .xxx TLD. Not only will it be opposed for the same reasons, but also those not wishing to have their adult content blocked will simply ignore the division and shove their stuff through the "Family Channels". Total waste of time.
Just a whole lot easier to alter after the fact.
Just one question here: If the RIAA can't prove who was using a computer for filesharing, how can someone prove who was using the computer for Google searching? Even if you have the computer and the searches still on it, does that say who was at the keyboard? Consider, maybe the husband was researching how to kill his wife, she found out, and got him first.
If there is a residue, then it's a new Storage Container, and not a Usable Solid. If that's the case, then it needs to be easily rechargeable/refillable, quickly rechargeable/refillable, cheaply rechargeable/refillable, safely rechargeable/refillable/transportable, and provide good energy density for its overall weight and volume.
Does this system meet all these requirements? Hard to tell.
The dream for Myth TV would be to have it work on your game console. Game consoles come with processors, memory, hard drives, television interfaces, and controllers. To be able to feed in a television signal through USB, or view more freely through a number of legal streaming sites (major TV networks are offering more of their shows over the Internet), on cheap, dual-use (e.g. gaming) hardware that already plays DVD's for you and has a spot in the living room and on your televisions video inputs, seems much better than a PC-based solution.
1: Their lack of an officially supported 30-second instant skip any longer.
2: No price guarantee against future increases any time they feel like it.
3: Their kowtowing to the movie/television industry to automatically delete recorded programs, again any time they feel like it.
4: Their changing their Terms of Service, again any time they feel like it.
Comcast needs to be sued for false advertising, and for specific performance. They said it downloads this fast, costs this much, and nothing in the advertising or ToS says anything about specific download limits. To act otherwise is both fraud, and Bait & Switch. Why hasn't a lawyer already gone after them for this? They're a monopoly most places, and that places them under tighter play-nice rules -- or should!
Considering that Dell already loads the latest version of MSOffice on their Dimensions even when you don't order it, and it takes up disc space and nags you to activate it in trial mode, or buy and put in your key, and causes update hassles with your older, legal version of MSOffice that you transfered from your old machine to you new one, hell yes, Dell could afford to include OO on the hard drive.
The question is, how does one surf anonymously at work when you're forced to use your employer's proxy to get through the firewall. Tried configuring Tor to encrypt and hide my queries before the ISA proxy ever saw them, but never could figure out how to get FireFox to work with it, nor find any Tor help sites or discussion groups for what should be a simple enough question.