Mod chips are capable of Substantial Non-Infringing Uses. As such, they should not be banned, should be legal under the Betamax decision, and the federal government has no business protecting corporate profits against legal uses of purchased and owned personal game consoles.
What happens to the data the CIPAV collects? Does the CIPAV capture keystrokes? Can the CIPAV spread on its own to other computers, either purposefully or by accident? Does it erase itself after its job is done?
How about: Which anti-virus/anti-spyware programs detect and remove it?
And which firewalls successfully block it? (Be funny of PeerGuardian takes it out.)
By using small meshes of many machines that share a pipeline to the net instead of relying on lots of parallel connections, experts say they can create a system that is more intelligent and less prone to attack.
Well Excuse Me, But, two attack vectors are immediately apparent:
The single pipeline is a single point of failure.
Low power jamming, or simple data flooding, of the mesh.
On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%.
I don't want half the space. I want Twice the Power!
Power is great. I can do more with more power, including selling more if it back to my utility.
This whole mindset of "now you only need half the space now to do what you do," has irked me for a long time. I first remember it when IBM tried to replace the original PC/AT bus slots with MCA (Micro Channel Architecture, for those of you new here). The MCA cards were half the size, and provided less power, and the argument was that what took the old form factor and footprint 3 years earlier, could now be done in less space and power. The problem was, I didn't want to still do what I could do 3 years earlier. I WANTED TO DO MORE!
I feel this approach was part of what doomed the MCA bus in PC's.
These cases should never have gotten past the John Doe/Ex Parte stage. You know, that point where the RIAA goes to court in secret, files a case they never intend to pursue, and sues dozens of John Doe IP addresses just to force ISPs to have to release private identity information that they can't get otherwise. These cases should be opposed at that point on all of the following basis -- as well as other's I can't even think of. For a good starting point, however, attack the RIAA at this point where their case is the weakest on the following points:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What the RIAA is claiming is not actionable under current law.
Using unlicensed investigators in the state where the defendant resides. Media Sentry is not licensed to perform investigations in most states, and some right-minded states have laws against this. In short, any evidence provided is tainted.
The illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated defendants. This has been ruled against already by a federal judge in Texas.
The requirement to turn over identity information as justified by the Cable Act of 1984. A judge in a case against one of the colleges shot this one down, pointing out that many of these systems aren't actually cable networks, and that even if they are, that the requirement to turn over subscriber information means only to the federal government itself. The RIAA should be suing under the DCMA, which only allows them to issue take-down notices. In short, there is no law supporting the turning over of subscriber identities to the RIAA in the first place.
John Doe defendants may not reside in areas under the jurisdiction of this court, and as such the court has no right to reveal their private information. Any information turned over by an ISP should go directly to the judge, and he (she) says absolutely NOTHING about any identity outside of its jurisdiction.
The whole John Doe process from the beginning is a fraud on the court, because the RIAA has no intention of using the information gleaned in the instant case. Once they have it, they instead take it and attempt to extort money from thousands of people with threats, lies, and intimidation. The courts should be no part of this. All identity information revealed should only be allowed to be used in the case it was revealed as part of.
The RIAA's contentions of continuous and ongoing copyright infringement are not at all supported by the facts, which show only a snapshot of a single instance at one point in time. This lie was uncovered when the computer in question actually was destroyed in a fire MONTHS BEFORE the RIAA contended that the infringement they'd detected was still ongoing. This was an apparent fraud to get around the statute of limitations, which would have expired otherwise. The RIAA should be SEVERELY sanctioned, and all their cases thrown out of court, over this contention. At the very least, they should have to prove more than once instance with the same user before being allowed to make this bald faced lie!
The RIAA's arguments of irreparable harm have been ruled as exaggerations by one judge recently, on the basis of that they are easily compensated by money. In short, another exaggeration that rises to the level of another bald faced lie!
The RIAA's dogged contention that identification of the Internet account holder leads inevitably to the identification of the copyright infringer is deeply flawed. As such, they end up extorting and harassing many innocent people. Better evidence must be provided before subjecting ANYBODY to their "driftnet litigation process".
The RIAA is yet to present any evidence to show that their evidence collection methods are flawless, while there are many examples of them suing the wrong people based in this collection method. In short, they haven't provided sufficient good evidence to be allowed to continue with what they're continuing with.
The US constitution grants an exclusive right for a limited amount of time.
Yes it does. And it does that to encourage the development and sale of the patented item for the improvement of society overall. People who don't use their patents in this manner should lose them, because they're holding up the benefits to society in an attempt to profit handsomely from it, rather than being out there selling it to benefit society.
Just a question that's never answered well, and might have prevented this problem to start with. Why was ODF created in the first place? Why not just run with RTF, which to this day seems capable of saving everything in a Word document, even if it does blow up documents with embedded images to ungodly size on occasion. Was it necessary for the OO people to have a format they owned completely? If they'd just taken RTF, would we have this big schism today?
Whenever I go on a job hunt people ask for my resume "in a Word.doc", as if that's the only possible format.
That's simply laziness on their part. Laziness, and ignorance. They should be asking for your resume in a format able to be opened by Word.
The only reason I see for MSWord as an absolute requirement anywhere are tasks to be automated either through the built-in VBA scripting language, or a COM interface to use MSWord from another program. And how many users actually ever do that?
Once upon a time, there were dedicated word processing solutions. Anyone remember the DEC based WPS-78. Or the IBM MT/ST and MC/ST?
Then there were text editors tied to document preparation systems. Anyone remember RunOff/Runnem?
Then there were integrated full word processing software that you could load onto your general purpose computers. WordStar anyone? Surely you remember Word Perfect!
All of these existed and flourished well in their time, and all existed before MSWord, whose first incarnation on the PC/XT was wretched!
To say that MSWord can never be dethroned is bunk! MS loves to hear this talk, since you're defeated and they win before the battle has even begun. Previous solutions lost out when something better and cheaper came alone.
The more MS hikes the cost of MSOffice, the more they make it more difficult to use (WGA on Office anyone?), the more they remove MSWord from the virtually free Works package, the more Open Office improves while maintaining its low, low cost of Free, the more OEM's cut costs by preloading OO so that you have it right out of the box, the more MS has to worry about.
Talk defeat, and that's what you'll get. Then only MS will be cheering.
The RIAA is all about numbers. BIG NUMBERS. They want to portray the (in their mind) criminals in the worst possible light. 4,600 (alleged) illegally shared files is so very much more impressive than 300 something actual possible copyright violations. Having gone to all the work to sue, identify the ISP account holder, drop the case, send in the Settlement Support Center stormtroopers, sue again, and alert the media, they want to show themselves only going after the Worst-of-the-Worst. After all, they're the good guys (in their own minds).
Note to Lawyers Defending Against the RIAA: Check Exhibit B lists of your clients as well. Require that the RIAA can prove copyright on all alleged filenames they've submitted to the court, and not just the ones they've claimed to have downloaded and proven.
Unless they have a competing unit in production, or are already collecting license fees from companies that have competing units in production, they should lose this patent!
They didn't do any of the development work that IBM, Sony, and (IIRC) Toshiba did to bring the Cell processor to fruition. They're not being harmed competitively by it since they have no apparent product harmed by it. I feel, given that the whole patent process is intended to benefit society, that if you're not using it, you simply lose it! No more just sitting on submarine patents, waiting for someone to trip across them.
Additionally, asking any Apple retail store, customer service representative, dealer, authorized service provider, etc., will yield a direct and immediate answer about battery replacement.
Yeah, that's always the very first thing I think to ask about in a market where every other competing product had an easily replaceable battery.
And besides, why should you ever need to replace the battery? It's not like it might run down, and you'd want to swap in a fresh one until you can get to a charging outlet and wait several hours.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is a well-regulated militia.
Sir, you are wrong. The justification for the Second Amendment is the ability to have a well-regulated militia, but that's not its purpose. If the intent of the Second Amendment had been to protect the right for states to maintain militias, then it would have read: The rights of the several states to maintain armed militias shall not be infringed.
Hypocrisy is lashing out accusations while being willfully ignorant of the actual facts. The ACLU takes no position on gun control.
I said nothing about "gun control". I spoke of the Second Amendment, which speaks to the right of "the people", to keep and bear arms. The ACLU's position is that phrase "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, has a completely different meaning than the identical phrase "the people" when it appears several other places in the Constitution and it s amendments. That's hypocrisy!
The ACLU is pathetic. Aside from their outright hypocrisy on the Second Amendment, I'm in more danger from them and the constitutional rights they profess to protect, than anybody else. All things considered, I prefer less criminals on the streets, and crime being more dangerous to the criminal, than the victim. And how they deserve tax exempt status is beyond me completely.
Well, that's true, but it's not binding precedent except for the district courts under the 9th Circuit. For everyone else, it is merely influential.
This sounds like an excellent reason why this ruling shouldn't be appealed to the SCOTUS. Limit the full damage of this ruling to the Ninth Circuit alone for now.
Just what are you expecting here? That when the thief discovers that this is a 'new unchargable' iPod that he's going to return it to you? He'll toss it away, or sell it for less to a hack shop. Either way, you'll never see your iPod again, so how have you benefited?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod chips are capable of Substantial Non-Infringing Uses. As such, they should not be banned, should be legal under the Betamax decision, and the federal government has no business protecting corporate profits against legal uses of purchased and owned personal game consoles.
if it wasn't Elton doing the complaining.
I like my music my way.
Not the way Elton thinks I should be forced to listen to it!
How about: Which anti-virus/anti-spyware programs detect and remove it?
And which firewalls successfully block it? (Be funny of PeerGuardian takes it out.)
Well Excuse Me, But, two attack vectors are immediately apparent:
The single pipeline is a single point of failure.
Low power jamming, or simple data flooding, of the mesh.
I don't want half the space. I want Twice the Power!
Power is great. I can do more with more power, including selling more if it back to my utility.
This whole mindset of "now you only need half the space now to do what you do," has irked me for a long time. I first remember it when IBM tried to replace the original PC/AT bus slots with MCA (Micro Channel Architecture, for those of you new here). The MCA cards were half the size, and provided less power, and the argument was that what took the old form factor and footprint 3 years earlier, could now be done in less space and power. The problem was, I didn't want to still do what I could do 3 years earlier. I WANTED TO DO MORE!
I feel this approach was part of what doomed the MCA bus in PC's.
Don't you mean a virtual Beowulf cluster?
You've got to get up to date. After all, this is 2007 -- the year of Linux! (or something)
Can I have the old ones?
These cases should never have gotten past the John Doe/Ex Parte stage. You know, that point where the RIAA goes to court in secret, files a case they never intend to pursue, and sues dozens of John Doe IP addresses just to force ISPs to have to release private identity information that they can't get otherwise. These cases should be opposed at that point on all of the following basis -- as well as other's I can't even think of. For a good starting point, however, attack the RIAA at this point where their case is the weakest on the following points:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What the RIAA is claiming is not actionable under current law.
Using unlicensed investigators in the state where the defendant resides. Media Sentry is not licensed to perform investigations in most states, and some right-minded states have laws against this. In short, any evidence provided is tainted.
The illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated defendants. This has been ruled against already by a federal judge in Texas.
The requirement to turn over identity information as justified by the Cable Act of 1984. A judge in a case against one of the colleges shot this one down, pointing out that many of these systems aren't actually cable networks, and that even if they are, that the requirement to turn over subscriber information means only to the federal government itself. The RIAA should be suing under the DCMA, which only allows them to issue take-down notices. In short, there is no law supporting the turning over of subscriber identities to the RIAA in the first place.
John Doe defendants may not reside in areas under the jurisdiction of this court, and as such the court has no right to reveal their private information. Any information turned over by an ISP should go directly to the judge, and he (she) says absolutely NOTHING about any identity outside of its jurisdiction.
The whole John Doe process from the beginning is a fraud on the court, because the RIAA has no intention of using the information gleaned in the instant case. Once they have it, they instead take it and attempt to extort money from thousands of people with threats, lies, and intimidation. The courts should be no part of this. All identity information revealed should only be allowed to be used in the case it was revealed as part of.
The RIAA's contentions of continuous and ongoing copyright infringement are not at all supported by the facts, which show only a snapshot of a single instance at one point in time. This lie was uncovered when the computer in question actually was destroyed in a fire MONTHS BEFORE the RIAA contended that the infringement they'd detected was still ongoing. This was an apparent fraud to get around the statute of limitations, which would have expired otherwise. The RIAA should be SEVERELY sanctioned, and all their cases thrown out of court, over this contention. At the very least, they should have to prove more than once instance with the same user before being allowed to make this bald faced lie!
The RIAA's arguments of irreparable harm have been ruled as exaggerations by one judge recently, on the basis of that they are easily compensated by money. In short, another exaggeration that rises to the level of another bald faced lie!
The RIAA's dogged contention that identification of the Internet account holder leads inevitably to the identification of the copyright infringer is deeply flawed. As such, they end up extorting and harassing many innocent people. Better evidence must be provided before subjecting ANYBODY to their "driftnet litigation process".
The RIAA is yet to present any evidence to show that their evidence collection methods are flawless, while there are many examples of them suing the wrong people based in this collection method. In short, they haven't provided sufficient good evidence to be allowed to continue with what they're continuing with.
The RIAA's belief
Yes it does. And it does that to encourage the development and sale of the patented item for the improvement of society overall. People who don't use their patents in this manner should lose them, because they're holding up the benefits to society in an attempt to profit handsomely from it, rather than being out there selling it to benefit society.
Impound and destroy all PS3's -- indeed.
Just a question that's never answered well, and might have prevented this problem to start with. Why was ODF created in the first place? Why not just run with RTF, which to this day seems capable of saving everything in a Word document, even if it does blow up documents with embedded images to ungodly size on occasion. Was it necessary for the OO people to have a format they owned completely? If they'd just taken RTF, would we have this big schism today?
That's simply laziness on their part. Laziness, and ignorance. They should be asking for your resume in a format able to be opened by Word.
The only reason I see for MSWord as an absolute requirement anywhere are tasks to be automated either through the built-in VBA scripting language, or a COM interface to use MSWord from another program. And how many users actually ever do that?
Then there were text editors tied to document preparation systems. Anyone remember RunOff/Runnem?
Then there were integrated full word processing software that you could load onto your general purpose computers. WordStar anyone? Surely you remember Word Perfect!
All of these existed and flourished well in their time, and all existed before MSWord, whose first incarnation on the PC/XT was wretched!
To say that MSWord can never be dethroned is bunk! MS loves to hear this talk, since you're defeated and they win before the battle has even begun. Previous solutions lost out when something better and cheaper came alone.
The more MS hikes the cost of MSOffice, the more they make it more difficult to use (WGA on Office anyone?), the more they remove MSWord from the virtually free Works package, the more Open Office improves while maintaining its low, low cost of Free, the more OEM's cut costs by preloading OO so that you have it right out of the box, the more MS has to worry about.
Talk defeat, and that's what you'll get. Then only MS will be cheering.
Note to Lawyers Defending Against the RIAA: Check Exhibit B lists of your clients as well. Require that the RIAA can prove copyright on all alleged filenames they've submitted to the court, and not just the ones they've claimed to have downloaded and proven.
They didn't do any of the development work that IBM, Sony, and (IIRC) Toshiba did to bring the Cell processor to fruition. They're not being harmed competitively by it since they have no apparent product harmed by it. I feel, given that the whole patent process is intended to benefit society, that if you're not using it, you simply lose it! No more just sitting on submarine patents, waiting for someone to trip across them.
Yeah, that's always the very first thing I think to ask about in a market where every other competing product had an easily replaceable battery.
And besides, why should you ever need to replace the battery? It's not like it might run down, and you'd want to swap in a fresh one until you can get to a charging outlet and wait several hours.
Sir, you are wrong. The justification for the Second Amendment is the ability to have a well-regulated militia, but that's not its purpose. If the intent of the Second Amendment had been to protect the right for states to maintain militias, then it would have read: The rights of the several states to maintain armed militias shall not be infringed.
That's not what it says.
I said nothing about "gun control". I spoke of the Second Amendment, which speaks to the right of "the people", to keep and bear arms. The ACLU's position is that phrase "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, has a completely different meaning than the identical phrase "the people" when it appears several other places in the Constitution and it s amendments. That's hypocrisy!
Your apology is accepted.
The ACLU is pathetic. Aside from their outright hypocrisy on the Second Amendment, I'm in more danger from them and the constitutional rights they profess to protect, than anybody else. All things considered, I prefer less criminals on the streets, and crime being more dangerous to the criminal, than the victim. And how they deserve tax exempt status is beyond me completely.
This sounds like an excellent reason why this ruling shouldn't be appealed to the SCOTUS. Limit the full damage of this ruling to the Ninth Circuit alone for now.
Wow! The Ninth Circuit finally got something right! And right there in technology's backyard, too!
Makes her look like an Orion Slave Girl. And we know what trouble they can be.
You should have just titled your post: 11.
Just how do you permanently delete your edits? I didn't know that was even possible.
Just what are you expecting here? That when the thief discovers that this is a 'new unchargable' iPod that he's going to return it to you? He'll toss it away, or sell it for less to a hack shop. Either way, you'll never see your iPod again, so how have you benefited?
At least you think you do.