Yes, it is amazing the sheer number of people waiting to jump in and correct me, even when I admitted the error 3 hours before your post, that I had been incorrect.
Lucky for me, I have all you good folks to keep be honest.
Yeah, I repented further down on the "no network" part.
As for the rest, I could see not allowing MSN accounts to other clients, and not supporting other clients connecting. But I don't think it's right to actively try to design a communications protocol to thwart communications. Legal, yes. Right, no.
Were MS to charge people who used MSN for the priviledge sending traffic over/using thier IM network, then I would agree.
You are correct on the other (servers). However, I'm not saying they need to give you an MSN account, just not block communication with those who have MSN as thier IM client.
MS did NOT build a private system for communication. This is NOT a BBS, or a network. Or a service. This is a piece of software that uses a P2P communication protocol. MS incurs no cost to "maintain this network/service". The only costs they incur are in the maintenance and improvement of thier client. Just like MS Office.
The house analogy is flawed. The MSN clients that are being denied access to are NOT hosted at MS, nor is there a central server at MS managing them. This is pure P2P.
Telephone and cable companies, OTOH, are very relevant examples. Not very good ones for the point that you are trying to make. The telephone companies are specifically REQUIRED to allow people who are not thier customers to connect to people that are, as well as lease out thier spare capacity. The cable companies are specifically required to share thier capacity.
WA's constitution made it clear, for the hard of thinking:
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..."
Also, it specifies that the GVT will purchase and safeguard military weapons.
Yeah, lots of people get the short end of the stick in class action suits. They should all band together and go after those lawyers together. Sort of a civil action by an entire class of victims....
when thier candidate looses in a close election. Then it will be the fault of evil [repub|dem|VRWC|commie] hackers, out to rob them of thier vote and disenfranchise them.
As long as thier candidates win, it's all good, though.
Yes, they did. Multiple times. They have been defeated every time in court, the most recent just this week (though not as decisively as I would like). There is a move in congress to ban lawsuits of this type. Which I support. If manufactures are held liable for illegal uses of thier non-defective, legally sold products, cars (used by drunks, bank robbers, etc) will get REAL expensive.
The anti-gun people would like for it to be illegal, but it is not. It would be illegal IF and ONLY IF 1)you are in the (declared or otherwise) business of selling firearms -OR- 2)You are transferring it as part of a strawman transaction. i.e. You or a reasonable person would know or suspect that Billyjoejimbob could not legally own a firearm. -OR- 3)You, for some reason could not legally own that firearm to start with
I may sell (as long as I am not in the *business* of doing so), or give away any firearm I legally own to *ANY* person that I do not have reason to believe is not allowed firearms. There is no background check required. That's the "gun show loophole" that they keep going on about...
Two of my current firearms were aquired in just that manner. One was an X-mas gift from my X. In the other case, a friend of mine was moving, via u-haul from WA to FL. He said, "Red, you want this rifle?" (OK, he used my real name...) I said "uhm...sure".
I used the hacker's diet, and droped 28 pounds in just a little over 3 months (without doing the "optional" exercise part). In the following (almost) year, just by eating kinda sensibly, and stepping on the scale every morning, I have stayed +/- 2 pounds. Kinda annoying - You ARE hungry when you are losing weight - but it works - just like...math.
Trying to tell myself to knock off the remaining 25 lbs...
pass an amendment guaranteeing privacy? In a public place, at a public event, the purpose of which is to... generate publicity?
OK, I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but WHY would anyone participating in a public event, in a public place, for the purpose of generating publicity have ANY expectation of privacy?
That's like me going swimming and getting mad that I got wet.
The King County (WA) library system does almost exactly this they have a "library" of a few thousand books (mostly Tech, Suprise!) that are available for online reading.
Baen puts many of it's books online for free download (in NON DRM formats), and has noticed sales of it's back catalog skyrocket.
Definitely seems to be gaining popularity. It's really the same idea as radio. If they like it, and enough people are honest, enough will buy it to make it worth while.
I have made decisions[1] on numerous book purchases by reading excerpts from the books on Amazon. Throw in the fact that brick & mortar stores cannot compare with thier selection (yes, they can order it - doesn't do much for reviewing it today, though) OR the option to buy used or new, hardback or paper. AND if the book has multiple reader reviews, it's usually possible to get a good feel for the book.
[1]Usually "NO". Most books suck. Most writers can't. I can usually just get it from the library, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"art" and "thou" aren't very common either, but people don't seem to have much trouble with them.)
Art? That's pictures of naked chicks. No?
"At this point it's going to be his word against ours," he said of Perens.
OK, so their arguement is going to be..." 'Cuz we said so your honor! It's true! It's true! They're all a bunch of mean nasty liars" ??
Next thing you know, they'll try to launch a land war in southeast Asia.
Yes, it is amazing the sheer number of people waiting to jump in and correct me, even when I admitted the error 3 hours before your post, that I had been incorrect.
Lucky for me, I have all you good folks to keep be honest.
As I agreed 2.5 hours before your post, that it correct.
which pretty much makes them...bad examples..., like I claimed in the subject line, right?
You mean like I already admitted over an hour and a half before you "corrected" me?
:-)
Thanks for keeping me honest there!
Yeah, I repented further down on the "no network" part.
As for the rest, I could see not allowing MSN accounts to other clients, and not supporting other clients connecting. But I don't think it's right to actively try to design a communications protocol to thwart communications. Legal, yes. Right, no.
As has been pointed out elsethread, the traffic is P2P, but MS Does in fact have servers that maintain l/p's and track who is available online.
Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Were MS to charge people who used MSN for the priviledge sending traffic over/using thier IM network, then I would agree.
You are correct on the other (servers). However, I'm not saying they need to give you an MSN account, just not block communication with those who have MSN as thier IM client.
actually, the telephone and cable companies are bad examples too. They actually PROVIDE a network. My bad.
MS did NOT build a private system for communication. This is NOT a BBS, or a network. Or a service. This is a piece of software that uses a P2P communication protocol. MS incurs no cost to "maintain this network/service". The only costs they incur are in the maintenance and improvement of thier client. Just like MS Office.
The house analogy is flawed. The MSN clients that are being denied access to are NOT hosted at MS, nor is there a central server at MS managing them. This is pure P2P.
Telephone and cable companies, OTOH, are very relevant examples. Not very good ones for the point that you are trying to make. The telephone companies are specifically REQUIRED to allow people who are not thier customers to connect to people that are, as well as lease out thier spare capacity. The cable companies are specifically required to share thier capacity.
Gotta love /.
Nobody felt the need to ask to what video you were referring.
J. Edgar Hoover?
WA's constitution made it clear, for the hard of thinking: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..."
Also, it specifies that the GVT will purchase and safeguard military weapons.
Well, if they've ALREADY finished the DRAWINGS, it's as good as done.
My Dragon is almost in my driveway too.
Yeah, lots of people get the short end of the stick in class action suits. They should all band together and go after those lawyers together. Sort of a civil action by an entire class of victims....
when thier candidate looses in a close election. Then it will be the fault of evil [repub|dem|VRWC|commie] hackers, out to rob them of thier vote and disenfranchise them.
As long as thier candidates win, it's all good, though.
Just once, I'd like to be cynical and wrong.
Yes, they did. Multiple times. They have been defeated every time in court, the most recent just this week (though not as decisively as I would like).
There is a move in congress to ban lawsuits of this type. Which I support. If manufactures are held liable for illegal uses of thier non-defective, legally sold products, cars (used by drunks, bank robbers, etc) will get REAL expensive.
The anti-gun people would like for it to be illegal, but it is not.
It would be illegal IF and ONLY IF
1)you are in the (declared or otherwise) business of selling firearms
-OR-
2)You are transferring it as part of a strawman transaction. i.e. You or a reasonable person would know or suspect that Billyjoejimbob could not legally own a firearm.
-OR-
3)You, for some reason could not legally own that firearm to start with
I may sell (as long as I am not in the *business* of doing so), or give away any firearm I legally own to *ANY* person that I do not have reason to believe is not allowed firearms. There is no background check required. That's the "gun show loophole" that they keep going on about...
Two of my current firearms were aquired in just that manner. One was an X-mas gift from my X. In the other case, a friend of mine was moving, via u-haul from WA to FL. He said, "Red, you want this rifle?" (OK, he used my real name...) I said "uhm...sure".
I used the hacker's diet, and droped 28 pounds in just a little over 3 months (without doing the "optional" exercise part).
In the following (almost) year, just by eating kinda sensibly, and stepping on the scale every morning, I have stayed +/- 2 pounds.
Kinda annoying - You ARE hungry when you are losing weight - but it works - just like...math.
Trying to tell myself to knock off the remaining 25 lbs...
pass an amendment guaranteeing privacy? ... generate publicity?
In a public place, at a public event, the purpose of which is to
OK, I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but WHY would anyone participating in a public event, in a public place, for the purpose of generating publicity have ANY expectation of privacy?
That's like me going swimming and getting mad that I got wet.
King County, WA
The King County (WA) library system does almost exactly this they have a "library" of a few thousand books (mostly Tech, Suprise!) that are available for online reading.
Baen puts many of it's books online for free download (in NON DRM formats), and has noticed sales of it's back catalog skyrocket.
Definitely seems to be gaining popularity. It's really the same idea as radio. If they like it, and enough people are honest, enough will buy it to make it worth while.
Since I have no mod points today, "Me too!" ;->
I have made decisions[1] on numerous book purchases by reading excerpts from the books on Amazon. Throw in the fact that brick & mortar stores cannot compare with thier selection (yes, they can order it - doesn't do much for reviewing it today, though) OR the option to buy used or new, hardback or paper. AND if the book has multiple reader reviews, it's usually possible to get a good feel for the book.
[1]Usually "NO". Most books suck. Most writers can't. I can usually just get it from the library, etc.
Which explains why they are giving that excellent German firm, IBM, a buttload of cash in the deal.