Extortion: How could Pat Richard extort anyone by shutting off his own server? Imagine loaning your car to someone, then deciding you cannot afford paying the gas, the insurance, and the up-keep. You give him an ultimatum, either buy the car or I'll take it back. Under what system of justice could you be charged with extortion under that scenario?!
Larceny by conversion: How could he convert his own property? Via this charge the Sheriff's Office is essentially admitting that the website was theirs, but on the other hand, they refuse to pay for it. They should not be able to have it both ways.
Using a computer to commit a crime: Turning off your own server is a crime?!
First, the article implies that we will be able to make analog copies, but that isn't true, after 2005 it will be illegal for any television equipment to have analog outputs.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engi ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
Second, the article implies that broadcast flags will only protect high definition programming. That is not true. Broadcasters will even be able to place flags on public domain programming.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engi ne er/f_mo_the_masked_engineer-01.21.04.shtml
It's a simple fact that in a few years, we will be unable to copy a TV show without breaking the law.
A lot of people here are saying, "What's the big deal, we never fix our own cars anyway?!" And they are mostly right. Other than changing my battery, I would never repair my own car.
However, they are missing the larger picture. If the manufacturer is the only entity that can repair the vehicle, the profit will not come from the sale but from the repair.
And once the repair of the vehicle becomes the means of profit, manufacturers will have NO incentive to make quality automobiles. They will have every incentive to create automobiles that WILL require repairs, because that would fit perfectly with their new business model.
Because SCO has no intention of showing us their complete lack of proof, this case WILL settle out of court. SCO will make AutoZone a nominal settlement offer. AutoZone will take it. The parties will have the file sealed.
Then SCO will claim in the press that it won the lawsuit with the implicit threat that everyone else running Linux had better start paying.
SCO claims that Unix code is illegally in Linux, but won't so us any proof. Now SCO claims that someone bought a license, but won't tell us how much they paid, if anything.
Can someone explain to me why the mainstream press isn't ripping SCO apart for their smoke-and-mirrors act?!
I thought that the Xbox Next was supposed to have Tivo like capabilities?!
Also, assuming that at least some current Xbox games rely on the current hard drive, this is more evidence that the Xbox Next will not be backwards compatible with old Xbox games.
You're completely an utterly wrong. There is no fair use right to make money off of someone else's copyright. And that's exactly what advertising does. If you still think you're right, please cite to the case or statute that says so, because I'd love to read it.
They reason they charge $50 is because enough people are willing to pay $50 to create a profit. The reasons it is cheaper elsewhere are either because the government subsidizes it or people are not as willing to pay.
Your ignorant opinions simply do not matter. It's a simple fact that if a witness sees a person hit another person, then reports it, and then if a police officer sees someone matching the description, they CAN investigate. And that investigation can involve asking for ID.
The probable cause was the witness who reported seeing Mr. Hiible hit is daughter. That is MORE than enough probable cause for a police officer to ask for identification.
Mr. Hiibel seems to think that the police had no right or business to investigate the fight between him and his daughter. However, because the police received a call from a witness, the police were duty bound to investigate. How our the police supposed to investigate a crime when they are not even allowed to obtain the identify the culprit?!
Mr. Hiibel also seems to think that if he loses, police will be able to ask for the ID of any person they come across. But that isn't true ether. When he loses, police will have the right to ask for the identify of those they are investigating, IF they have a reasonable suspicion to investigate. Which in this case, the police clearly did.
Lindows isn't stupid and there is nothing to get away with in the US. All Lindows has to prove is that, at the time Microsoft decided to name its OS Windows, that the term windows was a generic term for all GUIs. The jury will not have to consider whether or not consumers will currently be confused, because that's not the issue.
Lindows will certainly win their case against Microsoft.
The mistake the previous author makes is in assuming that closed source can stay closed source.
I don't agree with the previous author that closed is necessarily more secure, but even if he's right, he's still wrong because what can be closed can be opened. It's only a matter of time.
The previous story stated that open source is necessarily insecure because it's open. I.e., that closed and proprietary are necessarily safer. But, when happens when the closed/proprietary door is opened?!
Security by obscurity is only a short-term solution. And only a moron would think otherwise!
I'm involved with a lawsuit where a partnership is attempting to kick out one of its partners. For the last 2 1/2 years the partner has been locked out of his office, but he still collects a salary of over $90,000 a year while he sits at home. Sure it's a drop from his normal $250,000 salary, but I could certainly live on it!
I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of gamers play games because they are fun to play, not because they look "super cool."
Here's some proof, the graphics on Gameboys are crap, but yet Nintendo makes millions off of them! If your argument was correct, that looks are more important than game-play, the Gameboy would be a huge flop.
Slashdot Mirror
Never piss off people who can legally carry guns.
Seriously though, let's look at the charges:
Extortion: How could Pat Richard extort anyone by shutting off his own server? Imagine loaning your car to someone, then deciding you cannot afford paying the gas, the insurance, and the up-keep. You give him an ultimatum, either buy the car or I'll take it back. Under what system of justice could you be charged with extortion under that scenario?!
Larceny by conversion: How could he convert his own property? Via this charge the Sheriff's Office is essentially admitting that the website was theirs, but on the other hand, they refuse to pay for it. They should not be able to have it both ways.
Using a computer to commit a crime: Turning off your own server is a crime?!
Obstruction of justice: See above.
First, the article implies that we will be able to make analog copies, but that isn't true, after 2005 it will be illegal for any television equipment to have analog outputs.
i ne er/f-MO-Earth_to_congress.shtml
i ne er/f_mo_the_masked_engineer-01.21.04.shtml
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Eng
Second, the article implies that broadcast flags will only protect high definition programming. That is not true. Broadcasters will even be able to place flags on public domain programming.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Eng
It's a simple fact that in a few years, we will be unable to copy a TV show without breaking the law.
A lot of people here are saying, "What's the big deal, we never fix our own cars anyway?!" And they are mostly right. Other than changing my battery, I would never repair my own car.
However, they are missing the larger picture. If the manufacturer is the only entity that can repair the vehicle, the profit will not come from the sale but from the repair.
And once the repair of the vehicle becomes the means of profit, manufacturers will have NO incentive to make quality automobiles. They will have every incentive to create automobiles that WILL require repairs, because that would fit perfectly with their new business model.
But was rejected, of course.
Because SCO has no intention of showing us their complete lack of proof, this case WILL settle out of court. SCO will make AutoZone a nominal settlement offer. AutoZone will take it. The parties will have the file sealed.
Then SCO will claim in the press that it won the lawsuit with the implicit threat that everyone else running Linux had better start paying.
SCO claims that Unix code is illegally in Linux, but won't so us any proof. Now SCO claims that someone bought a license, but won't tell us how much they paid, if anything.
Can someone explain to me why the mainstream press isn't ripping SCO apart for their smoke-and-mirrors act?!
That its software is like a gun to your head.
I thought that the Xbox Next was supposed to have Tivo like capabilities?!
Also, assuming that at least some current Xbox games rely on the current hard drive, this is more evidence that the Xbox Next will not be backwards compatible with old Xbox games.
You're completely an utterly wrong. There is no fair use right to make money off of someone else's copyright. And that's exactly what advertising does. If you still think you're right, please cite to the case or statute that says so, because I'd love to read it.
They reason they charge $50 is because enough people are willing to pay $50 to create a profit. The reasons it is cheaper elsewhere are either because the government subsidizes it or people are not as willing to pay.
Your ignorant opinions simply do not matter. It's a simple fact that if a witness sees a person hit another person, then reports it, and then if a police officer sees someone matching the description, they CAN investigate. And that investigation can involve asking for ID.
The probable cause was the witness who reported seeing Mr. Hiible hit is daughter. That is MORE than enough probable cause for a police officer to ask for identification.
Mr. Hiibel seems to think that the police had no right or business to investigate the fight between him and his daughter. However, because the police received a call from a witness, the police were duty bound to investigate. How our the police supposed to investigate a crime when they are not even allowed to obtain the identify the culprit?!
Mr. Hiibel also seems to think that if he loses, police will be able to ask for the ID of any person they come across. But that isn't true ether. When he loses, police will have the right to ask for the identify of those they are investigating, IF they have a reasonable suspicion to investigate. Which in this case, the police clearly did.
Lindows isn't stupid and there is nothing to get away with in the US. All Lindows has to prove is that, at the time Microsoft decided to name its OS Windows, that the term windows was a generic term for all GUIs. The jury will not have to consider whether or not consumers will currently be confused, because that's not the issue.
Lindows will certainly win their case against Microsoft.
Lan parties
The mistake the previous author makes is in assuming that closed source can stay closed source.
I don't agree with the previous author that closed is necessarily more secure, but even if he's right, he's still wrong because what can be closed can be opened. It's only a matter of time.
That's a pretty interesting theory, but XP and W2k are so similar that any hacks anyone finds in W2k could almost certainly be exploited in XP.
The previous story stated that open source is necessarily insecure because it's open. I.e., that closed and proprietary are necessarily safer. But, when happens when the closed/proprietary door is opened?!
Security by obscurity is only a short-term solution. And only a moron would think otherwise!
Back when Microsoft agreed to show Russia, China, etc its source code. When the whole world has a key to your house, locks are irrelevant!
My comment may be flamebait, but no one denies that it's completely and utterly true.
I'm just using the software that comes with ATI's cards. It allows me to do everything I want, so I see no reason to switch to a third party program.
Microsoft is known throughout the world for screwing over business partners, why would Disney think this would be any different?
I'm involved with a lawsuit where a partnership is attempting to kick out one of its partners. For the last 2 1/2 years the partner has been locked out of his office, but he still collects a salary of over $90,000 a year while he sits at home. Sure it's a drop from his normal $250,000 salary, but I could certainly live on it!
I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of gamers play games because they are fun to play, not because they look "super cool."
Here's some proof, the graphics on Gameboys are crap, but yet Nintendo makes millions off of them! If your argument was correct, that looks are more important than game-play, the Gameboy would be a huge flop.
God, I wish I could mod you up, that's f*ing hilarious!!!