And somewhere along the line I stopped buying their products, installing their products, and recommending their products.
I went through the same process, although I now recommend Linux when appropriate. The experience that turned me off Symantec was installing a new version that required activation, but would not activate. Support was hopeless -- asking the same question over and over ("do you have a firewall?"). Why the vendor of a security product should suggest that I turn off my firewall to activate their product, I just don't know -- anyway, I could see the queries in my squid logs.
Since then, I've seen machines crippled by malfunctioning Symantec rootkits. Yes -- I refer to them as rootkits since they have made un-installation impossible in some cases. For example, their uninstall program refuses to run in safe mode.
The music-selling site AllofMP3.com uses a simpler business model: Base your company in Russia, steal music from American labels and sell it cheaply. AllofMP3 allows users to download full albums for as little as $1
The whole point of, and the reason the RIAA has not been able to shut it down, is that it is not stealing -- in any sense of the word. Firstly, the owner is not deprived of the work and secondly, AllofMP3 apparently operates within the legal framework of Russia -- in other words, it has a license to run its business model that way. The use of the word stealing is inflammatory.
- Science must be making progress in order to be promoted. DRM is regression of rights, thus it cannot be protected.
- Arts must be useful to be protected. I doubt entertainment can be considered "useful" in the way that was meant when the Constitution was written.
You are applying logic to laws. Never works. In this case, I think you will find that the sole judge of how the laws meet the goal is Congress. I think this came out in the challenge to the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse copyright extention. The SCOTUS decided that it was up to Congress to decide how best to promote the "useful arts", and if Congress felt that it was best achieved by locking up our cultural heritage, then so be it. One would also expect that SCOTUS would hold that it was up to Congress to decide what constitutes a "Useful Art", since that it a preamble to the actual phrase that authorizes Congress to create copyright laws.
Essentially what I am saying is that the part "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" is meaningless and the only important part of that section is: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Email systems have never been secure (besides the login/handshake).
Huh? You never downloaded your email over an SSL connection? IMAP supports a STARTTLS command, so do many SMTP servers. Gmail supports STARTTLS on SMTP, so it's not like only a few small email providers support this extension.
Also, you are wrong about the login. Traditional POP logins (ie, without SSL) are insecure.
If Ford made 90% of the cars in the world, they would also likely be the most crashed car in the world. Never mind that Ford are often fixed or repaired daily, the fact that the roadways are 90% Ford tends to skew the equation
That must be why Apache is the most exploited web server.... oh wait!
Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."
This regulation may restrict the use of the term "Library of Commerce", but it doesn't appear to limit the use of such terms as "THOMAS".
The issue is that a takedown notice applies only to the posting(s) mentioned and new postings should require additional takedown notices.
Did you read the FA? The safe harbor provisions may not apply, since this is not a copyrighted work that is at issue -- the claim is that the number formed part of a circumvention device and that continued hosting of it anywhere on a site makes the hoster liable.
Why couldn't software scan received faxes for telltale signs of junk such as "Cancun", "vacation", "To all Employees", and trash them as we do with email filters?
This is probably a dumb question, but is Citrix even required? Assuming that the s/w is installed on a Windows server, can't the clients connect to the server via Remote Desktop and run the apps on the server?
It may come down to how much/. wants to challenge any possible action by the HD-DVD association. Clearly, it's not copyrightable, so the only question is whether a pure number can fall under the anti-circumvention clauses of the the DMCA. Using your quote above, it's not "technology", it's not a device. Does it qualify? Probably it will take a trial to determine that.
Surely, these large companies could block outgoing port 25 traffic, except for their own email servers. Then the traffic can easily be monitored and spam zombies detected.
As usual, the title Zonk has chosen for this post ("Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal") directly contradicts the actual article:
How apt was/.'s error message when I tried to "read more": "nothing for you to see here"? Apparently, some of Google's users have found "nothing for you"!
Another Federal level politician (judge) who has been miseducated as to the importance (scope) of his appointment. A proper interpretation of the Constitution would easily show that this is well outside the realm of federal legal jurisdiction.
I think you missed the sections about copyright in the constitution.
Two hundred years of constant, relentless, plodding expansion of the authority of the federal government has skewed everyone's perception of what their proper jurisdiction is, though.
I think one of the key cases is Wickard vs. Filburn, which appears to have re-interpreted the Constitution from "Interstate Commerce" to "anything that affects Interstate Commerce". There are few things that don't fall into the latter category. Wikipedia notes: 'One commentator has written: "In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard [v. Filburn], it has become clear that . . . Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity."'
Sometimes, when performing as Spinal Tap, they also performed as their own supporting band: "The Folksmen", which was OK if the fans "got it", but they also had the experience of being booed off the stage as The Folksmen, only to be cheered back on as Spinal Tap.
Just about everything. Let's highlight the important points:
(1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities; or
In other words, any software provider can mess with your computer to attempt to see if you are engaged in fraudulent activities. It does not seem to be limited to software that you knowingly install. You don't see a problem with that? Oh, and since this will be the only law affecting spyware, it means that vendors can install spyware to achieve this or as part of the installation process.
Microsoft can run their "Genuine Advantage" crap. Not thrilled about it, but not surprised.
It's not just Microsoft, it is any vendor. The vendor can ram it down your throat (at the moment you can decline to run WGA) and the vendor can hide it. You still don't see a problem?
I absolutely stay away from the Big Corporate chocolate: Hershey's, Cadbery's, etc
Most Cadburys chocolate in the US is made under license by Hersheys and takes awful. Cadburys in the UK is much better -- although I am not going to claim that it is the best in the world.
I have not found anything made by Hersheys to taste good, even their special dark (or whatever it is called)
Slashdot Mirror
Since then, I've seen machines crippled by malfunctioning Symantec rootkits. Yes -- I refer to them as rootkits since they have made un-installation impossible in some cases. For example, their uninstall program refuses to run in safe mode.
Your references don't support your claim. You referenced 2 Monster cable products. The question is how much do no-name equivalents cost.
Even if it is a free registration, this has been reported in many places, it's not hard to find a subscripton-free report, for example: here
Essentially what I am saying is that the part "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" is meaningless and the only important part of that section is: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
This was predicted in the 1972 movie Silent Running
Also, you are wrong about the login. Traditional POP logins (ie, without SSL) are insecure.
Apparently, Judge Dale Kimball has already decided that the CAN-SPAM act does not preempt the Utah law.
Didn't the CAN-SPAM law preempt state laws on SPAM, making this law unenforceable?
This is probably a dumb question, but is Citrix even required? Assuming that the s/w is installed on a Windows server, can't the clients connect to the server via Remote Desktop and run the apps on the server?
It may come down to how much /. wants to challenge any possible action by the HD-DVD association. Clearly, it's not copyrightable, so the only question is whether a pure number can fall under the anti-circumvention clauses of the the DMCA. Using your quote above, it's not "technology", it's not a device. Does it qualify? Probably it will take a trial to determine that.
Surely, these large companies could block outgoing port 25 traffic, except for their own email servers. Then the traffic can easily be monitored and spam zombies detected.
Why is this not "best practice"?
Yup, it's a dupe, but my/CowboyNeal's version had a non-misleading summary.
How apt was /.'s error message when I tried to "read more": "nothing for you to see here"? Apparently, some of Google's users have found "nothing for you"!
Sometimes, when performing as Spinal Tap, they also performed as their own supporting band: "The Folksmen", which was OK if the fans "got it", but they also had the experience of being booed off the stage as The Folksmen, only to be cheered back on as Spinal Tap.
I have not found anything made by Hersheys to taste good, even their special dark (or whatever it is called)