I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever reach a point where Joe Beer and his wife Martha will wake up, take their head out of their Bibles and their AOL chat rooms, and start to give a damn about any of this corporate power grabbing...
Why don't you start spreading the word? Or are you afraid people will start to think of you as a political wacko? I'm sure you have some friends or people you know who aren't as informed as yourself. It might help just to send them an email about things you read every once in a while.
I'm not saying this is a great law, or anything. But I've worked for a number of organizations who resisted putting their best data onto the web, because it was so hard to prevent people from stealing it and reselling it to the public AND there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. To assemble paper and put it into a database takes money. Why shouldn't companies want to protect their investments?
"And there was no legal mechanism to prevent it?" This was brought up in the CNET article from an opponent of this bill, was it not?
One of the most vocal opponents of the bill has been the venerable U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that database owners already have the ability to protect their property through contracts and terms-of-service agreements.
Sure, if you put the data in a publically accesible medium such as the web, people might take it and use it. But if you give it to someone and they agree to a Terms of Use policy, then there are laws in place already that protect you and your data. There is no need for this law.
So what was stopping the company you worked with for charging money for that data in the first place, instead of making it free only to whine about other people charging money for it later?
it's amazing, legal contracts are legally binding.
the only thing that strikes me is that the judiciary branch is only consulted after the law has passed, and then only if a case is brought to court. until the law is challenged in court, it seems no one gives a rats ass if it is Constitutional or not.
Then that means the underlying data structures which organize the data is copyright instead of the data itself. and if implemented in a computer, that means the state of the machine which the database lives on is copyrighted. rediculous. that, or in the case of a relational database, the relationships are copyright. which again is rediculous.
everything about this bill is rediculous. its all covered in some form by other laws, i bet.
definately. he's only violated The Academy's rules on not giving the screeners to people, right? screw The Academy if they try to press criminal charges on him. Don't send him any more screeners if you want.
class link { link * ptrforward; link * ptrbackward; link * ptrdata; } rather than: class link{ link * ptrdata; link * ptrbackward; link * ptrforward; } Because the processor pulls 64 bits per address accessed, the former structure would have the forward pointer in cache regardless of the pointer size. With the second structure, traversing a list in the forward direction would result in a cache miss on every node visited, regardless of pointer size (This applies only to the x86...).
I have just a question really. You're saying the first is better (less cache misses), based on the assumption that you will be using ptrforward more often than any of the other pointers?
we just have to transmit through viscous mud with pressure instead of light across the solar system.
henceforth the period of time between normal operation of servers and the death blow of a slashdot effect shall be refered to as "having mud in their pipes." for example, SCO.com has mud in their pipes, they'll be slashdotted soon.
In the coming days, if communications are not restored, the spacecraft will enter safe modes that cause it to try harder to transmit and will reset subsystems. I am optimistic at this point.
does that mean "SAFE MODE" will be printed in a crappy font in the four corners of all images comming back from now on?
Here's a link to where the internal corporate memo of false IP claims is. I swear, just look at the title. Apparently they took it down. Maybe google has a cache of it.;)
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Maybe if the software source had been made publically available, or the source were from some project with available source then the bug would have been found. Instead they just wanted to trust one guy to find all errors?
Advocate government use of open source/Free software? maybe.
If the common sentiment here is that copying files isn't stealing, then how is what the Republicans may or may not have done considered burglary?
It seems your statement is based on copying music files. I think the sentiment is that sharing music is unjustifiably restricted (by cost or otherwise).
In my opinion, copying files in general, if they do not belong to you, and they were not intended to be viewed by you is stealing. Accessing the computer they came from without being given permission is trespassing.
Jail the creeps. They were trusted and broke our trust.
it might be flawed. that doesn't take away from the fact that people have had problems they couldn't solve. then in their sleep they either dream the solution, or in some other way gain insight which allows them to solve the problem following sleep. it could just be a step towards more thorough studies of this subject.
i've had two such occurances. one was a problem to a EE circuits lab which I dreamed the solution. The other was a bug in a C++ programming asignment. It's an amazing feeling to subconsciously solve a problem.
then there are the crazy videogame dreams that i get after playing way too many hours worth of games. those are useless from a problem solving standpoint, but sometimes pretty interesting.
Hi, my name is Mr. Chair. Not just any chair, but Cowboyneal's chair. Have you seen him lately? This is not a good working environment for me. Especially since he's taken up typing in the nude. Oh man, not good at all. Why couldn't I have been Tyra Banks' chair, or Natalie Portmans? Mmmm, hot grits... but anyway...
Mr. Cowboyneal, if you are reading this, please put your pants back on!;)
just because two computers can talk to each other directly doesn't mean they are "wide open on the wild west Internet". but you were speaking from a business standpoint. I'm speaking from a technical aspect as well as a community aspect. the control of who gets to publish information on the internet is restricted by things like NAT which doesn't allow direct connections, and rediculous Terms of Use by ISP that do not allow the running of servers on your paid for connection. Media companies like Time Warner want to restrict who gets to create the information, hence their "Roadrunner" cable service Terms of Use. Give me the "wild west Internet" and remember that the pen is mightier than the sword.
You must be kidding. It seemed heavily slanted towards agreeing and being sympathetic towards the fax-spammers. It's so disgustingly biased that I fear for your critical thinking skills and wonder what mods where thinking when modding you insightful.
A self-described "small-claims warrior," Livingston has made a side business out of suing these companies and many more for the sin of sending him unsolicited fax ads, better known as junk faxes.
because only big crimes should be punished...? gg forbes.
the court has effectively sanctioned an unintended consequence of the law that has ensnared many businesses in a legal web of fines, threats and a lot of aggravation
No, those were the intentions. Change sentence to "ensnared many businesses providing illegal services" and you'll see the reasoning.
The laws and stiff fines ranging from $500 to $1,500--applied to each fax rather than the mass
Ok, i was under the assumption that the people at Forbes had some understanding of money. I guess not. If the fine was $1,500 per mass, that would be paltry. The faxes would get out, and a even if 1% reached a human eye the benefits would be reaped. The $1,500 would be recovered a hundred fold in fees from the client paying for the bulk faxing. Make it a per transmission fine and you might not be able to recover the fines from fees.
Forbes makes it sound like a $1,500 per bulk would be more than adequate. So are they saying that they don't care if it is still illegal just as long as the fines aren't restrictive enough to stop someone from making money?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever reach a point where Joe Beer and his wife Martha will wake up, take their head out of their Bibles and their AOL chat rooms, and start to give a damn about any of this corporate power grabbing...
Why don't you start spreading the word? Or are you afraid people will start to think of you as a political wacko? I'm sure you have some friends or people you know who aren't as informed as yourself. It might help just to send them an email about things you read every once in a while.
not meaning to troll, just an idea.
I'm not saying this is a great law, or anything. But I've worked for a number of organizations who resisted putting their best data onto the web, because it was so hard to prevent people from stealing it and reselling it to the public AND there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. To assemble paper and put it into a database takes money. Why shouldn't companies want to protect their investments?
"And there was no legal mechanism to prevent it?" This was brought up in the CNET article from an opponent of this bill, was it not?
One of the most vocal opponents of the bill has been the venerable U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that database owners already have the ability to protect their property through contracts and terms-of-service agreements.
Sure, if you put the data in a publically accesible medium such as the web, people might take it and use it. But if you give it to someone and they agree to a Terms of Use policy, then there are laws in place already that protect you and your data. There is no need for this law.
So what was stopping the company you worked with for charging money for that data in the first place, instead of making it free only to whine about other people charging money for it later?
it's amazing, legal contracts are legally binding.
to refresh my gradeschool education i thought i'd seach for how a bill becomes a law.
the only thing that strikes me is that the judiciary branch is only consulted after the law has passed, and then only if a case is brought to court. until the law is challenged in court, it seems no one gives a rats ass if it is Constitutional or not.
Then that means the underlying data structures which organize the data is copyright instead of the data itself. and if implemented in a computer, that means the state of the machine which the database lives on is copyrighted. rediculous. that, or in the case of a relational database, the relationships are copyright. which again is rediculous.
everything about this bill is rediculous. its all covered in some form by other laws, i bet.
i motion to disolve congress
yet another way for people to make themselves feel popular and socially accepted while being a commodity for someone else.
get over yourselves and do something useful.
Please check out the planning wiki at
Am I the only one who reads "planning wiki" and thinks of some witch doctor type creature from Scooby Doo with a laptop covered in penguin stickers?
the opposite rather. he's too busy reading and posting to slashdot that he doesn't have time to post to slashdot... if that makes sense.
definately. he's only violated The Academy's rules on not giving the screeners to people, right? screw The Academy if they try to press criminal charges on him. Don't send him any more screeners if you want.
class link {
link * ptrforward;
link * ptrbackward;
link * ptrdata;
}
rather than:
class link{
link * ptrdata;
link * ptrbackward;
link * ptrforward;
}
Because the processor pulls 64 bits per address accessed, the former structure would have the forward pointer in cache regardless of the pointer size. With the second structure, traversing a list in the forward direction would result in a cache miss on every node visited, regardless of pointer size (This applies only to the x86...).
I have just a question really. You're saying the first is better (less cache misses), based on the assumption that you will be using ptrforward more often than any of the other pointers?
we just have to transmit through viscous mud with pressure instead of light across the solar system.
henceforth the period of time between normal operation of servers and the death blow of a slashdot effect shall be refered to as "having mud in their pipes." for example, SCO.com has mud in their pipes, they'll be slashdotted soon.
Use emacs as your OS and set up your own damn bindings for cut, copy, and paste!
;)
yes, i said emacs is an OS.
mod my last post as redundant, damnit. i am slow in reading other peoples posts ;)
mod this post as off topic.
mod my next post as troll, cause the days almost over.
In the coming days, if communications are not restored, the spacecraft will enter safe modes that cause it to try harder to transmit and will reset subsystems. I am optimistic at this point.
does that mean "SAFE MODE" will be printed in a crappy font in the four corners of all images comming back from now on?
Here's a link to where the internal corporate memo of false IP claims ;)
is. I swear, just look at the title. Apparently they took it down. Maybe google has a cache of it.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Maybe if the software source had been made publically available, or the source were from some project with available source then the bug would have been found. Instead they just wanted to trust one guy to find all errors?
Advocate government use of open source/Free software? maybe.
If the common sentiment here is that copying files isn't stealing, then how is what the Republicans may or may not have done considered burglary?
It seems your statement is based on copying music files. I think the sentiment is that sharing music is unjustifiably restricted (by cost or otherwise).
In my opinion, copying files in general, if they do not belong to you, and they were not intended to be viewed by you is stealing. Accessing the computer they came from without being given permission is trespassing.
Jail the creeps. They were trusted and broke our trust.
it might be flawed. that doesn't take away from the fact that people have had problems they couldn't solve. then in their sleep they either dream the solution, or in some other way gain insight which allows them to solve the problem following sleep. it could just be a step towards more thorough studies of this subject.
i've had two such occurances. one was a problem to a EE circuits lab which I dreamed the solution. The other was a bug in a C++ programming asignment. It's an amazing feeling to subconsciously solve a problem.
then there are the crazy videogame dreams that i get after playing way too many hours worth of games. those are useless from a problem solving standpoint, but sometimes pretty interesting.
right.
yeah, but his followup to his own posting was a troll ;)
j/k, sort of
like my toaster oven! how are they going to prosecute my toaster oven!
and why is my toaster oven listening to brittney spears anyway?
Hi, my name is Mr. Chair. Not just any chair, but Cowboyneal's chair. Have you seen him lately? This is not a good working environment for me. Especially since he's taken up typing in the nude. Oh man, not good at all. Why couldn't I have been Tyra Banks' chair, or Natalie Portmans? Mmmm, hot grits... but anyway...
;)
Mr. Cowboyneal, if you are reading this, please put your pants back on!
just because two computers can talk to each other directly doesn't mean they are "wide open on the wild west Internet". but you were speaking from a business standpoint. I'm speaking from a technical aspect as well as a community aspect. the control of who gets to publish information on the internet is restricted by things like NAT which doesn't allow direct connections, and rediculous Terms of Use by ISP that do not allow the running of servers on your paid for connection. Media companies like Time Warner want to restrict who gets to create the information, hence their "Roadrunner" cable service Terms of Use. Give me the "wild west Internet" and remember that the pen is mightier than the sword.
You must be kidding. It seemed heavily slanted towards agreeing and being sympathetic towards the fax-spammers. It's so disgustingly biased that I fear for your critical thinking skills and wonder what mods where thinking when modding you insightful.
you mean like pasting the contents of the linux header files that those litigious bastards claim ownership of?
A self-described "small-claims warrior," Livingston has made a side business out of suing these companies and many more for the sin of sending him unsolicited fax ads, better known as junk faxes.
because only big crimes should be punished...? gg forbes.
the court has effectively sanctioned an unintended consequence of the law that has ensnared many businesses in a legal web of fines, threats and a lot of aggravation
No, those were the intentions. Change sentence to "ensnared many businesses providing illegal services" and you'll see the reasoning.
The laws and stiff fines ranging from $500 to $1,500--applied to each fax rather than the mass
Ok, i was under the assumption that the people at Forbes had some understanding of money. I guess not. If the fine was $1,500 per mass, that would be paltry. The faxes would get out, and a even if 1% reached a human eye the benefits would be reaped. The $1,500 would be recovered a hundred fold in fees from the client paying for the bulk faxing. Make it a per transmission fine and you might not be able to recover the fines from fees.
Forbes makes it sound like a $1,500 per bulk would be more than adequate. So are they saying that they don't care if it is still illegal just as long as the fines aren't restrictive enough to stop someone from making money?