Riiight... so the ISPs are gonna throttle HTTPS? What about SFTP transfers? Hell, what about POPS and SMTPS? Because there's no way, in principle, to tell the difference between these (legitimate) protocols and an encrypted (supposedly illegitimate) BitTorrent stream.
growing US apathy about non-domestic issuesGrowing? Do you know how long we ignored various world wars before getting involved? Constant would be a better choice.
And how the anti-Iraq war isolationists have been semi-popular?
"All of the hardcore Apple users I know hate Intel. I wonder how this will ultimately fly. I'm excited about this new venture."
They hated Intel for a variety of factors:
#1 They were/are loyal Mac users. The Mac marketing department wanted them to hate Intel, for obvious reasons. They (marketing) made sure that they (users) did and they (marketing) were sucessful.
#2 For a while, PowerPC had a processor advantage. Not anymore.
Please note that I wasn't trying to complain or anything, I just thought that my version had some interesting angles and provided an article summary and thus would be helpful in addition to the posted story.
1. A troll posts a FP.
2. The mods correctly mod him troll
3. An AC insinuates ("Hear that "whooshing" sound? Thats the joke going right over your head...") the mods were stupid and missed a joke.
4. The mods still don't get the "joke" but they don't want people to think that they are so stupid as to not get the joke, so they mod the first troll up.
"Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe" = Slap on the wrist, with some teensy, little restrictions that the prosecuted company can easily get around
Here's my story submission, which provides some more info, that didn't make the cut:
starrsoft writes, "Apparently AMD's lawsuit isn't just just a PR stunt, as some have suggested. In related news to today's earlier story about AMD's claims concerning Intel compilers discriminating against AMD, EU regulators raided several of Intel's European offices regarding 'an ongoing competition case.' From the article: 'European antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. offices Tuesday, two weeks after rival U.S. chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices filed a lawsuit claiming Intel used its market dominance to bully computer makers away from using AMD chips... For more than four years, the EU has been investigating claims that Intel used unfair business practices to persuade clients to buy its microprocessors to the exclusion of rivals' chips.In March, the bloc said it was continuing its probe after a Japanese investigation found that Intel had violated antitrust rules there. The EU cooperated with the Japanese regulators.'
From TFA: "A mission devoted to the moons could explain how the satellites are held together - whether they are piles of rubble loosely held together by gravity or solid chunks. Most scientists assume the heavily cratered moons are captured asteroids, Christensen told New Scientist. But it is actually quite hard for a planet to capture an object into its orbit - most things just skim by. 'So how it got there is a bit of an enigma,' Christensen says."
Question: Where did our moon come from? What are the non-captured-asteroid moons made of and what are their origins?
Can someone tell me why I was modded redundant when I can't find a single other comment (above mine) that corrects this error? It also hasn't been corrected in the story. I took that survey of/.'s the other day and I responded that the moderation was in important part of/. Prove me right.
" 1. Get some kind of copyrighted material NOT owned by the RIAA, say a novel written by a friend of yours.
2. Make 3000 copies of it, each one containing the material repeated until it reaches 3.2 or so megabytes, and name them all things like "Avril Lavinge - Happy Ending.mp3".
3. Put them up on kazaa.
4. Wait to be sued by the RIAA.
5. When sued, produce logs and demonstrate that the RIAA has -- in fact -- downloaded quite a lot of copies of your friend's novel.
6. Get your friend to sue the RIAA for illegally downloading his novel."
One problem: Don't you think the RIAA might check the contents of the file before they sue?
"Not only should they have to prove that you distributed it, but they should also have to prove that you distributed it to someone who doesn't have the legal right to have it. This would further force them to go after the people downloading illegal material instead of the people who have it on their computer. If I downloaded SUPER MARIO, but I already own a copy (or 8) of it, then nobody committed a crime, right?"
Wrong! You cannot download another copy from someone else even if you own the original. Doing so is ethical but illegal.
"What is keeping *them* from just downloading a copy? If not them, they someone they hire or pay off. Does anyone else see why this would mean more then just some old cases not having enough evidence?"
It will mean they will have to download each complete file for each person they want to sue. Do you know long it will take to download a 700 MB-1.5 GB movie from one person on a DSL or Cable connection? (182 min. on a fully used 512 Kbps upstream for a 700 MB movie. I don't allocate all my upstream bandwidth for P2P uploading; I know many others don't as well. Furthermore, any upstream capacity that you do set is usually shared among multiple files and multiple downloaders. In reality it would be way longer than 182 minutes.) Furthermore, the way many P2P networks are structured, they get chunks from different users. It would be nigh impossible to get a complete download from a single user.
This ruling is *extremely* important for limiting suing.
I think this is a very important development for P2P file sharing. It will make the threshhold of proof much higher for sharers to be sued. The one thing that it won't help is the MPAA & individual studios sending an infringement notice letter to the sharer's ISP and spineless ISPs suspending people's accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Pluto just dumped Daisy via SMS.
growing US apathy about non-domestic issues Growing? Do you know how long we ignored various world wars before getting involved? Constant would be a better choice. And how the anti-Iraq war isolationists have been semi-popular?
A: A bunch of slashdotters doing the same thing.
This isn't Google execs cashing out. The Google execs don't get the money, the company does.
http://www.io2technology.com.nyud.net:8090/dojo/20 4/v.jsp?p=/salesinquiry
Please note that I wasn't trying to complain or anything, I just thought that my version had some interesting angles and provided an article summary and thus would be helpful in addition to the posted story.
The question is: Mod this troll or funny?
1. A troll posts a FP.
2. The mods correctly mod him troll
3. An AC insinuates ("Hear that "whooshing" sound? Thats the joke going right over your head...") the mods were stupid and missed a joke.
4. The mods still don't get the "joke" but they don't want people to think that they are so stupid as to not get the joke, so they mod the first troll up.
Ahh slashdot... *grins and shakes head*
"Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe" = Slap on the wrist, with some teensy, little restrictions that the prosecuted company can easily get around
Here's my story submission, which provides some more info, that didn't make the cut:
starrsoft writes, "Apparently AMD's lawsuit isn't just just a PR stunt, as some have suggested. In related news to today's earlier story about AMD's claims concerning Intel compilers discriminating against AMD, EU regulators raided several of Intel's European offices regarding 'an ongoing competition case.' From the article: 'European antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. offices Tuesday, two weeks after rival U.S. chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices filed a lawsuit claiming Intel used its market dominance to bully computer makers away from using AMD chips... For more than four years, the EU has been investigating claims that Intel used unfair business practices to persuade clients to buy its microprocessors to the exclusion of rivals' chips.In March, the bloc said it was continuing its probe after a Japanese investigation found that Intel had violated antitrust rules there. The EU cooperated with the Japanese regulators.'
Question: Where did our moon come from? What are the non-captured-asteroid moons made of and what are their origins?
Even better: Make sure they never go to dotslash. You know they'll get addicted then... :-)
Can someone tell me why I was modded redundant when I can't find a single other comment (above mine) that corrects this error? It also hasn't been corrected in the story. I took that survey of /.'s the other day and I responded that the moderation was in important part of /. Prove me right.
"represents a interesting shift" should be "represents an interesting shift"
It doesn't anymore!
I guess the next question would be: "What percentage constitutes fair use?"
It will mean they will have to download each complete file for each person they want to sue. Do you know long it will take to download a 700 MB-1.5 GB movie from one person on a DSL or Cable connection? (182 min. on a fully used 512 Kbps upstream for a 700 MB movie. I don't allocate all my upstream bandwidth for P2P uploading; I know many others don't as well. Furthermore, any upstream capacity that you do set is usually shared among multiple files and multiple downloaders. In reality it would be way longer than 182 minutes.) Furthermore, the way many P2P networks are structured, they get chunks from different users. It would be nigh impossible to get a complete download from a single user.
This ruling is *extremely* important for limiting suing.
I think this is a very important development for P2P file sharing. It will make the threshhold of proof much higher for sharers to be sued. The one thing that it won't help is the MPAA & individual studios sending an infringement notice letter to the sharer's ISP and spineless ISPs suspending people's accounts.
I think you posted to the wrong thread.
Yay!