I'm sorry, but the very fact that you think the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is manipulating a British school program shows that you have insufficient knowledge to speculate as to what might happen with regard to it.
Please, educating students about the law is "indoctrinating" them? Grow up.
Intelligent people can have intelligent discussions on issues related to intellectual property, but pushing for ignorance concerning any point of view contrary to your own or even the law as it is currently written is just stupid.
-1 Flamebait me as much as you fucking want, it had to be said.
My used Acura gets about the same mpg. It was also affordable to someone who doesn't make 70 grand a year.
Besides, fuel intake is only one problem with SUVs (and since SUV drivers pay for that at the pump, one I don't really care too much about). They also represent a huge safety hazard to smaller cars who can't see around them or who would get crushed should they be involved in an accident.
The worst is when they say they bought the car to help their own safety. Selfish bastards.
" Who is to say another life form even has a physical body"
How else would it exist in a physical world?
"We have a hard enough time getting along with people on the other side of our own planet. "
Considering they would probably live thousands of light years away, I don't think contact is something we have to worry about for now unless they have a way to violate the laws of physics as we know them.
The collusion in question was not between the record companies themselves or the RIAA (which are very different organizations), it was between the record companies and record stores for the gain of the record stores. What the 'price fixing' did was force record stores (not labels) to not advertise CDs under a certain price. The reason was to prevent large stores like Best Buy and Target from using CDs as loss leaders; selling the CDs for a loss to get customers into the stores to buy more expensive things. If such a practice became widespread it was feared that smaller stores and speciality stores that make their entire profit off of selling CDs would be run out of business. So they used their influence in the RIAA to get them to agree to a deal in which no one could advertise a price below the MAP.
In short, the idea that if it were not for the price fixing all CDs would have been sold for $7 each instead of $12 each is just wrong. What would have happened (and what is happening now) is that larger stores are free to sell CDs for a loss. It doesn't happen too often (as retailers are starting to realize customers are ajust buying the cheap stuff and not the expensive stuff when they do this) and might have saved you a few bucks every once in a while (assuming you only shop at major retailers that can afford to use CDs as loss leaders).
I would have to say that is why most software that runs on Linux isn't ready. RPMs can only get you so far, eventually you will run into something that requires you to configure, make, make install.
This will be solved when commericial software is ported to Linux. I know Linux contains plenty of free software which for most of us geeks rids us from the need for commericial software, but for the average user there is plenty of comfort in being able to buy commericially supported software from CompUSA.
Besides, the whole advantage to OSS is choice right? Well shouldn't someone be able to choose commericial versions and have it work with their open source stuff?
Not only do I generally vote Republican and yet still was able to post on that discussion (thus refuting the claim that "all Republicans were IP banned"), I have also been modded down several times and yet can still post (thus refuting your claim that "So, anyone who is moderated down goes into a list of banned IP addresses automatically and can no longer post.")
Did you miss the part where they have the right to delete a post but not the obligation to? They don't have be consistent.
Seriously, under your logic I could sue/. moderators who don't mod up my posts but who do mod up other posts that are no better than mine. If so, the money I would make from the resulting lawsuits would set me up for life.
You are either a troll or just plain stupid (don't sue me for that).
"was attacked by a bunch of faceless Anonymous Cowards"
Actually the posters in question were not the Yahoo! version of ACs in that their identities (in terms of their Yahoo! IDs) were included in their post.
"I think among the Slashdot crowd it's of course common knowledge that Yahoo deletes comments all the time, just like Slashdot does. "
Deleting a rare post that includes a threat against the president's life is far from deleting posts "all the time".
" Are dicussion sites breaching an implied contract with the user when they fail to protect them from trolling and abuse?"
What implied contract? As shown several times already, Yahoo!'s TOS clearly states that you may be subject to trolling and abuse if you post on their message board and they are not responsible.
"remember the Farenheit 9/11 story in which all Republicans were IP banned from posting"
Aside from the little known fact that political ideologies cannot be known from just looking at the IP address, I generally vote Republican and I made several posts that day. As did many others. Your line just doesn't make any sense.
"If Yahoo loses this suit..."
They won't. Thats why we are making fun of how dumb it is.
The post office is five times as incompetent as the RIAA. Last year I tried to file a temporary change of address form, they didn't start forwarding my mail until a month after it was supposed to expire.
Chances are they mailed the checks months ago and some postman has already cashed them.
I'm curious, where does Yahoo! promise to prevent abuse postings? I'm going through their TOS and I see no guarentee that abusive postings will be prevented.
I do see the following:
Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.
Which seems to throw out his argument. Just below that it does say
You agree to not use the Service to:
1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
but then it continues
You acknowledge that Yahoo! may
or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. [emphasis mine]
So it sounds like to me that they can remove the content he objected to as it is arguably harrassing or defamatory, but they are under no obligation to prevent it.
If you can find anything on Yahoo!'s site that goes against that, feel free to post it.
Or rather the managers of slashdot will be sued for not giving out our detailed personal information (which they may not even have) after we hurt his feelings.
Someone made a 'colorful' analogy about him shoveling elephant manure and he wants to file a lawsuit? I bet he got the shit kicked out of him on the playground (don't sue me for that Mr. Galton). I think we have the winner of the 2004 Stella awards here.
If that is true you are not going to get the statement in writing. Be happy with what you have, a company (with a very large patent portfolio) stating they currently have no intention of going after Linux and urging others to do the same. Thats a good thing for Linux.
I agree. We need to find some other aspect of Windows to bitch about (and believe me, there are plenty) since the blue screen of death is sort of a dead issue nowadays.
I wouldn't say anti-Linux, as if no one uses Linux no one will buy their insurance (unless they are really stupid). Instead they overstate the risk, not to the point where people will stop using Linux, but so they will feel more comfortable having insurance against an unlikely event.
"
It's like selling earthquake insurance to a farmer in Indiana."
I was thinking volcano insurance to a factory worker in Rhode Island.
If you don't get it, watch more TV.
If no one knew about potential IP problems with Linux, who would buy their insurance?
Even if it is known that there is a potential lawsuit associated with code A and patent B, it still is not guarenteed that a lawsuit will be filed or that it would be successful. Thus there remains an aspect of risk and thus there remains a reason to purchase insurance.
"'Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments'"
I've said it a hundred times, you could get a patent for the wheel approved by the trained monkeys at the Patent Office, what really matters is getting it past the judge.
Many of those that are approved have obvious flaws and the holder will never make a challenge based on it knowing that the resulting court case will only cost lawyers and the loss of their patent. They may look pretty, but they end up being useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but the very fact that you think the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is manipulating a British school program shows that you have insufficient knowledge to speculate as to what might happen with regard to it.
That would require thinking intelligently. How dare you suggest mods be required to think intelligently.
Intelligent people can have intelligent discussions on issues related to intellectual property, but pushing for ignorance concerning any point of view contrary to your own or even the law as it is currently written is just stupid.
-1 Flamebait me as much as you fucking want, it had to be said.
Besides, fuel intake is only one problem with SUVs (and since SUV drivers pay for that at the pump, one I don't really care too much about). They also represent a huge safety hazard to smaller cars who can't see around them or who would get crushed should they be involved in an accident.
The worst is when they say they bought the car to help their own safety. Selfish bastards.
60 miles per gallon? The civic hybrid gets around 50 so I really doubt that (unless they were just rolling downhill).
Hydrogen SUV? Its a hybrid car, not a hydrogen car. Minor difference between the two.
How else would it exist in a physical world?
"We have a hard enough time getting along with people on the other side of our own planet. "
Considering they would probably live thousands of light years away, I don't think contact is something we have to worry about for now unless they have a way to violate the laws of physics as we know them.
In short, the idea that if it were not for the price fixing all CDs would have been sold for $7 each instead of $12 each is just wrong. What would have happened (and what is happening now) is that larger stores are free to sell CDs for a loss. It doesn't happen too often (as retailers are starting to realize customers are ajust buying the cheap stuff and not the expensive stuff when they do this) and might have saved you a few bucks every once in a while (assuming you only shop at major retailers that can afford to use CDs as loss leaders).
This will be solved when commericial software is ported to Linux. I know Linux contains plenty of free software which for most of us geeks rids us from the need for commericial software, but for the average user there is plenty of comfort in being able to buy commericially supported software from CompUSA.
Besides, the whole advantage to OSS is choice right? Well shouldn't someone be able to choose commericial versions and have it work with their open source stuff?
Not only do I generally vote Republican and yet still was able to post on that discussion (thus refuting the claim that "all Republicans were IP banned"), I have also been modded down several times and yet can still post (thus refuting your claim that "So, anyone who is moderated down goes into a list of banned IP addresses automatically and can no longer post.")
Seriously, under your logic I could sue /. moderators who don't mod up my posts but who do mod up other posts that are no better than mine. If so, the money I would make from the resulting lawsuits would set me up for life.
"was attacked by a bunch of faceless Anonymous Cowards"
Actually the posters in question were not the Yahoo! version of ACs in that their identities (in terms of their Yahoo! IDs) were included in their post.
"I think among the Slashdot crowd it's of course common knowledge that Yahoo deletes comments all the time, just like Slashdot does. "
Deleting a rare post that includes a threat against the president's life is far from deleting posts "all the time".
" Are dicussion sites breaching an implied contract with the user when they fail to protect them from trolling and abuse?"
What implied contract? As shown several times already, Yahoo!'s TOS clearly states that you may be subject to trolling and abuse if you post on their message board and they are not responsible.
"remember the Farenheit 9/11 story in which all Republicans were IP banned from posting"
Aside from the little known fact that political ideologies cannot be known from just looking at the IP address, I generally vote Republican and I made several posts that day. As did many others. Your line just doesn't make any sense.
"If Yahoo loses this suit..."
They won't. Thats why we are making fun of how dumb it is.
Chances are they mailed the checks months ago and some postman has already cashed them.
I do see the following:
Which seems to throw out his argument. Just below that it does say but then it continues So it sounds like to me that they can remove the content he objected to as it is arguably harrassing or defamatory, but they are under no obligation to prevent it.If you can find anything on Yahoo!'s site that goes against that, feel free to post it.
Someone made a 'colorful' analogy about him shoveling elephant manure and he wants to file a lawsuit? I bet he got the shit kicked out of him on the playground (don't sue me for that Mr. Galton). I think we have the winner of the 2004 Stella awards here.
If that is true you are not going to get the statement in writing. Be happy with what you have, a company (with a very large patent portfolio) stating they currently have no intention of going after Linux and urging others to do the same. Thats a good thing for Linux.
A large number of those patents would probably be thrown out by a judge as soon as IBM's lawyers arrived in court anyways.
Is that really the standard we want to hold Firefox to?
I agree. We need to find some other aspect of Windows to bitch about (and believe me, there are plenty) since the blue screen of death is sort of a dead issue nowadays.
Knowing how the patent office works, most of those patents probably are jokes.
" It's like selling earthquake insurance to a farmer in Indiana."
I was thinking volcano insurance to a factory worker in Rhode Island.
If you don't get it, watch more TV.
Even if it is known that there is a potential lawsuit associated with code A and patent B, it still is not guarenteed that a lawsuit will be filed or that it would be successful. Thus there remains an aspect of risk and thus there remains a reason to purchase insurance.
I've said it a hundred times, you could get a patent for the wheel approved by the trained monkeys at the Patent Office, what really matters is getting it past the judge.
Many of those that are approved have obvious flaws and the holder will never make a challenge based on it knowing that the resulting court case will only cost lawyers and the loss of their patent. They may look pretty, but they end up being useless.
RDF Site Summary only refers to RSS 1.0, not .9x or 2.0.
Wouldn't a more appropriate analogy be naming the Internet favorite word processor because it is the backbone of IRC?