Has anyone had any criminal charges brought against them for watching cable without subscribing to it (over here (at the very least) all of Sydney is flooded with Foxtel so any satellite can pick it up. However only those who have a subscription are allowed to)?
Previously this has been because of real hardware incompatibilities. Now it will be because of an artificial constraint (MacOS might run fine on other computers, if it wasn't for the DRM). To a lot of people, there's a big difference (see DVD region encoding which is often railed against).
Wait, you mean I can't currently play my subscription content on a Mac? Wow, because I'm able to play it on my Windows computer. Mac's must really suck... oh wait. I can? Then stfu.
And I know I'll get modded down because I (sarcastically) said something bad about Macs (I know that Macs can play Itunes content, please don't mod me down).
Why? Why? I realise that to ask this is to break something of a taboo amongst the Linux faithful here, but why must operating system choice be dependent on politics rather than actual user need?
I want an OS that will run on hardware without artificial constraints (which is what DRM is) and I want an OS that I can uninstall programs I don't use (IE). There, two non-political reasons to not want to use Windows and MacOS.
I remember all the griping around Slashdot regarding iTunes/iPod DRM, but in retrospect it's clear most of Apple's paying customers, and even most Slashdotters, find those restrictions rather reasonable.
Most slashdotters are willing to accept the DRM because they realize it was forced upon Apple (or so we thought anyway) by the RIAA, and that Apple went with the least amount of DRM possible. No-one but Apple is forcing Apple to include DRM in it's MacOS. So they aren't the victim here.
DRM doesn't hurt the pirates (just search for anything that's DRM'd, if it's popular enough (like OSX) it will have been broken), but instead hurts people like me who don't know how to break the DRM, and aren't willing to download it from p2p (I don't want to download a virus by mistake thankyou, plus it's illegal).
I was excited by Apple moving to x86. Now I guess I'll have to move to Linux if I want my freedoms.
Remember that console manufacturers maintain basically complete control over the distribution. all games have to be licensed to run on the consoles.....These days it won't work on a non-hacked console, never mind the huge lawsuit.
And why do gamers accept this? This would be the same as MS coming along and saying "Oh you can't play games under our operating system unless we grant you a license." No-one would stand for that. Same with DVD-player-companies saying "You can only release DVDs that will work in our players if you are given a license from us." So why are gamers willing to put up with it with consoles?
I'm normally against them but in this case I'm making an exception. The reasons are:
* He earnt $1 million U.S. last year, if the non-compete agreement is reasonable (less then 1 year) he should be able to get by very well.
* He was in charge of a project with Microsoft, and quit his job to go work with Google's version of the exact same project.
* There would have been plenty of job opportunities he could have taken, if only to survive for the time of his non-compete agreement, but instead chose to take the one job that was sure to violate the agreement.
In other words, he wasn't forced into this situation because most computer related jobs have non-compete agreements, he willingly walked into it. Which is fine, but he's going to have to pay the consequences for it.
I represent our friend Mojgan Khalili who has recently been come into some large sums of money. It turns out that CISCO has been paid by many Blackhatters to leave security vulnerabilities in their software. I am unable to have the money in my account as I am currently on the board of directors, but I feel terrible over what my company has been doing.
I request that you allow me to transfer the money to your account, so that it may eventually be transferred to Michael Lynn's account. For your troubles, I am willing to give you 10% of the five million dollars (U.S.). This is negotaitable if this does not meet your satisfaction.
Yours truly Former ambassador of Nig^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mojgan Khalili's friend.
Thankyou for abusing someone's copyright by disseminating it without a license. You are not only hurting the site (which may or may not be gaining money off advertisements), but other copyright holders by encouraging slashdot to continue to post links that require registration.
If you're posting it because you (or for people that do) object to having to register, then this is the wrong way to go about it (as it's at the very least, illegal). not viewing the article, or not commenting, will reduce the pageviews for this article, and thus slashdot's revenue from it. This is a much better way to send slashdot a message to stop linking to articles that require registrations. If they do stop, then this will help give an incentive to the places themselves, that requiring registration might not be such a good idea, and it will reward people that don't require registration (as their articles will be accepted at slashdot instead).
But all that won't stop people from modding up your post.
Seems pretty open and shut - Telus is going to get its ass wupped.
If I'm a bookstore owner, I should be able to refuse to sell books for -any- reason I want, even if that reason is because the book is the christian bible. If I'm a publisher, then I should be able to refuse to publish a book, even if it is only because the book contains interracial marriage.
Telus should be able to provide or not provide access to websites as they wish, unless they've agreed otherwise with their customers (or have been given a monopoly by the government). So no, I wouldn't say it's open shut.
Actually, they're not hosting the content, so they're not censoring the content. They're censoring access to the content for their customers (because I'm not one of their customers I can access it, if I were one of their customers, I wouldn't be able to access it). Which is oh-so-much-better. Because now they can be sued for any porn a minor access using their service (if they don't then block that website for that customer). I wonder if they spoke with their legal department before they made this move. And if so, they should get a new one.
If you enter into a contract with someone to supply a service and they stop providing that service or inhibit it, you don't just "go somewhere else" you sue the bastards for breach of contract
Aaah yes. The American way. Now most people would just ask for a refund for what they paid for the compromised service. But no, in America you sue the bastard for whatever you can get. It might not be right, but it's legal, so they'll do it. It's the American dream.
Has Comcast been granted a monopoly by the government (as in, people except Comcast aren't legally able to offer broadband in your area)? If so, then they should be held to the same standards as the government, if not, then it's not their problem. If there's truly enough demand for something, then a competitor will eventually appear, otherwise they won't.
You don't have a right to broadband, just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean Comcast should be forced to give it to you.
Actually, I hope they keep this up, so they can then be sued, have charges pressed for minors being able to gain access to porn via their service. By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.
I suppose you also support allowing corporations to treat their employees like shit, to discriminate based on sex, race and religion? After all, if people don't like it, they can stop buying that company's products.
The blacks and women of America are thankful that the government doesn't agree with you. I see no reason why pollution should be any different.
I imagine producing the chemicals that naturally react with pollutants would be a rather toxic process itself.
That's great. Someone creates a way to combat pollution, and you're willing to dismiss it because it might end up causing more pollution. You're right. It might, but then again, it might not. You haven't linked to any articles so I see no reason to assume it will.
Sounds like the kind of thing that would fit GREAT in Longhorn.
Wouldn't it fit great in Linux as well? Wow. I'm amazed at something that's truly innovative (no-ones got something like this, and it does solve problems in a way that no-one had thought of) and people are saying wouldn't it be great in Windows. This is the sort of thing that Linux needs. So it can be one-up on the other OSes in user interfaces (instead of being behind them).
I ragged on the article for KDE4 for not having anything innovative, but this truly is innovative. I often have difficulty with dragging and dropping (and while copy/cut and paste probably is better, I find myself going for the copy and paste solution anyway), this would solve those problems.
When was the last time anybody dragged and dropped anything, period? Copy and Paste is better.
I drag and drop on a regular basis. Copy and paste probably is better, but I find it more intuitive to use drag and drop. This is a personal preference of mine.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone had any criminal charges brought against them for watching cable without subscribing to it (over here (at the very least) all of Sydney is flooded with Foxtel so any satellite can pick it up. However only those who have a subscription are allowed to)?
So someone can walk through my backyard because I leave my fence's gate open?
Previously this has been because of real hardware incompatibilities. Now it will be because of an artificial constraint (MacOS might run fine on other computers, if it wasn't for the DRM). To a lot of people, there's a big difference (see DVD region encoding which is often railed against).
Wait, you mean I can't currently play my subscription content on a Mac? Wow, because I'm able to play it on my Windows computer. Mac's must really suck... oh wait. I can? Then stfu. And I know I'll get modded down because I (sarcastically) said something bad about Macs (I know that Macs can play Itunes content, please don't mod me down).
Why? Why? I realise that to ask this is to break something of a taboo amongst the Linux faithful here, but why must operating system choice be dependent on politics rather than actual user need?
I want an OS that will run on hardware without artificial constraints (which is what DRM is) and I want an OS that I can uninstall programs I don't use (IE). There, two non-political reasons to not want to use Windows and MacOS.
I remember all the griping around Slashdot regarding iTunes/iPod DRM, but in retrospect it's clear most of Apple's paying customers, and even most Slashdotters, find those restrictions rather reasonable.
Most slashdotters are willing to accept the DRM because they realize it was forced upon Apple (or so we thought anyway) by the RIAA, and that Apple went with the least amount of DRM possible. No-one but Apple is forcing Apple to include DRM in it's MacOS. So they aren't the victim here.
DRM doesn't hurt the pirates (just search for anything that's DRM'd, if it's popular enough (like OSX) it will have been broken), but instead hurts people like me who don't know how to break the DRM, and aren't willing to download it from p2p (I don't want to download a virus by mistake thankyou, plus it's illegal). I was excited by Apple moving to x86. Now I guess I'll have to move to Linux if I want my freedoms.
Remember that console manufacturers maintain basically complete control over the distribution. all games have to be licensed to run on the consoles.....These days it won't work on a non-hacked console, never mind the huge lawsuit.
And why do gamers accept this? This would be the same as MS coming along and saying "Oh you can't play games under our operating system unless we grant you a license." No-one would stand for that. Same with DVD-player-companies saying "You can only release DVDs that will work in our players if you are given a license from us." So why are gamers willing to put up with it with consoles?
the word XBox2 won't mean anything - you have to specify XBox2-v1 vs XBox2-HD
;)
Actually, that's all complete gibberish. However Xbox360-v1 vs Xbox360-HD would make more sense
The whole beauty of the console is that if you buy a game for your console, it actually WORKS
Like Everquest Online for PS2? Oh wait....
It also looks like the gameboy advance (not the DS-appearing one). It isn't really that unique a design, so sure. Plenty of systems look like them.
And losing that case has hurt them so much. Oh wait.
I'm normally against them but in this case I'm making an exception. The reasons are: * He earnt $1 million U.S. last year, if the non-compete agreement is reasonable (less then 1 year) he should be able to get by very well. * He was in charge of a project with Microsoft, and quit his job to go work with Google's version of the exact same project. * There would have been plenty of job opportunities he could have taken, if only to survive for the time of his non-compete agreement, but instead chose to take the one job that was sure to violate the agreement. In other words, he wasn't forced into this situation because most computer related jobs have non-compete agreements, he willingly walked into it. Which is fine, but he's going to have to pay the consequences for it.
Dear Mr Slashdotter,
I represent our friend Mojgan Khalili who has recently been come into some large sums of money. It turns out that CISCO has been paid by many Blackhatters to leave security vulnerabilities in their software. I am unable to have the money in my account as I am currently on the board of directors, but I feel terrible over what my company has been doing.
I request that you allow me to transfer the money to your account, so that it may eventually be transferred to Michael Lynn's account. For your troubles, I am willing to give you 10% of the five million dollars (U.S.). This is negotaitable if this does not meet your satisfaction.
Yours truly
Former ambassador of Nig^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Mojgan Khalili's friend.
Thankyou for abusing someone's copyright by disseminating it without a license. You are not only hurting the site (which may or may not be gaining money off advertisements), but other copyright holders by encouraging slashdot to continue to post links that require registration.
If you're posting it because you (or for people that do) object to having to register, then this is the wrong way to go about it (as it's at the very least, illegal). not viewing the article, or not commenting, will reduce the pageviews for this article, and thus slashdot's revenue from it. This is a much better way to send slashdot a message to stop linking to articles that require registrations. If they do stop, then this will help give an incentive to the places themselves, that requiring registration might not be such a good idea, and it will reward people that don't require registration (as their articles will be accepted at slashdot instead).
But all that won't stop people from modding up your post.
Seems pretty open and shut - Telus is going to get its ass wupped.
If I'm a bookstore owner, I should be able to refuse to sell books for -any- reason I want, even if that reason is because the book is the christian bible. If I'm a publisher, then I should be able to refuse to publish a book, even if it is only because the book contains interracial marriage.
Telus should be able to provide or not provide access to websites as they wish, unless they've agreed otherwise with their customers (or have been given a monopoly by the government). So no, I wouldn't say it's open shut.
Actually, they're not hosting the content, so they're not censoring the content. They're censoring access to the content for their customers (because I'm not one of their customers I can access it, if I were one of their customers, I wouldn't be able to access it). Which is oh-so-much-better. Because now they can be sued for any porn a minor access using their service (if they don't then block that website for that customer). I wonder if they spoke with their legal department before they made this move. And if so, they should get a new one.
If you enter into a contract with someone to supply a service and they stop providing that service or inhibit it, you don't just "go somewhere else" you sue the bastards for breach of contract
Aaah yes. The American way. Now most people would just ask for a refund for what they paid for the compromised service. But no, in America you sue the bastard for whatever you can get. It might not be right, but it's legal, so they'll do it. It's the American dream.
Has Comcast been granted a monopoly by the government (as in, people except Comcast aren't legally able to offer broadband in your area)? If so, then they should be held to the same standards as the government, if not, then it's not their problem. If there's truly enough demand for something, then a competitor will eventually appear, otherwise they won't.
You don't have a right to broadband, just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean Comcast should be forced to give it to you.
Actually, I hope they keep this up, so they can then be sued, have charges pressed for minors being able to gain access to porn via their service. By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.
I suppose you also support allowing corporations to treat their employees like shit, to discriminate based on sex, race and religion? After all, if people don't like it, they can stop buying that company's products.
The blacks and women of America are thankful that the government doesn't agree with you. I see no reason why pollution should be any different.
I imagine producing the chemicals that naturally react with pollutants would be a rather toxic process itself.
That's great. Someone creates a way to combat pollution, and you're willing to dismiss it because it might end up causing more pollution. You're right. It might, but then again, it might not. You haven't linked to any articles so I see no reason to assume it will.
And I just read a post further down to say that at least one provider IS threatening to cut off people's VoIP. I sure called that one :P
Hopefully the FCC would get enough seriously negative feedback from consumers that they won't try this shit again.
And I'm sure VoIP providers (many of which are commercially run) will be happy to risk the bad publicity. [/sarcasm]
What's more likely is that the VoIP providers will call the FCC's bluff. After all, the FCC might not do anything.
Sounds like the kind of thing that would fit GREAT in Longhorn.
Wouldn't it fit great in Linux as well? Wow. I'm amazed at something that's truly innovative (no-ones got something like this, and it does solve problems in a way that no-one had thought of) and people are saying wouldn't it be great in Windows. This is the sort of thing that Linux needs. So it can be one-up on the other OSes in user interfaces (instead of being behind them).
I ragged on the article for KDE4 for not having anything innovative, but this truly is innovative. I often have difficulty with dragging and dropping (and while copy/cut and paste probably is better, I find myself going for the copy and paste solution anyway), this would solve those problems.
When was the last time anybody dragged and dropped anything, period? Copy and Paste is better.
I drag and drop on a regular basis. Copy and paste probably is better, but I find it more intuitive to use drag and drop. This is a personal preference of mine.