"Introduce fixed fines of £750.00 minimum Introduce statutory damages of £750.00 as a minimum for each act of copyright infringement (such provision exists presently in the United States);
ISPs to provide names of internet account holders Make all Internet Service Providers produce, on request of a copyright owner or licensee, the identities of the account holders of the internet connection used for illegal file sharing of their copyrighted material. The cost of producing such information would be met by the copyright owner requesting it;
Strict liability for internet account holders Make the account holder of the internet connection strictly liable for infringements where their connection was used for illegal file sharing
Simplify the court process Streamline, simplify and speed up the court process of a copyright owner applying for the identities of the account holders from ISPs (this is presently a complex and time-consuming procedure); and
Standardise letters of claim and court documents Secure approval and consensus for standard-form letters, documents and claims making the process of notification and prosecution of an identified infringement clear and easy to understand, with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven."
IF there wasn't a huge history of racists calling black people monkeys. If black football players (both in the UK and in europe) weren't greeted with chants of "ooh ooh ooh" and didn't have bananas thrown at them, you might have had a point. As things stand, it is a very common racist insult to liken a black person to a monkey. And let's get this clear - it is a RACIST insult, not an insult about a single person, but an insult about their race.
But I'm sure the person who made the picture was absolutely horrified to discover all this, right?
OK then, what IS the implication? That she's stupid in the same manner as George Bush? Come on. I don't think so. It's obvious to anyone who's not in total denial, that the intention IS to be racist.
Fair point, but the JCB, fork-lift, jack etc., is doing the work by proxy, i.e. you are not in intimate contact with the load in the way you are with this suit. If a JCB fails you'd have to be unlucky to be underneath the load. If this suit fails, you WILL get the load dumped on you.
I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain. George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey. Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey. The former isn't racist, the latter is.
I'm not a business person, but it seems slightly (actually totally) insane to try and kill off the part of your market which is actually growing. "What? We are making more money out of rentals than we used to? We have to put a stop to this." Bizarre.
"I think some people forget that there is an endless amount of freely playable, listenable and viewable content on the web...."
I think they are well aware of it, and want to nip it in the bud by effectively outlawing it and restoring their position as the only distributors of content. While they might be genuinely concerned about piracy, I think they also realise that this is also a prime opportunity to make a land grab for all internet content.
"Just works" as in I plugged in my new printer and nothing obvious happened. "Bugger", I thought and started piddling around. After a few seconds it became apparent that rather than nothing happening, Ubuntu had detected the printer, got the drivers and set it all up for me - it just hadn't bothered to tell me it had done all this. The printer was ready for use with absolutely no input required from me.
I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that "file sharing" is illegal. It's not. Sharing *copyrighted* files is but in itself, the act of sharing isn't. The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage, but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.
The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong.
"...you are not allowed to cycle on public footpaths in the UK"
Yes you are. The Highway code says "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" but doesn't mention footpaths. A pavement is adjacent to the road (so it will have been done by Google already), a footpath isn't.
So you are happy with Windows? Cool. I was just putting my point of view forward and pointing out that when it comes to operating systems, one size does not fit all and no OS is perfect.
Is it? Why are you asking me? I have no idea who you are, what you do, or why you are wasting so much of your precious time reading and posting to Slashdot, when you imply that you have so many better and more profitable things to do.
I've been using it for 6 years now. Whether it's ready for YOUR desktop or not depends on you. Is Windows ready for the desktop? I would say "no" because it has a list of flaws that stop me using it. Being closed source is a pretty serious one for starters. There's no central software repository, you need driver disks for hardware, scripting is poor, it's got that registry thing, is suffers from bit-rot, viruses, spyware, adware... I could go on but as I'm about to say, it's pointless.
Lists of faults, blanket statements and generalising about which OS is ready or not is utterly pointless. They all have their faults and strong points. They are all desktop-ready for some people and they are all not desktop-ready for others.
Want to see if Linux is ready for your desktop? Try it out. You only have the cost of a blank CD to lose.
Communications with the bot are signed, so no, they couldn't. We could, however stop the spammers talking to their bots by owning every domain that the bots will ever try to connect to.
If someone publishes the list of all the domains that Srizbi will go to for instructions for the next few years, we can all buy one each and stop the spammers from ever regaining control.
Obvious question: Why did the good guys not set up the domains to pass instructions to the bots to kill themselves or tell them to use a hard coded C&C that was owned by the good guys?
I wanted to quickly check the ref output of a lock-in amp the other day, so I grabbed an expensive digital storage scope, waited for it to boot up, spent 5 minutes going through various menus to try to get it to actually display a waveform, swore like fuckery, gave up trying to get sense out of it and went and found a nice old analogue one that instantly displayed the wavy lines I was after.
In my environment, 99% of the time I don't need or want a user interface - I just want to see the data.
Slashdot Mirror
This is to reduce piracy. Seems reasonable.
"Introduce fixed fines of £750.00 minimum
Introduce statutory damages of £750.00 as a minimum for each act of copyright infringement (such provision exists presently in the United States);
ISPs to provide names of internet account holders
Make all Internet Service Providers produce, on request of a copyright owner or licensee, the identities of the account holders of the internet connection used for illegal file sharing of their copyrighted material. The cost of producing such information would be met by the copyright owner requesting it;
Strict liability for internet account holders
Make the account holder of the internet connection strictly liable for infringements where their connection was used for illegal file sharing
Simplify the court process
Streamline, simplify and speed up the court process of a copyright owner applying for the identities of the account holders from ISPs (this is presently a complex and time-consuming procedure); and
Standardise letters of claim and court documents
Secure approval and consensus for standard-form letters, documents and claims making the process of notification and prosecution of an identified infringement clear and easy to understand, with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven."
Sorry, did I say reasonable, I meant horrifying.
You might have a point there.
IF there wasn't a huge history of racists calling black people monkeys. If black football players (both in the UK and in europe) weren't greeted with chants of "ooh ooh ooh" and didn't have bananas thrown at them, you might have had a point. As things stand, it is a very common racist insult to liken a black person to a monkey. And let's get this clear - it is a RACIST insult, not an insult about a single person, but an insult about their race.
But I'm sure the person who made the picture was absolutely horrified to discover all this, right?
OK then, what IS the implication? That she's stupid in the same manner as George Bush? Come on. I don't think so. It's obvious to anyone who's not in total denial, that the intention IS to be racist.
Fair point, but the JCB, fork-lift, jack etc., is doing the work by proxy, i.e. you are not in intimate contact with the load in the way you are with this suit. If a JCB fails you'd have to be unlucky to be underneath the load. If this suit fails, you WILL get the load dumped on you.
I wouldn't want to be lifting something heavy if one of those suits broke and dumped the entire weight of the load on me.
I suspect you know the answer and are just trying to avoid it, but let me explain. George Bush being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult implying he is as intelligent as a monkey. Michelle Obama being photoshopped to look like a monkey is a personal insult because it is implying her race makes her equal to a monkey. The former isn't racist, the latter is.
I'm not a business person, but it seems slightly (actually totally) insane to try and kill off the part of your market which is actually growing. "What? We are making more money out of rentals than we used to? We have to put a stop to this." Bizarre.
"I think some people forget that there is an endless amount of freely playable, listenable and viewable content on the web...."
I think they are well aware of it, and want to nip it in the bud by effectively outlawing it and restoring their position as the only distributors of content. While they might be genuinely concerned about piracy, I think they also realise that this is also a prime opportunity to make a land grab for all internet content.
"Just works" as in I plugged in my new printer and nothing obvious happened. "Bugger", I thought and started piddling around. After a few seconds it became apparent that rather than nothing happening, Ubuntu had detected the printer, got the drivers and set it all up for me - it just hadn't bothered to tell me it had done all this. The printer was ready for use with absolutely no input required from me.
That's how I like things to "just work".
Or "rm ~/.bash_history" after you've done your business. There are always at least a couple of different ways of doing things with Linux.
I really do not like the way that most news outlets say that "file sharing" is illegal. It's not. Sharing *copyrighted* files is but in itself, the act of sharing isn't. The distinction is an an important one as producers of open source and even some musicians use sharing to their advantage, but it seems to be getting increasingly lost in the noise.
The danger is that the credibility of these new models will be eroded over time with the repetition of the general concept that sharing is wrong.
The first Space Pirates? Hardly...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/spacepirates/
I've bought network stuff from
http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/index.html
in the past. I'd recommend them. They also do systems.
And this has been scored as a troll because...?
"...you are not allowed to cycle on public footpaths in the UK"
Yes you are. The Highway code says "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" but doesn't mention footpaths. A pavement is adjacent to the road (so it will have been done by Google already), a footpath isn't.
So you are happy with Windows? Cool. I was just putting my point of view forward and pointing out that when it comes to operating systems, one size does not fit all and no OS is perfect.
Is it? Why are you asking me? I have no idea who you are, what you do, or why you are wasting so much of your precious time reading and posting to Slashdot, when you imply that you have so many better and more profitable things to do.
I've been using it for 6 years now. Whether it's ready for YOUR desktop or not depends on you. Is Windows ready for the desktop? I would say "no" because it has a list of flaws that stop me using it. Being closed source is a pretty serious one for starters. There's no central software repository, you need driver disks for hardware, scripting is poor, it's got that registry thing, is suffers from bit-rot, viruses, spyware, adware... I could go on but as I'm about to say, it's pointless.
Lists of faults, blanket statements and generalising about which OS is ready or not is utterly pointless. They all have their faults and strong points. They are all desktop-ready for some people and they are all not desktop-ready for others.
Want to see if Linux is ready for your desktop? Try it out. You only have the cost of a blank CD to lose.
And let's see if they will name it "Cuntflaps".
"Saxon Innovations... purchased about 180 US patents formerly owned by Advanced Micro Devices or Legerity in 2007"
Not a massive amount of innovation going on there really, is there?
Communications with the bot are signed, so no, they couldn't. We could, however stop the spammers talking to their bots by owning every domain that the bots will ever try to connect to.
If someone publishes the list of all the domains that Srizbi will go to for instructions for the next few years, we can all buy one each and stop the spammers from ever regaining control.
Obvious question: Why did the good guys not set up the domains to pass instructions to the bots to kill themselves or tell them to use a hard coded C&C that was owned by the good guys?
I wanted to quickly check the ref output of a lock-in amp the other day, so I grabbed an expensive digital storage scope, waited for it to boot up, spent 5 minutes going through various menus to try to get it to actually display a waveform, swore like fuckery, gave up trying to get sense out of it and went and found a nice old analogue one that instantly displayed the wavy lines I was after.
In my environment, 99% of the time I don't need or want a user interface - I just want to see the data.
Every computer program can be interpreted to "improve the way a system runs"...
I can't believe I'm the first person to insert a reference to Vista here. It's been 5 hours since this was written. Come on people - wake up!