If not, file a lawsuit, because the service provider is outside of the DMCA liability shield, and is subject to suit for damages and injunctive relief for the infringment.
If the service provider tries to put you through additional hoops and draw the process out, well, as long as you do what is required and document it, they're the one's left holding the bag.
The interesting thing is, once you take off the OMG DMCA blinders, that is all considerably more heavy-handed than what the SFWA did in this instance.
The great part about selling desktop software targetted to Linux: they can leave the others behind and still hemorrage money. Better to work with one of the WINE groups to make sure their software has a fighting chance of running under WINE.
Microsoft is not evil. They engage in some unfair business practices, and make a lot of pretty mediocre products. To call that evil trivializes truly evil actions, like the ongoing genocide in Sudan.
More to the point, it trivializes the evil of the earlier monopolists in American history. Nobody's ever accused Microsoft of having dozens of labor organizers killed...
No number of lives saved can wash away the evil of having been mean to Borland, Netscape, Novell, and countless others. Giving consumers what they wanted cheaper than those other companies is the kind of evil that will be remembered for millenia.
Buffet would have been better off setting up an independent foundation making independent funding decisions
He has one. He thought it wiser to donate to a good foundation that had already scaled up to handle such large sums of money. It's in the interview that's floating about...
While Warren may trust Bill and Melinda to use the money wisely (he is older and probably anticipates dying before them), what happens when Bill and Melinda are gone too?
If neither of them are still handling the foundation, Buffett's estate will stop donating BRK-B stock to the foundation.
How is it that OSX, which contains many of the features that Vista is due to have, shipped years ago?
Release date is not the appropriate metric for comparison. The appropriate metric would be how long each took to develop from project start to project finish. Developing OS X took a really long time any way you slice it, and the early versions were crap.
What good does a vast column of tanks do if they're nuked? What about an aircraft carrier group? How about nuking a vital land crossing - you kill the troops already there and prevent more from making the passage by contaminating it.
The problem is that the United States, knowing that Iran had a nuclear capability, wouldn't line up its tanks to be incinerated. They'd just destroy the nukes during the first part of the war, and Iran would never see the attack coming. Nukes don't automatically trump a vastly superior conventional force.
When you're dealing with an enemy that truely beleives that god is on their side, you cannot expect them to behave rationally when threatened directly. Do you realy expect a theocratic dictator to fear fallout or the lose of his countrymen?
When I said nukes weren't especially useful for defense, I meant it, but I didn't mean to imply that Iran is necessarily going to recognize that fact. Plenty of governments get hardons for nuclear capability when they'd pretty obviously be better off building up their conventional forces instead of, or at least before considering, building nukes.
That said, up until this point Iran's approach hasn't been particularly irrational. They threaten to build them, we and the Europeans pretty much have to honor the threat, which starts with negotiations. If they're smart they'll take whatever concessions they can get, which might very well mean letting us build their reactors for them. And letting the IAEA monitor their reactors, which doesn't really cost them anything.
Well, you can stop there. It'd be stupid for the US or Israel to allow that. I can't for the life of me imagine why Israel would sit down for that while the nutjob who runs Iran is busy calling for their destruction, never mind the United States. Remember Osirak.
But! Iran has nukes. Not many. Not enough to destroy the United States, but certainly enough to massacre any army that crosses its borders.
Nuclear weapons aren't especially useful for defense.
No. Suddenly the price of war with Iran is too high. You back off. Iran's nuclear capability has protected them from invasion without having to fire a shot.
The only sense in which an Iran with nuclear weapons and intermediate-range delivery systems has upped the ante against the United States is by necessitating the the destruction of those weapons, possibly through the use of nukes on the part of the Americans, in the event of a conflict. They'd make everyone really nervous, but if they aren't used preemptively, they're easy enough to destroy.
And if they are used preemptively, Iran is glass. So they're kind of useless.
Given that the US seems fully ready to use military force in the middle east, what possible reason would Iran have for NOT building nukes? Nukes make a wonderful deterrant after all. Not especially, no.
Mutually assured destruction worked for deterrence in the Cold War because both sides were, by virtue of having overwhelming force, paralyzed into inaction. Having a few nukes and a weak delivery system won't give Iran that. We can survive a nuclear exchange with Iran if we have to, we can wipe out their arsenal preemptively if we decide we have to.
Developing nukes actively would make them a serious threat which would be easy to defeat via preemptive action. That's not a situation I'd especially want to be in if I were Iran.
The US still has nukes because the US is likely to need them in the future as a deterrent.
They're pretty much useless as a deterrent, except against other nukes, when used in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario against another superpower. They're useless for the United States as it exists post-USSR, since you can't threaten to nuke countries and keep up the pretense that you're fighting for your enemy's benefit. Which is what we're about now, apparently.
The US would park a battle fleet off the coat of Taiwan, drop a few thousand marines on the shore, and start sinking anything that tried to cross the channel despite the fact that it would be rumbling with the most populace nation in the world off of its own coast.
And what they wouldn't do is nuke hundreds of millions of people in China. Which begs the question: what the fuck are all the nukes for?
Look at the guy in the northeast who set off fireworks in doors and led to 100 people dying and he only got 4 years!
What the news didn't mention was that he also got 15 years on a second count, making 100 people listen to Great White. That one, the judge just couldn't forgive.
I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.
You must be pretty young, it never used to be required to cross the Canadian border.
What's funny (in a sad way) is that people never learn. They say "Double-digit inflation can't possibly happen, because we have the federal reserve to protect us!"
We would have to have double-digit inflation for several years to sustain the current gold prices.
Or maybe gold will remain high while the dollar plummets like a rock. Why doesn't the rest of the world yet realize that the US produces little to no value?
But I find that DNR staff, ecological speakers visiting schools, reporters, etc all have cheerfully and unquestioningly swallowed the Kool Aide on this because of its SEMINAL impact and justification of the environmental movement. To be fair, when confronted constructively about it, are rather shocked but eventually persuaded that there MIGHT be some doubt...which is a lot when you're attacking such a sacred cow. However, I have yet to see anyone subsequently change their presentation, curricula, or (effectively) beliefs.
I read an article in Scientific American about 9 years ago which put forward the idea that using DDT would be better than the alternative in Africa. I don't think it's that the idea is really fringe, I think it's that the people who control the purse strings haven't been convinced this is the way to go yet. I'm not sure how the politics plays out but that might mean "the American voter" has yet to be convinced.
Gold is traditionally a very good (if not excellent) hedge against inflation
Not when it's priced the way it is lately, based on pure speculation. Gold prices will revert to the mean soon enough (drop like a rock), while the value of the dollar will continue to drop gradually.
We aren't seeing all of it in the stores - yet - but it's coming. The prices of precious metals [kitco.com] are a good indicator of what's going on.
One can only assume the second sentence is meant to mean "a good indicator of what's about to happen", in light of the first sentence. Which is still wrong.
Look, think about where gold prices were five years ago and imagine the worst possible inflation one could reasonably expect this decade based on past trends. The increase in the price of gold isn't just a reflection of that inflation increase, is it? It's already far beyond that.
Gold prices aren't necessarily an indicator of anything other than gold supply and demand, which can come from all kinds of places. Pure speculation in this latest case. Eventually people will get sick of holding gold (or silver) and cash out.
What's going on with copper is at least a little more interesting.
I met a traveler from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed, And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Slashdot Mirror
Like OH MY GOD
That would be bad.
The interesting thing is, once you take off the OMG DMCA blinders, that is all considerably more heavy-handed than what the SFWA did in this instance.
In the US they are, under federal law. You might have a point in some hand-wavey, disconnected from objective reality idealistic way.
The great part about selling desktop software targetted to Linux: they can leave the others behind and still hemorrage money. Better to work with one of the WINE groups to make sure their software has a fighting chance of running under WINE.
More to the point, it trivializes the evil of the earlier monopolists in American history. Nobody's ever accused Microsoft of having dozens of labor organizers killed...
He's Warren Buffett. I'm guessing influence isn't a problem...
No number of lives saved can wash away the evil of having been mean to Borland, Netscape, Novell, and countless others. Giving consumers what they wanted cheaper than those other companies is the kind of evil that will be remembered for millenia.
He has one. He thought it wiser to donate to a good foundation that had already scaled up to handle such large sums of money. It's in the interview that's floating about...
If neither of them are still handling the foundation, Buffett's estate will stop donating BRK-B stock to the foundation.
Release date is not the appropriate metric for comparison. The appropriate metric would be how long each took to develop from project start to project finish. Developing OS X took a really long time any way you slice it, and the early versions were crap.
The problem is that the United States, knowing that Iran had a nuclear capability, wouldn't line up its tanks to be incinerated. They'd just destroy the nukes during the first part of the war, and Iran would never see the attack coming. Nukes don't automatically trump a vastly superior conventional force.
When I said nukes weren't especially useful for defense, I meant it, but I didn't mean to imply that Iran is necessarily going to recognize that fact. Plenty of governments get hardons for nuclear capability when they'd pretty obviously be better off building up their conventional forces instead of, or at least before considering, building nukes.
That said, up until this point Iran's approach hasn't been particularly irrational. They threaten to build them, we and the Europeans pretty much have to honor the threat, which starts with negotiations. If they're smart they'll take whatever concessions they can get, which might very well mean letting us build their reactors for them. And letting the IAEA monitor their reactors, which doesn't really cost them anything.
Well, you can stop there. It'd be stupid for the US or Israel to allow that. I can't for the life of me imagine why Israel would sit down for that while the nutjob who runs Iran is busy calling for their destruction, never mind the United States. Remember Osirak.
Nuclear weapons aren't especially useful for defense.
The only sense in which an Iran with nuclear weapons and intermediate-range delivery systems has upped the ante against the United States is by necessitating the the destruction of those weapons, possibly through the use of nukes on the part of the Americans, in the event of a conflict. They'd make everyone really nervous, but if they aren't used preemptively, they're easy enough to destroy.
And if they are used preemptively, Iran is glass. So they're kind of useless.
Given that the US seems fully ready to use military force in the middle east, what possible reason would Iran have for NOT building nukes? Nukes make a wonderful deterrant after all.
Not especially, no.
Mutually assured destruction worked for deterrence in the Cold War because both sides were, by virtue of having overwhelming force, paralyzed into inaction. Having a few nukes and a weak delivery system won't give Iran that. We can survive a nuclear exchange with Iran if we have to, we can wipe out their arsenal preemptively if we decide we have to.
Developing nukes actively would make them a serious threat which would be easy to defeat via preemptive action. That's not a situation I'd especially want to be in if I were Iran.
They're pretty much useless as a deterrent, except against other nukes, when used in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario against another superpower. They're useless for the United States as it exists post-USSR, since you can't threaten to nuke countries and keep up the pretense that you're fighting for your enemy's benefit. Which is what we're about now, apparently.
And what they wouldn't do is nuke hundreds of millions of people in China. Which begs the question: what the fuck are all the nukes for?
What the news didn't mention was that he also got 15 years on a second count, making 100 people listen to Great White. That one, the judge just couldn't forgive.
That's a little judgemental!
He's not what you'd call intelligent, but at least he's nice and friendly. Fun at parties.
You must be pretty young, it never used to be required to cross the Canadian border.
We would have to have double-digit inflation for several years to sustain the current gold prices.
Probably for the obvious reason: it's horseshit.
I read an article in Scientific American about 9 years ago which put forward the idea that using DDT would be better than the alternative in Africa. I don't think it's that the idea is really fringe, I think it's that the people who control the purse strings haven't been convinced this is the way to go yet. I'm not sure how the politics plays out but that might mean "the American voter" has yet to be convinced.
Not when it's priced the way it is lately, based on pure speculation. Gold prices will revert to the mean soon enough (drop like a rock), while the value of the dollar will continue to drop gradually.
One can only assume the second sentence is meant to mean "a good indicator of what's about to happen", in light of the first sentence. Which is still wrong.
Look, think about where gold prices were five years ago and imagine the worst possible inflation one could reasonably expect this decade based on past trends. The increase in the price of gold isn't just a reflection of that inflation increase, is it? It's already far beyond that.
Gold prices aren't necessarily an indicator of anything other than gold supply and demand, which can come from all kinds of places. Pure speculation in this latest case. Eventually people will get sick of holding gold (or silver) and cash out.
What's going on with copper is at least a little more interesting.
Most of that is open source, and no longer revolutionary in any case.
All their important graphics IP has already been sold. To Microsoft.
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.