... there is no law to prevent Discovery from airing facts...
There is also no law that requires the credit card companies to spend their advertising dollars on the Discovery Channel, or any other media outlet owned by the same company. That's what this is all about.
The new Firefox behavior is probably the right choice for sites on the public Internet. However, it's hell when dealing with embedded devices. Many network devices offer an HTTPS management interface, and almost all use a self-signed certificate. Some offer the option to install a "real" certificate, but many don't. Even if the option is available, it's only really usable by organizations with their own internal Public Key Infrastructure. Firefox needs a better way of dealing with routers, switches, webcams, etc.
People using Linux on BigIron(tm) bank on 24/7/365/25years uptime.
I doubt there are many people running Linux on true Big Iron. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that most Big Iron runs something else. I know many financial institutions and telecom operators use HP NonStop systems. These can stay up 24/7/365/25years, and you pay millions of dollars for that. They have full redundant hardware inside the box, run a proprietary OS, and proprietary applications.
Trying to keep one server up 24/7/365 is a usually mistake. You'll never achieve 100% uptime. A much better idea is to use clustering and distributed computing so your overall system can survive the loss of individual servers.
Hit them where it hurts: right where people are deciding which ISP to go with.
That only works if there is actual competition. In most large cities, customers have only two choices. They can go with cable modem service from Some Big Cable Company or DSL service from Some Big Telecom Company. Both usually suck. People living in smaller communities often have no choice at all.
The customers of these asshole ISP's may not be able to stop them, but web site owners might. HTML code is frequently copyrighted. Injecting Javascript into a web page creates an unauthorized derivative work. Some webmaster needs to start sending DMCA takedown notices to ISP's using these ad injection proxies.
If there's one thing the Windows OS team is good at, it's backwards compatibility. I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista. The SQL Server team must have fucked up something big for their code to fail on Vista.
This 'public distribution' scenario either requires some sort of authority to approve the drivers
No, it doesn't.
I believe that the owner of the computer should have the authority to decide for themselves what drivers to load. Digital signatures are one way to make that decision, but they aren't the only way. If I want to run an unsigned driver, that should be my choice, and I shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and see punative messages on my desktop as a result.
You can now self-sign certificates for those drivers in Vista.
Nope, YOU got it wrong. You can only self-sign TEST certificates. Test certs are not a very attractive option for wide deployment. Users must run bcdedit to enable test certs, and then they'll get "Test Mode" or something similar displayed on the four corners of the desktop. Not exactly a level playing field for open source drivers.
There was a time when the market valued innovative technology and outstanding design. That time has passed. "The HP Way" evolved in an environment where companies could sell premium products at premium prices. That environment no longer exists. If customers want low prices and are less concerned about quality, manufacturers will churn out low priced shit. When specialty businesses become commodity businesses, the high quality/high cost producers tend to get squeezed out. Carly didn't cause this shift in the marketplace, she just didn't have a fucking clue how to respond to it.
Let's say somebody puts a bomb in a shipping container, loads it on a boat bound for your country, and it blows up in your harbor. According to you, no crime was commited in your country.
You seem to have forgotten to indicate any reason why you would see this as acceptable.
I didn't forget -- I just thought it was obvious. For the benefit of the slow learners in the class, I'll repeat myself: Domain name registrars should not get into the content policing business. Today it's spam, which everybody agrees is terrible and should be stopped. Tomorrow it will be with some other type of disfavored content.
Why would you force registrars to act according to your will?
I see it the other way around -- the registrar is trying to force their will on me. GoDaddy is making a value judgement based on the content associated with the domain name. By disabling the name, they are removing my ability to access that content (yeah, sure, I could do it by IP address, but we have DNS for a reason).
I have no problem with RBL services, even ones run by assholes with an axe to grind. People are free to use an RBL to filter their incoming mail. I choose not to, but that's my choice, and I don't have a problem with you making a different choice for your inbox. I believe this is totally different than a registrar holding domain names hostage because of content associated with those names. In the current case, GoDaddy is making a value judgement for everybody else on the Internet, including ME, and I never gave them that authority.
Why should a domain name registrar be less responsible for spammers than hosting ISPs?
I see fundamental difference between the provision of naming and hosting/IP services. I believe naming should be provided on a "common carrier" basis, without regard to content. Spam is a problem, but some solutions are worse. The precedent set today with spam will be applied to other disfavored content tomorrow.
Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?
Once we allow domain registrars to become the Spam Police, very soon there will be political pressure for them to become the Content Police. It starts with spam and kiddie pron -- content that 99.999% of the world agrees is wrong. I guarantee it won't stop there.
The motion to sever the defendants may well succeed. In that case the RIAA will be forced to file separate lawsuits against each John Doe, costing them additional filing fees. This may slow them down for a few nanoseconds, but it won't stop them. They'll refile.
The motion to quash the subpoena is more interesting. Can the RIAA document the alleged copyright infringement with greater specificity? If not, the subpoena could be quashed, and this John Doe will skate. That won't stop the RIAA from suing other John Doe's using similarly flawed evidence. It will still be up to each John Doe to fight back, using their own time and money.
Remember, it's the legal system, not the justice system.
Too bad about that whole torturing and killing dissidents thing. Oh, wait, we do that too. Never mind.
BULLSHIT!
Tell me exactly, which dissidents is the USA torturing and killing? Somebody who intentionally targets civilians for violence is not a dissident -- they're a fucking terrorist! If you don't like the word "terrorist", how about "mass murderer." It shows a high degree of moral confusion on your part to equate Chinese dissidents seeking increased human rights by peaceful means, and terrorist thugs using violence.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also no law that requires the credit card companies to spend their advertising dollars on the Discovery Channel, or any other media outlet owned by the same company. That's what this is all about.
The new Firefox behavior is probably the right choice for sites on the public Internet. However, it's hell when dealing with embedded devices. Many network devices offer an HTTPS management interface, and almost all use a self-signed certificate. Some offer the option to install a "real" certificate, but many don't. Even if the option is available, it's only really usable by organizations with their own internal Public Key Infrastructure. Firefox needs a better way of dealing with routers, switches, webcams, etc.
People using Linux on BigIron(tm) bank on 24/7/365/25years uptime.
I doubt there are many people running Linux on true Big Iron. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that most Big Iron runs something else. I know many financial institutions and telecom operators use HP NonStop systems. These can stay up 24/7/365/25years, and you pay millions of dollars for that. They have full redundant hardware inside the box, run a proprietary OS, and proprietary applications.
Trying to keep one server up 24/7/365 is a usually mistake. You'll never achieve 100% uptime. A much better idea is to use clustering and distributed computing so your overall system can survive the loss of individual servers.
That's all I want: a pipe.
"Just a pipe" service is readily available. Call up your favorite backbone provider and ask about a T1. It ain't cheap, but it is available.
The bad news is they have to use the DMCA.
I disagree -- this is great news! Stick it to The Man by using his own laws against him.
Hit them where it hurts: right where people are deciding which ISP to go with.
That only works if there is actual competition. In most large cities, customers have only two choices. They can go with cable modem service from Some Big Cable Company or DSL service from Some Big Telecom Company. Both usually suck. People living in smaller communities often have no choice at all.
The customers of these asshole ISP's may not be able to stop them, but web site owners might. HTML code is frequently copyrighted. Injecting Javascript into a web page creates an unauthorized derivative work. Some webmaster needs to start sending DMCA takedown notices to ISP's using these ad injection proxies.
The problem isn't .NET. The problem is the VC1 video CODEC, which is patented.
If there's one thing the Windows OS team is good at, it's backwards compatibility. I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista. The SQL Server team must have fucked up something big for their code to fail on Vista.
Prison is for punishment. He should be forced to write Windows software. :-)
Self signing doesn't work for x64 drivers. You must use a certificate from one of Microsoft's approved certificate authorities (e.g. Verisign).
See Digital Signatures for Kernel Modules on x64-based Systems Running Windows Vista.
This 'public distribution' scenario either requires some sort of authority to approve the drivers
No, it doesn't.
I believe that the owner of the computer should have the authority to decide for themselves what drivers to load. Digital signatures are one way to make that decision, but they aren't the only way. If I want to run an unsigned driver, that should be my choice, and I shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and see punative messages on my desktop as a result.
You can now self-sign certificates for those drivers in Vista.
Nope, YOU got it wrong. You can only self-sign TEST certificates. Test certs are not a very attractive option for wide deployment. Users must run bcdedit to enable test certs, and then they'll get "Test Mode" or something similar displayed on the four corners of the desktop. Not exactly a level playing field for open source drivers.
See Microsoft's documentation for the details.
There was a time when the market valued innovative technology and outstanding design. That time has passed. "The HP Way" evolved in an environment where companies could sell premium products at premium prices. That environment no longer exists. If customers want low prices and are less concerned about quality, manufacturers will churn out low priced shit. When specialty businesses become commodity businesses, the high quality/high cost producers tend to get squeezed out. Carly didn't cause this shift in the marketplace, she just didn't have a fucking clue how to respond to it.
Let's say somebody puts a bomb in a shipping container, loads it on a boat bound for your country, and it blows up in your harbor. According to you, no crime was commited in your country.
You seem to have forgotten to indicate any reason why you would see this as acceptable.
I didn't forget -- I just thought it was obvious. For the benefit of the slow learners in the class, I'll repeat myself: Domain name registrars should not get into the content policing business. Today it's spam, which everybody agrees is terrible and should be stopped. Tomorrow it will be with some other type of disfavored content.
Why would you force registrars to act according to your will?
I see it the other way around -- the registrar is trying to force their will on me. GoDaddy is making a value judgement based on the content associated with the domain name. By disabling the name, they are removing my ability to access that content (yeah, sure, I could do it by IP address, but we have DNS for a reason).
I have no problem with RBL services, even ones run by assholes with an axe to grind. People are free to use an RBL to filter their incoming mail. I choose not to, but that's my choice, and I don't have a problem with you making a different choice for your inbox. I believe this is totally different than a registrar holding domain names hostage because of content associated with those names. In the current case, GoDaddy is making a value judgement for everybody else on the Internet, including ME, and I never gave them that authority.
Why should a domain name registrar be less responsible for spammers than hosting ISPs?
I see fundamental difference between the provision of naming and hosting/IP services. I believe naming should be provided on a "common carrier" basis, without regard to content. Spam is a problem, but some solutions are worse. The precedent set today with spam will be applied to other disfavored content tomorrow.
Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?
Yes.
Once we allow domain registrars to become the Spam Police, very soon there will be political pressure for them to become the Content Police. It starts with spam and kiddie pron -- content that 99.999% of the world agrees is wrong. I guarantee it won't stop there.
SFU is more like POSIX--. It's about buzzword compliance, not about being useful.
The motion to sever the defendants may well succeed. In that case the RIAA will be forced to file separate lawsuits against each John Doe, costing them additional filing fees. This may slow them down for a few nanoseconds, but it won't stop them. They'll refile.
The motion to quash the subpoena is more interesting. Can the RIAA document the alleged copyright infringement with greater specificity? If not, the subpoena could be quashed, and this John Doe will skate. That won't stop the RIAA from suing other John Doe's using similarly flawed evidence. It will still be up to each John Doe to fight back, using their own time and money.
Remember, it's the legal system, not the justice system.
Too bad about that whole torturing and killing dissidents thing. Oh, wait, we do that too. Never mind.
BULLSHIT!
Tell me exactly, which dissidents is the USA torturing and killing? Somebody who intentionally targets civilians for violence is not a dissident -- they're a fucking terrorist! If you don't like the word "terrorist", how about "mass murderer." It shows a high degree of moral confusion on your part to equate Chinese dissidents seeking increased human rights by peaceful means, and terrorist thugs using violence.
I don't actually mind paying the buck or two for the USF, as I see it as a worthy cause.
Good for you! Feel free to donate as much of your own money to that cause as you want.
I'll never understand folks who pay $4 for a cup of Starbuck's coffee every morning, but complain about the chump change they contribute to the USF.
The difference is that nobody is forcing you to spend $4 at Starbuck's, but you want to force other people to pay into USF.