It seems obvious to me that if you allow programs to be protected under copyright law, which is designed to protect specific forms of speech then it should also be granted the protections of free speech.
Binaries are a less obvious point, should they be protected under copyright law? i.e. you can't copyright a hammer, can you? But they could be patented as a device -- and this would be good because to patent something you need to describe its operation.
1) Fraudulent CC usage needs to be reported within 90 days IIRC, and has much more protection than checking accounts (you are only responsible for $50 of the fraudulent charges, although I suspect it can be hard to prove which charges are fraudulent)
2) One other agency interested to hear would be the mail fraud division of the Postal Service (since the Netpliance was mail ordered).
In case you don't know about it, you can get IE power toys(tools?) that allow you to move something from the default to the trusted or restriced zone just by clicking on a menu item, rather than going in and explicitly adding it to the zone you choose. I agreee its not perfect but it does make it pretty easy to deal with cookie and javascript (although it is a pain on the sites that use www1.company.com, www2.company.com, etc. since they are all considered individual sites).
Actually isn't this what biometrics is all about, your "DNA serial number" is just your thumbprint, iris pattern, retina, etc.
This has been used for quite a while at high security government facillities, and is starting to move into main stream applications, and yes privacy issues are coming up. (IMO the best solution to the privacy issues is that the "vendor" or whoever does not store your information in their systems, your info is simply compared to the information on your card to verify your ID)
Unfortunately that measure has been made, Amazon SUED B&N for patent infringement on thier 1-click patent, in which a preliminary injunction has been issued for B&N to cease and desist using "1-click technology". This shows Amazon's willingness to aggressively use their patents.
I actually think RMS's response shows quite a bit of compromise, he states that he understands why Amazon needs its patents (although doesn't like it) and only wants them to discontinue the agressive use of them against competitors.
But these two things are not mutually exclusive, the ideal UI for *nix would be one that initially is limiting in configuarability (to enhance ease of use) but can be modified to be highly configurable (so power users can change the interface to make it work efficiently for them)
The problem is that neither *nix nor Windows solves both these problems, Windows is skewed toward the initial user making it a pain to deal with to get it to do what you want quickly when you've learned it, and *nix gives you all the options too quickly for it to have a gentle learning curve for new users.
You forgot to add the Sonny Bono extension of copyright to perpetuity (or there abouts, any one care to place a wager that copyrights get extended again in ~2035, when Disney needs to protect its IP again).
IIRC it is if the year is divisible by 4, except if divisible by 100, unless the yaer is divisible by 400. Again IIRC 1600 was the last leap year at the turn of a century.
There's a fairly good article over at Tom's hardware guide describing some of the recent mis-steps by intel in their processor line (one that sticks out is the RAMBUS decision) and why they have a hard time changing direction (long plan for releases, if it they make a mistake and it changes it messes up the whole thing).
I was upset that the reporter missed the obvious follow-up question to Valenti's assertion that this case is about controlling theft,
How do you respond to the assertion that DeCSS while allowing copying of DVD content is IN NO WAY NECESSARY to copy that content and in fact CSS only restricts access to viewing that content?
Oh well, I didn't really expect that question because the reporter asserts that the DeCSS case is about copy protection in the second paragraph before the interview even starts.
I have heard a number of times on/. that the content can be copied bit by bit (which seems to make a lot of sense), I'd like to know if anyone has actually done this, if so then Valenti's arguments are completely bogus.
There is a current example of this which can be read here : http://www.abcnews. go.com/sections/tech/CNET/cnet_prop000208.html Basically this company is suing computer manufacturers (Compaq,Dell,Gateway,etc.) because they patented the IDEA of combining voice video and data, thus a computer with a netmeeting package or possibly web browser, a sound card, and a modem is in violation of their patent. This is the kind of patent that is really stupid, they don't have an actual device, or even an idea for a device in the patent, but when somebody combines existing devices in a way that realizes their idea they think they have a right to share in the profits.
Yes I agree. I think this is one of the points the author of the article was trying to make, which has been interpreted as saying the Linux interface doesn't work. I believe one of the things suggested in the article is why is the open source model not good at creating a SUPERIOR interface like it is at creating superior code. The article is trying to show why the standard approach used by open source is not improving the interface design as fast as it is improving code design, which is a valid point. Don't try to make it as good as windows, would you be satisfied with code that was as good as windows code, I think not.
Ah, but if you write your diary in a code language only you understand are you required to translate the document for the government, so they can use the document against you.
Note this does not forbid the government from trying to translate it themselves, which in this case they apparently couldn't or didn't think it was worth the trouble.
Now the question is does the government have to give back the untranslated diary to you as it is your siezed property and 1) was not used as evidence against you and 2) they could not read it or never made the attempt.
I have a question though does the government routinely not give back documents (such as financial or customer records) to illegal enterprises such as illegal gambling and prostitution who might keep their records in code (encrypted on a computer or a hand written code) if so it seems this might be a similar case if the reason they withhold these documents is to prevent them from being used in promoting that illeagal enterprise.
I'm surprised this hasn't come up in the courts in this context (maybe their codes are just easy to break)
As has been said before you can do this by simply directing the output of the DVD player into the input of a video capture device (VCR, video card with tv in, etc.) that can encode in mpeg format. I don't think this is a legitimate fear for the DVD industry because one of the reasons to get a DVD is the high quality picture and the additional features. In other words, why deal with copying a DVD to mpeg if you can just do the same thing with little or no difference in quality from a VCR tape?
The true people illegally copying DVDs for resale are doing it by pressing bit by bit copies to preserve the high quality digital nature of the medium.
Intel really missed an oportunity here they could have gotten everyone looking for p0rn to go to their site, and they just had to follow the standard they set with the pentium.
The problem here is that the virus is NOT an attachment so the old adage "Don't open attachments and you'll be OK" doesn't apply to this type of virus mearly selecting the message and previewing it can infect your machine without opening any attachments. You need to do one of the following, download the patch, set the email reader to high security settings (so active scripting etc. is not excecuted), or change to read mail in plain text rather than HTML format. Which solutions work depend on which version of Outlook is being used.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems obvious to me that if you allow programs to be protected under copyright law, which is designed to protect specific forms of speech then it should also be granted the protections of free speech.
Binaries are a less obvious point, should they be protected under copyright law? i.e. you can't copyright a hammer, can you? But they could be patented as a device -- and this would be good because to patent something you need to describe its operation.
--just my 2cents
You too can generate these posts using the handy dandy Dialectizer!!: Here's the swedish chef in Pig latin (This is twice as funny right?): Umyay eday urhay eday urhay eday urhay. Ununymuoosyay inyay Indyyay eetesvray: "Usay yuoo'fe-aay ootshay ooffffyay yuooray uukeeescay, uckedblay use-athay unner-edbay eetessay, undyay instelledyay Oonkboosterjay. Urtyhay urtyflay ippschnay ippschnay! Eeleengfay ecoore-asay inyay yuooray ununymeetyyay? Ellvay, Erteenmay Uulpay etyay Eenooxcere-alay Oostreleeayay oosknay ayay eyvay eeyzay uncay eellstay ecktray yuooay eevhay yuooay oorffsay: Ybay useengyay eezay hTTPay eche-a-cuntrulcay eederhay. Urtyhay urtyflay ippschnay ippschnay! It'syay erfay ure-amay efeeuoosday unthay uukeeescay, undyay ure-amay eefffficooltday utay uckblay, uutay. Eeshay erteecle-ayay Eezay Eunteeme-amay Ixplueetyay eellvay eefe-agay yuooay ayay escreepshunday undyay ayay emunstreshunday." Esyay ayay unoosbay, Erteen'smay eetingvray isyay oonnyfay undyay eerclay. Urtyhay urtyflay ippschnay ippschnay! Elcume-avay utay Underdstay Erunueeapay Eeme-atay.
Yeah, and I seem to remember TWO anti gravity articles right here on slashdot that some people took seriously.
It's a real program read it from their site: Waveamerica
Two small points,
1) Fraudulent CC usage needs to be reported within 90 days IIRC, and has much more protection than checking accounts (you are only responsible for $50 of the fraudulent charges, although I suspect it can be hard to prove which charges are fraudulent)
2) One other agency interested to hear would be the mail fraud division of the Postal Service (since the Netpliance was mail ordered).
In case you don't know about it, you can get IE power toys(tools?) that allow you to move something from the default to the trusted or restriced zone just by clicking on a menu item, rather than going in and explicitly adding it to the zone you choose. I agreee its not perfect but it does make it pretty easy to deal with cookie and javascript (although it is a pain on the sites that use www1.company.com, www2.company.com, etc. since they are all considered individual sites).
Actually isn't this what biometrics is all about, your "DNA serial number" is just your thumbprint, iris pattern, retina, etc.
This has been used for quite a while at high security government facillities, and is starting to move into main stream applications, and yes privacy issues are coming up. (IMO the best solution to the privacy issues is that the "vendor" or whoever does not store your information in their systems, your info is simply compared to the information on your card to verify your ID)
Unfortunately that measure has been made, Amazon SUED B&N for patent infringement on thier 1-click patent, in which a preliminary injunction has been issued for B&N to cease and desist using "1-click technology". This shows Amazon's willingness to aggressively use their patents.
I actually think RMS's response shows quite a bit of compromise, he states that he understands why Amazon needs its patents (although doesn't like it) and only wants them to discontinue the agressive use of them against competitors.
But these two things are not mutually exclusive, the ideal UI for *nix would be one that initially is limiting in configuarability (to enhance ease of use) but can be modified to be highly configurable (so power users can change the interface to make it work efficiently for them)
The problem is that neither *nix nor Windows solves both these problems, Windows is skewed toward the initial user making it a pain to deal with to get it to do what you want quickly when you've learned it, and *nix gives you all the options too quickly for it to have a gentle learning curve for new users.
You forgot to add the Sonny Bono extension of copyright to perpetuity (or there abouts, any one care to place a wager that copyrights get extended again in ~2035, when Disney needs to protect its IP again).
just thought I'd correct that.
IIRC it is if the year is divisible by 4, except if divisible by 100, unless the yaer is divisible by 400. Again IIRC 1600 was the last leap year at the turn of a century.
There's a fairly good article over at Tom's hardware guide describing some of the recent mis-steps by intel in their processor line (one that sticks out is the RAMBUS decision) and why they have a hard time changing direction (long plan for releases, if it they make a mistake and it changes it messes up the whole thing).
You're right except what do they use to measure frequencies 0.6% really sucks for GHz level frequency measurements, 1ppm isn't very hard.
However the fluctuations in the clock frequency could be on the order of 0.6% but that still seems high to me.
I was upset that the reporter missed the obvious follow-up question to Valenti's assertion that this case is about controlling theft,
How do you respond to the assertion that DeCSS while allowing copying of DVD content is IN NO WAY NECESSARY to copy that content and in fact CSS only restricts access to viewing that content?
Oh well, I didn't really expect that question because the reporter asserts that the DeCSS case is about copy protection in the second paragraph before the interview even starts.
I have heard a number of times on /. that the content can be copied bit by bit (which seems to make a lot of sense), I'd like to know if anyone has actually done this, if so then Valenti's arguments are completely bogus.
There is a current example of this which can be read here : http://www.abcnews. go.com/sections/tech/CNET/cnet_prop000208.html Basically this company is suing computer manufacturers (Compaq,Dell,Gateway,etc.) because they patented the IDEA of combining voice video and data, thus a computer with a netmeeting package or possibly web browser, a sound card, and a modem is in violation of their patent. This is the kind of patent that is really stupid, they don't have an actual device, or even an idea for a device in the patent, but when somebody combines existing devices in a way that realizes their idea they think they have a right to share in the profits.
Al Gore the father of the internet, enshrined within the hallowed halls of the Smithsonian.
Yes I agree. I think this is one of the points the author of the article was trying to make, which has been interpreted as saying the Linux interface doesn't work. I believe one of the things suggested in the article is why is the open source model not good at creating a SUPERIOR interface like it is at creating superior code. The article is trying to show why the standard approach used by open source is not improving the interface design as fast as it is improving code design, which is a valid point. Don't try to make it as good as windows, would you be satisfied with code that was as good as windows code, I think not.
Ah, but if you write your diary in a code language only you understand are you required to translate the document for the government, so they can use the document against you.
Note this does not forbid the government from trying to translate it themselves, which in this case they apparently couldn't or didn't think it was worth the trouble.
Now the question is does the government have to give back the untranslated diary to you as it is your siezed property and 1) was not used as evidence against you and 2) they could not read it or never made the attempt.
I have a question though does the government routinely not give back documents (such as financial or customer records) to illegal enterprises such as illegal gambling and prostitution who might keep their records in code (encrypted on a computer or a hand written code) if so it seems this might be a similar case if the reason they withhold these documents is to prevent them from being used in promoting that illeagal enterprise.
I'm surprised this hasn't come up in the courts in this context (maybe their codes are just easy to break)
As has been said before you can do this by simply directing the output of the DVD player into the input of a video capture device (VCR, video card with tv in, etc.) that can encode in mpeg format. I don't think this is a legitimate fear for the DVD industry because one of the reasons to get a DVD is the high quality picture and the additional features. In other words, why deal with copying a DVD to mpeg if you can just do the same thing with little or no difference in quality from a VCR tape?
The true people illegally copying DVDs for resale are doing it by pressing bit by bit copies to preserve the high quality digital nature of the medium.
So do you have something against MDT?
Antiseptic != antibiotic.
Intel really missed an oportunity here they could have gotten everyone looking for p0rn to go to their site, and they just had to follow the standard they set with the pentium.
The problem here is that the virus is NOT an attachment so the old adage "Don't open attachments and you'll be OK" doesn't apply to this type of virus mearly selecting the message and previewing it can infect your machine without opening any attachments. You need to do one of the following, download the patch, set the email reader to high security settings (so active scripting etc. is not excecuted), or change to read mail in plain text rather than HTML format. Which solutions work depend on which version of Outlook is being used.
Maybe now they should sue Disney, etc. for cybersquatting on an overly similar URL address.