I'm sorry. I guess I don't fetishize money enough to think that *whomp* the whole dynamic changes when there is money involved.
And stop trying to change the language. Advocacy is advocacy. Just because somebody 'compromises' YOUR principles doesn't mean they've compromised theirs.
I stop and think of what the religious organizations, who think nothing of funding large powerful UHF Television and Short Wave broadcasting stations to broadcast their programs.
What they would do if there was a multicasting requirement makes me realize I SHOULD buy copper futures if multicasting ever becomes a requirement on the 'regular' internet.
Yes, indeed it would. The only entities allowed onto the Torrent would be credentialed and paying movie theatres, and the content would be narrowly distributed to theatres for conventional pay-only viewing by conventional movie theatre audiences.
It would legitimize p2p distribution and establish the clear rights of content 'owners' to control how the content is distributed on p2p networks.
I suspect it would set an excellent precedent for the content owners to vigorously go after people distributing the content without their approval.
I also suspect it would suck for today's average p2p user.
Remember the only reason copyright exists is to promote growth of the public domain,
Funny how I don't remember that. Perhaps that was part of the boilereplate rhetoric expounded when the copyright act was passed.
Everything that is ever created is copyrighted. Should Federal Marshalls axe down the bedroom doors of nine year old girls because they refuse to freely publish their diaries? I'm certain there is a 'market value' for their writings, and an audience of interested readers.
Why is it any different in the case of someone who, say, decides to publish a 1000 edition release of his fiction, and never publish another copy?
One anti-trust law. Two administrations. Shouldn't the law be applied the same? Or did money get into the decisions?
Anti and Pro-corporate ideology came into play in both administrations. Money didn't 'get into the decisions,' although there was a lot of fishy doings-about-Washington by Larry Ellision and other members of the anti-Microsoft jihaad.
Naw. There was traction to be gotten by grandstanding about it as if 'the problem' could be fixed.
I would fear some mediocre 'average person' achiving powerful political office in our country. The key to 'abuse of political power by those with money' is to drastically reduce said political power, so there isn't very much to buy.
Malware can do plenty of damage without needing root privileges.
It could even be posited that Malware can do MORE damage without root privledges. Malware that does big nasty drastic things to the host system is self-extinguishing. The nastier Malware is the kind that is more incidious and less easily detected.
And, as people have said here repeatedly, it's what is in the user's home directory, i.e. the stuff s/he DOES have write access to, that is usually the most valuable data on the kind of system a 'regular user' sits at and uses.
The MS Intellimouse Pro was supposed to be an ergonomic mouse. Coincidently it had almost the same contours and curves as the Goldtouch design.
Is it some surprise that if a mouse is designed to be 'egonomic' it might look very similar? We all have the same hands, there aren't 'Goldtouch customer hands' and 'Microsoft customer hands.'
Now, if the Goldtouch design was an awkward mouse designed to look like a Sponge Bob Squarepants figure and Microsoft closely copied it, your comment would have more merit.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing. There are tards and cretins out the day after April 15th brazenly advocating higher taxes.
You're a unionized civil servant, eh?
What's wrong with the regular /etc/hosts file?
/etc/hosts?
Have they unleashed another new, non-standard boondoogle into the new systems that crufts up plain
Money 'distorts' the process?
I'm sorry. I guess I don't fetishize money enough to think that *whomp* the whole dynamic changes when there is money involved.
And stop trying to change the language. Advocacy is advocacy. Just because somebody 'compromises' YOUR principles doesn't mean they've compromised theirs.
Apple developed a whole online sales website business around a market where there are maybe 2-500 titles?
Well, I've seen people in cubicles have Citrix forced on them.
Friend or not, can the 'friend' publish it without their consent?
I'll have to settle for a smallish XBox AS/400. . .
I'm pretty sure he means the people who provided the Internet Protocol. I.e. the people who published the RFC. Was it BB&N?
I stop and think of what the religious organizations, who think nothing of funding large powerful UHF Television and Short Wave broadcasting stations to broadcast their programs.
What they would do if there was a multicasting requirement makes me realize I SHOULD buy copper futures if multicasting ever becomes a requirement on the 'regular' internet.
They have copyright protection, however. By default in the US.
If they choose to let their best friend read a page or two, are the floodgates opened?
Yes, indeed it would. The only entities allowed onto the Torrent would be credentialed and paying movie theatres, and the content would be narrowly distributed to theatres for conventional pay-only viewing by conventional movie theatre audiences.
It would legitimize p2p distribution and establish the clear rights of content 'owners' to control how the content is distributed on p2p networks.
I suspect it would set an excellent precedent for the content owners to vigorously go after people distributing the content without their approval.
I also suspect it would suck for today's average p2p user.
Shit. I thought a 'date' was 'going to WalMart together to buy cat food.'
Guess I'm on the wrong bus again...
Remember the only reason copyright exists is to promote growth of the public domain,
Funny how I don't remember that. Perhaps that was part of the boilereplate rhetoric expounded when the copyright act was passed.
Everything that is ever created is copyrighted. Should Federal Marshalls axe down the bedroom doors of nine year old girls because they refuse to freely publish their diaries? I'm certain there is a 'market value' for their writings, and an audience of interested readers.
Why is it any different in the case of someone who, say, decides to publish a 1000 edition release of his fiction, and never publish another copy?
This is complicated stuff.
This is not about free speech, free speech is letting me say what I think w/o going to jail.
This is about you going to jail if you choose to excercise your free speech on topics of political advocacy.
Without the freedom for individuals to engage in political advocacy, what is 'free speech' all about? Larry Flynt's ability to publish porn??
One anti-trust law. Two administrations. Shouldn't the law be applied the same? Or did money get into the decisions?
Anti and Pro-corporate ideology came into play in both administrations. Money didn't 'get into the decisions,' although there was a lot of fishy doings-about-Washington by Larry Ellision and other members of the anti-Microsoft jihaad.
But there was hope the problem would be fixed.
There was?
Naw. There was traction to be gotten by grandstanding about it as if 'the problem' could be fixed.
I would fear some mediocre 'average person' achiving powerful political office in our country. The key to 'abuse of political power by those with money' is to drastically reduce said political power, so there isn't very much to buy.
That would mean 'back catalog' games/books/movies would be perpetually available, for 10 times the original price.
Or does your mechanism for forcing the publishers to keep everything in print also prescribe a price they need to sell it at?
ROM downloads for fifty cents?
That means they could drum up, oh, four or five dollars in revenue from each typical customer. In 5-15 separate transactions.
That's a heck of an interesting business model.
Oh, you won't be allowed to PROGRAM in this brave new world.
Or if you are, it'll be very, very friendly. I.e. forget all about C++.
What about those of us who use Mozilla's Composer to throw up project pages from time to time?
Actually, a virus is a bit of executable stub code that spreads by attaching itself to other executables.
Malware which erupts when the user 'opens a malicious document' is a trojan.
Obviously you are not running a machine with 100s of users.
I doubt if many machines that are being used as big timesharing systems also run OpenOffice.
Really, I doubt it very much.
Malware can do plenty of damage without needing root privileges.
It could even be posited that Malware can do MORE damage without root privledges. Malware that does big nasty drastic things to the host system is self-extinguishing. The nastier Malware is the kind that is more incidious and less easily detected.
And, as people have said here repeatedly, it's what is in the user's home directory, i.e. the stuff s/he DOES have write access to, that is usually the most valuable data on the kind of system a 'regular user' sits at and uses.
SuSE is owned by Novell. Look for it to become the 'NetWare' distro.
The MS Intellimouse Pro was supposed to be an ergonomic mouse. Coincidently it had almost the same contours and curves as the Goldtouch design.
Is it some surprise that if a mouse is designed to be 'egonomic' it might look very similar? We all have the same hands, there aren't 'Goldtouch customer hands' and 'Microsoft customer hands.'
Now, if the Goldtouch design was an awkward mouse designed to look like a Sponge Bob Squarepants figure and Microsoft closely copied it, your comment would have more merit.