Actually, the proceedings were started by Opera when they complained to the European Commission! So even though I do not agree with the parent post, he is right insofar that Opera is involved.
However, you are also overlooking the fact that Norway, though not part of the EU, is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). This is basically an association of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states (except Switzerland) with the EU to establish a single market that is somewhat like the EU itself, except it isn't.
Anyway, what is important is that most EU antitrust and competition rules are applicable in the EEA as well. This is the reason why Opera could complain to the European Commission at all.
Actually, that Slashdot announcement is somewhat misleading, as SlySoft only announced in December that they will crack BD+ "soon" - this has now happened. If you read the press release referenced in the article you will ntocie that they say they wanted to publish this already in December but waited for strategic reasons.
So, this is not a dupe! First the announcement (in December 2007) and now the feat.
Four people signed off this paper-printed tally, apparently without even reading, much less checking the paper and catching the glaringly obvious error. FOUR people!
It also seems they did not read the text of the form above the signatures - where the form has a field for "day", they filled in "FEB" and where the month should have gone, they wrote in something that might be a "2".
Morale of the story: Not even the best paper trail or purely paper ballots will help you if they are controlled by people who don't know or don't care.
(Side note: I worked as a voting official in a local election over here in Austria two weeks ago. We still have only paper ballots, and during and after the count I constantly double-checked if our numbers added up. It should be an elemental check done by hand in every vote count.)
I'd like to elaborate on jschrod's comment a little further:
I speculate that the judge's name stems from the adjective "tugendhaft" (notice the only difference in the added "f"), which means "virtuous" (I do not think it has anything to do with the headdress). What a great name for a judge!
I have Type 1 Diabetes and therefore need to take two types of insulin with the corresponding "pens" (compact injectors) with a couple of needles and a glucometer which comes with a finger-prick device (i.e. another needle). I have traveled by airplane to and from several destinations within and outside of Europa (though never to the UK or US). Never was I even so much as asked about it. Eventually I stopped bothering to explain beforehand the many short, sharp pieces of metal in my carry-on luggage to the security officials, and even then was never asked about it or had any other problem.
The difference, however, might be the length of the needles - mine are only 6 or 8 millimeters (0.24-0.31 inches) in length.
Trust me when I say that the shit has just hit the proverbial fan right now
I think you are exaggerating.
Yes, the mailing list, discussion pages, forums, blogs and the like will probably all flow over. However, I think when people realize that this is not the end of the world (i.e., Wikipedia) within the next five minutes, they will calm down. A lot of water will flow down the rivers of the world until this change is actually implemented. Until then, a lot of voices and opinions will be heard by everyone involved.
From the board resolution:
It is hereby resolved that:
* The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
* Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing.
So I don't think this will happen anytime too soon. I estimate that we will see the final implementation of that by late 2008 at the earliest.
First the FSF will have to change to GFDL (with Wikimedia input, obviously), only then can Wikimedia and the community review the new GFDL, and only then it can actually be put in place.
I think I'm missing something in your comment. You link to a page that argues exactly the opposite of what you are saying. It actually says on that page that there is "a myth of "correction", where it is "explained" that this is line really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role", which seems to be what you are arguing for.
I am no Shakespeare expert (and a law student on top), so I'd rather stay neutral on this one.;-)
Wow...just absolute WOW! The server actually allows you to upload files which may be executed. Seriously, I don't know what to say to this (although some other/. user found some words and kindly put them on their server: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/limerick.txt).
I was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes three years ago, and I was told from the beginning by my doctors that there is no cure right now and that there is no practical cure in sight at all. They told me that there is, of course, a lot of research going on and everything may change quickly, but that there is no use in me hoping every day for a miracle cure. (I simplified this all) I did not see this as a pessimistic, but pragmatic view and took it up for myself. I am glad to read about any advancement on DM Type I, but I expect to use my glucometer and insulin injections until the end of my life (which, considering how easy it is to use these things and keep my blood sugar under control with them, will be a long time!:-) ).
I'm still waiting to hear an even vaguely plausible reason why record companies charge vastly more for a music CD [...] in the UK than to buy that same CD from Hong Kong including shipping halfway around the world [...]. And I'll be waiting a long time, because there isn't one.
You are right - if consumers were able to participate in the global market on the same level as multinational corporations, this would be no problem. Today, the corporations get to conduct cheap business abroad, but consumers are still hampered by tariffs, taxes, etc. The soluction is not to restrict the corporations, but to further liberate private citizens across the globe (who should be just as free to do whatever they want).
Your cynical definiton of globalization is skewed. Globalization should mean more and global freedom for everybody. For many companies and ordinary citizens, this is already a reality (in the European Union, for example). What we need to do now is to make globalization the reality for everybody. For example, this would mean that a UK citizen can buy CDs in Hong Kong or anywhere else (usually where they get them for the cheapest price).
However, in this special case we are dealing with, the company apparently broke an "agreement" (i.e., a contract) - although TFA is not very clear what exactly happend (speaking of "breaking [a] 2004 court undertaking [...]", whatever that is), and if they did that, they are lawfully punished for it.
Anyway, the course must not be more restrictions - it must be more openness and liberty for companies and citizens alike.
Unfortunately, Buffalo routers are not sold where I live (Austria). I remember that this was a recommended modell and tried to find one, but to no avail.
I just bought a Linksys WRT54GL on Friday (it hasn't been delivered yet, though). Part of the decision was that this line of routers enjoys such wide use, seems to be very well supported on the Internet both with the regular and alternative firmwares. I plan on using either DD-WRT or Tomato (OpenWRT seems a little more complicated with less features, but the difference is probably not big). Apart from what the article says (obvious and few things), does anyone have any advice for me, things I need to look out for or just really cool applications?
Can you give me any source for that statement "one of the original co-creators of Cleartype" said? I would really like to read more about that; it supports my experience that Cleartype is extremely blurry, bad an tiring for my eyes (and it doesn't matter wheter it's an LCT or CRT).
Since the Reuters article doesn't talk about the relation of this software to theCounter-Strike, and was confused myself by an article by the german magazine Der Spiegel, which states that there is no connection.
However, having searched Google News and some other search engines, it seems that this Iranian software is in fact a map or mod to Counter-Strike (the Half-Life mod). The best evidence for this I could find was an article supposedly quoting Ahmadreza Nouri, who is apparently one of the designers. I also found some other pages supporting this view.
> Exactly. It's way too late to force new terms by that point. It's not a > question of WHERE they present terms, but WHEN. The server already sent the > data, and access was granted by the copyright holder. All forms of access > that are permitted as Fair Use (such as reading the entire document) are now > permitted unless the copyright holder and the user negotiate new terms that > both parties consent to.
As stated before, I don't know very much about US copyright law (I'm studying law in Austria, for not very long so far), so I will just believe you there until I hear something to the contrary.
> But there aren't any "copyright-governing licenses." Copyright is the law > and it's already there, even when there isn't any sort of contract. Licenses > can modify the terms of copyright (e.g. take away Fair Use rights) but it's > only going to happen if the user decides that it is in his interest to (such > as when the copyright holder grants new rights that copyright itself does > not grant -- see the GPL for an example).
You got me. You are of course perfectly right, in that such "licenses" can only extend the rights of a user, or only diminish them with acceptance of the use (at least that I know for a fact;-) ). I just thought up my argument the wrong way, which resulted in mind-garbage. Sorry.
> It isn't a license at all. It's just advisory information, an optional part > of the spec, a fantasy, or whatever. Merely stating something doesn't make > it true.
I have to disagree. The document is copyrighted by Microsoft, and as such, they can put it under any terms they like (to the extent of the boundaries of law), and they can put these terms whereever they like (I don't know US copyright law enough, but I would guess that at least they have to link to the terms). Just like someone who took a photograph, painted a picture or wrote a novel, they can to a certain extent do whatever they like with it.
> "if you agree to x, then I'll give you y."
That's exactly what they say (and I don't think it matters WHERE they say it): "If this agreement is attached to materials, by accessing, using or providing feedback on the attached materials, you agree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms, you are not authorized to access, download, use or review the materials." I understand that the problem is that by the time you read this in the spec (it's at the very beginning), you have already "accessed, downloaded, used or reviewed the materials". Nevertheless, I think this would be enforcable, just like most other copyright-governing "licenses".
> What they should have done, if they were serious about only offering the > information by licence, was give a snailmail address where people could mail > their signed contracts, and then only give the files to people they know > (and can prove) have agreed.
That's quite a proposal...Think about how many people "access, download, use or review" Wikipedia (governed by the GNU FDL license)every day. Do you believe that Wikimania (or actually, the actual author of the materials in question) should have to get the signatures of every person who accesses the materials? Or that anybody who purchases a CD (I'm talking standard red book) should send a signed contract stating that the listener will not infringe copyright?
Web 3.0: A website's value increases with the quality of the content being created
So Wikipedia (or at least the concept) is one major version number ahead of the rest of the web...
Re:IE and Firefox only for now
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It would seem to me that most non-native English speakers (being one myself, and probably thinking that everybody is like me) are actually more irritated by this than native speakers - because we learn it the right way.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the proceedings were started by Opera when they complained to the European Commission! So even though I do not agree with the parent post, he is right insofar that Opera is involved.
However, you are also overlooking the fact that Norway, though not part of the EU, is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). This is basically an association of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states (except Switzerland) with the EU to establish a single market that is somewhat like the EU itself, except it isn't.
Anyway, what is important is that most EU antitrust and competition rules are applicable in the EEA as well. This is the reason why Opera could complain to the European Commission at all.
You can read the full case history on the European Commission's website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_79.html#i39_530
With a name like that your own moment, on the other hand, will never come, I'm afraid. :-(
Actually, that Slashdot announcement is somewhat misleading, as SlySoft only announced in December that they will crack BD+ "soon" - this has now happened. If you read the press release referenced in the article you will ntocie that they say they wanted to publish this already in December but waited for strategic reasons.
So, this is not a dupe! First the announcement (in December 2007) and now the feat.
Four people signed off this paper-printed tally, apparently without even reading, much less checking the paper and catching the glaringly obvious error. FOUR people!
It also seems they did not read the text of the form above the signatures - where the form has a field for "day", they filled in "FEB" and where the month should have gone, they wrote in something that might be a "2".
Morale of the story: Not even the best paper trail or purely paper ballots will help you if they are controlled by people who don't know or don't care.
(Side note: I worked as a voting official in a local election over here in Austria two weeks ago. We still have only paper ballots, and during and after the count I constantly double-checked if our numbers added up. It should be an elemental check done by hand in every vote count.)
I'd like to elaborate on jschrod's comment a little further: I speculate that the judge's name stems from the adjective "tugendhaft" (notice the only difference in the added "f"), which means "virtuous" (I do not think it has anything to do with the headdress). What a great name for a judge!
I have Type 1 Diabetes and therefore need to take two types of insulin with the corresponding "pens" (compact injectors) with a couple of needles and a glucometer which comes with a finger-prick device (i.e. another needle). I have traveled by airplane to and from several destinations within and outside of Europa (though never to the UK or US). Never was I even so much as asked about it. Eventually I stopped bothering to explain beforehand the many short, sharp pieces of metal in my carry-on luggage to the security officials, and even then was never asked about it or had any other problem. The difference, however, might be the length of the needles - mine are only 6 or 8 millimeters (0.24-0.31 inches) in length.
I do not think this would be a good idea (for TPB), since it would strengthen the argument that TPB just wanted to rip off the (old) IPFI.
I think I'm missing something in your comment. You link to a page that argues exactly the opposite of what you are saying. It actually says on that page that there is "a myth of "correction", where it is "explained" that this is line really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role", which seems to be what you are arguing for.
;-)
I am no Shakespeare expert (and a law student on top), so I'd rather stay neutral on this one.
Wow...just absolute WOW! The server actually allows you to upload files which may be executed. Seriously, I don't know what to say to this (although some other /. user found some words and kindly put them on their server: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/limerick.txt).
I was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes three years ago, and I was told from the beginning by my doctors that there is no cure right now and that there is no practical cure in sight at all. They told me that there is, of course, a lot of research going on and everything may change quickly, but that there is no use in me hoping every day for a miracle cure. (I simplified this all) I did not see this as a pessimistic, but pragmatic view and took it up for myself. I am glad to read about any advancement on DM Type I, but I expect to use my glucometer and insulin injections until the end of my life (which, considering how easy it is to use these things and keep my blood sugar under control with them, will be a long time! :-) ).
Incidentially, I just read my current issue of The Economist, and they have a leader (op-ed piece) about absurd titles. You can read it online at http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm? story_id=9339915.
My favourite sentence from that piece: "What next? Führers, Caudillos, Duci, Gauleiters and Generalisimos must be due for a comeback."
Your cynical definiton of globalization is skewed. Globalization should mean more and global freedom for everybody. For many companies and ordinary citizens, this is already a reality (in the European Union, for example). What we need to do now is to make globalization the reality for everybody. For example, this would mean that a UK citizen can buy CDs in Hong Kong or anywhere else (usually where they get them for the cheapest price).
However, in this special case we are dealing with, the company apparently broke an "agreement" (i.e., a contract) - although TFA is not very clear what exactly happend (speaking of "breaking [a] 2004 court undertaking [...]", whatever that is), and if they did that, they are lawfully punished for it.
Anyway, the course must not be more restrictions - it must be more openness and liberty for companies and citizens alike.
Unfortunately, Buffalo routers are not sold where I live (Austria). I remember that this was a recommended modell and tried to find one, but to no avail.
I just bought a Linksys WRT54GL on Friday (it hasn't been delivered yet, though). Part of the decision was that this line of routers enjoys such wide use, seems to be very well supported on the Internet both with the regular and alternative firmwares. I plan on using either DD-WRT or Tomato (OpenWRT seems a little more complicated with less features, but the difference is probably not big). Apart from what the article says (obvious and few things), does anyone have any advice for me, things I need to look out for or just really cool applications?
Thanks a lot!
Can you give me any source for that statement "one of the original co-creators of Cleartype" said? I would really like to read more about that; it supports my experience that Cleartype is extremely blurry, bad an tiring for my eyes (and it doesn't matter wheter it's an LCT or CRT).
Since the Reuters article doesn't talk about the relation of this software to the Counter-Strike, and was confused myself by an article by the german magazine Der Spiegel, which states that there is no connection. However, having searched Google News and some other search engines, it seems that this Iranian software is in fact a map or mod to Counter-Strike (the Half-Life mod). The best evidence for this I could find was an article supposedly quoting Ahmadreza Nouri, who is apparently one of the designers. I also found some other pages supporting this view.
Sorry to be a spelling nazi, but it's actually "mongorian". Thank you.
I propose the tried and proven design of the Douglas DC-8.
> Exactly. It's way too late to force new terms by that point. It's not a
;-) ). I just thought up my argument the wrong way, which resulted in mind-garbage. Sorry.
> question of WHERE they present terms, but WHEN. The server already sent the
> data, and access was granted by the copyright holder. All forms of access
> that are permitted as Fair Use (such as reading the entire document) are now
> permitted unless the copyright holder and the user negotiate new terms that
> both parties consent to.
As stated before, I don't know very much about US copyright law (I'm studying law in Austria, for not very long so far), so I will just believe you there until I hear something to the contrary.
> But there aren't any "copyright-governing licenses." Copyright is the law
> and it's already there, even when there isn't any sort of contract. Licenses
> can modify the terms of copyright (e.g. take away Fair Use rights) but it's
> only going to happen if the user decides that it is in his interest to (such
> as when the copyright holder grants new rights that copyright itself does
> not grant -- see the GPL for an example).
You got me. You are of course perfectly right, in that such "licenses" can only extend the rights of a user, or only diminish them with acceptance of the use (at least that I know for a fact
> It isn't a license at all. It's just advisory information, an optional part
> of the spec, a fantasy, or whatever. Merely stating something doesn't make
> it true.
I have to disagree. The document is copyrighted by Microsoft, and as such, they can put it under any terms they like (to the extent of the boundaries of law), and they can put these terms whereever they like (I don't know US copyright law enough, but I would guess that at least they have to link to the terms). Just like someone who took a photograph, painted a picture or wrote a novel, they can to a certain extent do whatever they like with it.
> "if you agree to x, then I'll give you y."
That's exactly what they say (and I don't think it matters WHERE they say it): "If this agreement is attached to materials, by accessing, using or providing feedback on the attached materials, you agree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms, you are not authorized to access, download, use or review the materials."
I understand that the problem is that by the time you read this in the spec (it's at the very beginning), you have already "accessed, downloaded, used or reviewed the materials". Nevertheless, I think this would be enforcable, just like most other copyright-governing "licenses".
> What they should have done, if they were serious about only offering the
> information by licence, was give a snailmail address where people could mail
> their signed contracts, and then only give the files to people they know
> (and can prove) have agreed.
That's quite a proposal...Think about how many people "access, download, use or review" Wikipedia (governed by the GNU FDL license)every day. Do you believe that Wikimania (or actually, the actual author of the materials in question) should have to get the signatures of every person who accesses the materials? Or that anybody who purchases a CD (I'm talking standard red book) should send a signed contract stating that the listener will not infringe copyright?
I assume that is the reason the whole "license" is in the .doc file again (I just read it).
It would seem to me that most non-native English speakers (being one myself, and probably thinking that everybody is like me) are actually more irritated by this than native speakers - because we learn it the right way.