It's bound to happen. Rakofsky seems (in my opinion) to have no clue when it comes to free speech issues. That being the case, it seems only a matter of time before/. (and perhaps posters like me) are named as co-defendants in his (again, in my opinion) idiotic suit.
Many still have a big chip on their collective shoulder regarding Sony's little DRM/spyware debacle. IMO, that's the source of the hate. It must be thrown into the fires of Mount Doom.
I signed up for an address with one of the free providers a few years ago. As soon as I signed in the first time, I ended up receiving multiple messages from the former owner of the account. I've managed to get rid of all of the unwanted messages except for one--from a major university that keeps sending me crime and safety notifications. They have no contact information published in the email message, and attempts to get to a responsible person through the switchboard have been useless.
If it's that much trouble for you, either filter out the offending messages (based on senders/subjects), or switch email addresses.
First off, I'm all for eBooks and eBook readers. I've used my eeePC as an eBook reader for a couple of years now and I like how convenient it is. Yet, there's still one big limitation to most eBook formats, and it's one of the things that I think really ticked Stallman off.
With a phyisical book, I can buy it new or used. Once I'm done with the book, I can dispose of it as I see fit:
lend it to a friend,
sell it second-hand, or even
cut little snippets out of the book and plaster them all over my refridgerator, bulletin board, and/or bedroom wall.
Unfortunately, all of those secondary dispositions are largely eliminated in an eBook format. When I'm done with a book today, I can throw it on the bookshelf in my family room and then suggest that my wife or one of our kids pick it up and read it. If a friend is visiting, and notices a book that grabs his/her attention, I can say, "Go ahead and take it, and let me know what you think once you've finished it."
Stallman may be jumping toward solutions he can envision, but the problem still remains: the rise of eBooks threatens the way we share knowledge. You may argue that the Internet will never let DRM win, but do we ever want to end up in a world where we have to rely on DRM-breakers to keep knowledge free? eBooks threaten the intellectual vitality afforded us by the first sale doctrine. If we can't preserve post-first-sale rights in a digital world, we might as well go back to an age where books were kept on chains and only accessible to a few.
I say we leave one up there (send it up with minimal crew and let them hitch rides home with the Russians or others). The shuttle still would make for an awesome emergency re-entry vehicle--a classic life boat with some extra kick.
Isn't this something already covered in most EULAs/ToS? Most are very clear that accounts are not to be shared. That being the case, isn't the real remedy to have the offenders' (the ones whose accounts are shared, once proof is obtained) accounts sanctioned in some way: warned, then a temporary block, then account deletion?
It's already covered by contract law. It doesn't need to be a criminal matter.
1) The account seems pretty clear that the intention was to crash one, to prove to the US military that they (the Russians) could cause a nation-wide UFO scare.
2) Flying disk technology was considered advanced technology in that day, as flying wing technology was still being tested.
I'm not fully convinced of the truthfulness of the account, but it seems far more plausible than a covered-up alien encounter.
What was described is really one of my pet peeves about online ratings systems. The ratings system at Amazon is clearly intended for the product itself, but you'll often see lower marks because of something unrelated to the product (e.g., shipping times, difficulty reaching the seller). To me, that destroys the value of the ratings system.
I often refer to customer ratings at Amazon and other online retailers when making my own purchase decisions [Full disclosure: I'm a regular reviewer at Amazon.] Often, I'll look at those overall ratings if I'm just getting a feel for the products out there. In such cases, where people give the product poor reviews because of problems with the delivery system, they unfairly steer other consumers away from what may be otherwise excellent products.
It would be hard for Gaga to claim any real harm from the practice (simply because of the volume of sales that will be processed anyway), but it could make a huge difference for a small producer or independent craftsperson whose products are sold through Amazon itself, Fulfilled by Amazon, or Amazon's affiliates program.
I agree that ISPs are one of the major barricades. Since around the first of the year, I've been pressing our ISP for information on their IPv6 support, so we can get in on testing some things on IPv6 day. No one seems to know anything. I've called sales, I've called support, and I've had my queries escalated to "senior technical staff"--none of them knew of anything about their preparations for IPv6. What was even more scary (though perhaps expected) was that most of them had never heard of IPv6.
I didn't like the idea of the glossy screens, either, until I got one. I picked up a machine through Dell's clearance site and it had a glossy screen. I was sure it was going to make using the machine unbearable, but, to my surprise, I found that it made everything nice and clear, especially if I was in a high-light area. I found that they are far better outside on a bright day than the matte screens ever were.
Since then, that's the only display type I buy: glossy.
But that change would mean the various rights holders would need to initiate the suit, even if using Righthaven as their legal representation.
From reading through the Righthaven contract that was made public about a month ago, it is very clear that the rights holders, while claiming to transfer copyright ownership to Righthaven for the sake or pursuing legal action or settlements, really did not intend to fully transfer copyright to Righthaven. There are so many clauses that cause copyright ownership to revert to the rights holders, and so many escape clauses for the rights holders, and limitiations on the transfer of rights, that judges are (imho, ianal) rightly questioning whether or not Righthaven has any legal standing at all.
The relationship between the rights holders and Righthaven is something like this:
i. The rights holder gives Righthaven a catalog of their copyright portfolio. 2. Righthaven is told to seek out infringing use. 3. When infringing use is identified, Righthaven is to request a transfer of copyright to Righthaven from the rights holder. 4. As the copyright owner of record (contractually), Righthaven is then free to pursue whatever legal options or settlements they can negotiate, to recoup funds for infringing use. Such funds are eventually split between Righthaven and the original rights holder. 5. After formal actions to resolve infringement incidents are resolved, Righthaven transfers copyright ownership back to the original rights holder.
On the surface, it looks like a plain strategy. Courts have previously allowed new rights holders to sue for infringement that occurred before they gained the copyright (since the infringement potentially devalues the purchased asset), but the complexities and nuanes of the contract with Righthaven made it very clear that, while called a transfer of copyright, what transpired seems to be much more like a grant of license (since it is clear that the rights holders had no intention to fully give up their claim of copyright ownership to Righthaven). That final point, that the transfer of rights to Righthaven required that Righthaven eventually return them to the original rights holders, is probably what has judges thinking twice. I don't believe copyright was ever intended to be put on loan so that a specialty firm could then try to bully hundreds or thousands of accused individuals (who may or may not have been protected under "fair use" provisions of US copyright law) into quick settlements as a way to generate a revenue stream
So, now you'll have test administrators spending up to, say, 15 seconds with each student verifying that their calculators are not hacked. Let's see... in a room with 300 students, you spend 15 seconds with each...
Why 15 seconds? Time for the student to pull out the calculator, hand it to the administrator who would turn it on (because you would be able to program a passable "firmware OK" screen and conveniently run it before handing it over), review it, and hand it back to the student, who might then make some snarky remark regarding a "waste of time".
Rather than watching this fascinating game of ping pong year after year, when will someone finally make a move and introduce a scientific calculator that runs on an open platform?
Instead of whining about what TI won't let you do, why not apply those skills and help create a calculator that will let you do whatever it is you want to do?
Then I'll do what any able parent may do: attend school board meetings and make sure such an idiotic policy does not get enacted in our district. Besides, in households with one computer and more than one child (or any situation where there are more kids than PCs), how are all of them supposed to get online to attend their virtualized classes? It's not as if sending them to the libary would even be an option, because our library has limited weekday hours (mostly after school).
Unfortunately, this wouldn't work in our household (and it would be a convenient excuse for kids in other households): each of my kids' accounts was set up with time based use restrictions (first in Vista/Win7 OS, then migrated to Windows Family Safety or whatever they're calling it). On school days, they can't log on and use the computers until after 4PM each day. I'm not going to change their settings each time we have a snow day.
Nope, my kids will just tell their teachers that their mean, nasty parents have the comptuers configured so that they can't use them during the day. Tough crap schoolmaster overlords.
Unloading Bitcoins en masse is a problem. After doing a bit of reading on the topic (which is surprisingly late to/.), I ran across some folks who started playing around with transactions for cash. One noted that selling as few as 1,000 bitcoins pushed the trade value down by 10 cents ($0.10). So, if someone tried to unload a million and a half Bitcoins, 1) they'd need enough buyers and 2) each transaction would further devalue the currency.
The real sweet spot for Microsoft would be to have its own app store ready at launch, stocked with a fair sampling of Win-ARM software apps. More than anything else about the change, perhaps that's what Microsoft most hopes to get out of it.
[Wild conjecture follows:] The fellow seems snarky enough to have made that statement with foreknowledge that he planned to take advantage of the maid, so as to have his prior claims that someone might set him up would be a ready defense.
Heck, I'm not a developer and I have the same problem on a laptop when I need to work across multiple windows. I've had multiple monitors at the office so long that I dread using my own laptop at home, since its display is the only one I have.
Slashdot Mirror
It's bound to happen. Rakofsky seems (in my opinion) to have no clue when it comes to free speech issues. That being the case, it seems only a matter of time before /. (and perhaps posters like me) are named as co-defendants in his (again, in my opinion) idiotic suit.
Many still have a big chip on their collective shoulder regarding Sony's little DRM/spyware debacle. IMO, that's the source of the hate. It must be thrown into the fires of Mount Doom.
I signed up for an address with one of the free providers a few years ago. As soon as I signed in the first time, I ended up receiving multiple messages from the former owner of the account. I've managed to get rid of all of the unwanted messages except for one--from a major university that keeps sending me crime and safety notifications. They have no contact information published in the email message, and attempts to get to a responsible person through the switchboard have been useless.
If it's that much trouble for you, either filter out the offending messages (based on senders/subjects), or switch email addresses.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
With a phyisical book, I can buy it new or used. Once I'm done with the book, I can dispose of it as I see fit:
lend it to a friend,
Unfortunately, all of those secondary dispositions are largely eliminated in an eBook format. When I'm done with a book today, I can throw it on the bookshelf in my family room and then suggest that my wife or one of our kids pick it up and read it. If a friend is visiting, and notices a book that grabs his/her attention, I can say, "Go ahead and take it, and let me know what you think once you've finished it."
Stallman may be jumping toward solutions he can envision, but the problem still remains: the rise of eBooks threatens the way we share knowledge. You may argue that the Internet will never let DRM win, but do we ever want to end up in a world where we have to rely on DRM-breakers to keep knowledge free? eBooks threaten the intellectual vitality afforded us by the first sale doctrine. If we can't preserve post-first-sale rights in a digital world, we might as well go back to an age where books were kept on chains and only accessible to a few.
I say we leave one up there (send it up with minimal crew and let them hitch rides home with the Russians or others). The shuttle still would make for an awesome emergency re-entry vehicle--a classic life boat with some extra kick.
Yours was the single most informative comment I found in the sea of threads.
Isn't this something already covered in most EULAs/ToS? Most are very clear that accounts are not to be shared. That being the case, isn't the real remedy to have the offenders' (the ones whose accounts are shared, once proof is obtained) accounts sanctioned in some way: warned, then a temporary block, then account deletion?
It's already covered by contract law. It doesn't need to be a criminal matter.
I wish I hadn't commented on another post in this thread, because I would have had moderator points to flag your comment as [+1 Insightful]
1) The account seems pretty clear that the intention was to crash one, to prove to the US military that they (the Russians) could cause a nation-wide UFO scare.
2) Flying disk technology was considered advanced technology in that day, as flying wing technology was still being tested.
I'm not fully convinced of the truthfulness of the account, but it seems far more plausible than a covered-up alien encounter.
CORRECTION: It's also "Geek Pride Day".
Not to be confused with SysAdmin Day, it's International Geek Day today. An appropriate coincidence, it seems.
What was described is really one of my pet peeves about online ratings systems. The ratings system at Amazon is clearly intended for the product itself, but you'll often see lower marks because of something unrelated to the product (e.g., shipping times, difficulty reaching the seller). To me, that destroys the value of the ratings system.
I often refer to customer ratings at Amazon and other online retailers when making my own purchase decisions [Full disclosure: I'm a regular reviewer at Amazon.] Often, I'll look at those overall ratings if I'm just getting a feel for the products out there. In such cases, where people give the product poor reviews because of problems with the delivery system, they unfairly steer other consumers away from what may be otherwise excellent products.
It would be hard for Gaga to claim any real harm from the practice (simply because of the volume of sales that will be processed anyway), but it could make a huge difference for a small producer or independent craftsperson whose products are sold through Amazon itself, Fulfilled by Amazon, or Amazon's affiliates program.
I would have switched to another ISP if we had a choice...
Their lack of knowledge was depressing.
I agree that ISPs are one of the major barricades. Since around the first of the year, I've been pressing our ISP for information on their IPv6 support, so we can get in on testing some things on IPv6 day. No one seems to know anything. I've called sales, I've called support, and I've had my queries escalated to "senior technical staff"--none of them knew of anything about their preparations for IPv6. What was even more scary (though perhaps expected) was that most of them had never heard of IPv6.
I didn't like the idea of the glossy screens, either, until I got one. I picked up a machine through Dell's clearance site and it had a glossy screen. I was sure it was going to make using the machine unbearable, but, to my surprise, I found that it made everything nice and clear, especially if I was in a high-light area. I found that they are far better outside on a bright day than the matte screens ever were.
Since then, that's the only display type I buy: glossy.
But that change would mean the various rights holders would need to initiate the suit, even if using Righthaven as their legal representation.
From reading through the Righthaven contract that was made public about a month ago, it is very clear that the rights holders, while claiming to transfer copyright ownership to Righthaven for the sake or pursuing legal action or settlements, really did not intend to fully transfer copyright to Righthaven. There are so many clauses that cause copyright ownership to revert to the rights holders, and so many escape clauses for the rights holders, and limitiations on the transfer of rights, that judges are (imho, ianal) rightly questioning whether or not Righthaven has any legal standing at all.
The relationship between the rights holders and Righthaven is something like this:
i. The rights holder gives Righthaven a catalog of their copyright portfolio.
2. Righthaven is told to seek out infringing use.
3. When infringing use is identified, Righthaven is to request a transfer of copyright to Righthaven from the rights holder.
4. As the copyright owner of record (contractually), Righthaven is then free to pursue whatever legal options or settlements they can negotiate, to recoup funds for infringing use. Such funds are eventually split between Righthaven and the original rights holder.
5. After formal actions to resolve infringement incidents are resolved, Righthaven transfers copyright ownership back to the original rights holder.
On the surface, it looks like a plain strategy. Courts have previously allowed new rights holders to sue for infringement that occurred before they gained the copyright (since the infringement potentially devalues the purchased asset), but the complexities and nuanes of the contract with Righthaven made it very clear that, while called a transfer of copyright, what transpired seems to be much more like a grant of license (since it is clear that the rights holders had no intention to fully give up their claim of copyright ownership to Righthaven). That final point, that the transfer of rights to Righthaven required that Righthaven eventually return them to the original rights holders, is probably what has judges thinking twice. I don't believe copyright was ever intended to be put on loan so that a specialty firm could then try to bully hundreds or thousands of accused individuals (who may or may not have been protected under "fair use" provisions of US copyright law) into quick settlements as a way to generate a revenue stream
So, now you'll have test administrators spending up to, say, 15 seconds with each student verifying that their calculators are not hacked. Let's see... in a room with 300 students, you spend 15 seconds with each...
Why 15 seconds? Time for the student to pull out the calculator, hand it to the administrator who would turn it on (because you would be able to program a passable "firmware OK" screen and conveniently run it before handing it over), review it, and hand it back to the student, who might then make some snarky remark regarding a "waste of time".
Rather than watching this fascinating game of ping pong year after year, when will someone finally make a move and introduce a scientific calculator that runs on an open platform?
Instead of whining about what TI won't let you do, why not apply those skills and help create a calculator that will let you do whatever it is you want to do?
Then I'll do what any able parent may do: attend school board meetings and make sure such an idiotic policy does not get enacted in our district. Besides, in households with one computer and more than one child (or any situation where there are more kids than PCs), how are all of them supposed to get online to attend their virtualized classes? It's not as if sending them to the libary would even be an option, because our library has limited weekday hours (mostly after school).
Unfortunately, this wouldn't work in our household (and it would be a convenient excuse for kids in other households): each of my kids' accounts was set up with time based use restrictions (first in Vista/Win7 OS, then migrated to Windows Family Safety or whatever they're calling it). On school days, they can't log on and use the computers until after 4PM each day. I'm not going to change their settings each time we have a snow day.
Nope, my kids will just tell their teachers that their mean, nasty parents have the comptuers configured so that they can't use them during the day. Tough crap schoolmaster overlords.
Unloading Bitcoins en masse is a problem. After doing a bit of reading on the topic (which is surprisingly late to /.), I ran across some folks who started playing around with transactions for cash. One noted that selling as few as 1,000 bitcoins pushed the trade value down by 10 cents ($0.10). So, if someone tried to unload a million and a half Bitcoins, 1) they'd need enough buyers and 2) each transaction would further devalue the currency.
The real sweet spot for Microsoft would be to have its own app store ready at launch, stocked with a fair sampling of Win-ARM software apps. More than anything else about the change, perhaps that's what Microsoft most hopes to get out of it.
[Wild conjecture follows:] The fellow seems snarky enough to have made that statement with foreknowledge that he planned to take advantage of the maid, so as to have his prior claims that someone might set him up would be a ready defense.
Heck, I'm not a developer and I have the same problem on a laptop when I need to work across multiple windows. I've had multiple monitors at the office so long that I dread using my own laptop at home, since its display is the only one I have.