I agree with/. Slandering someone is illegal, as is posting copywritten information without the consent of the copyright holders.
Funny then why Andover files a lawsuit against the person slandering and hires a lawyer to defend itself after it has posted copyrighted information (read the MS Kerberos spec)
(All this is assuming, of course, that the original post was not a Troll which made up facts - not something I'm sure of)
It took the idiots 3.5 weeks to move my phone line when I moved. In all this time they left it connected at the old location, where, if someone had moved in, it could have been abused. Then they automatically terminated my long-distance agreement with MCI and my phone bills for the next several months had so many errors in them it's not even funny
The Washington Utilities and Transport Commision stepped in, though, and made them give me $450 in credit. It's been over 6 months since I moved now and I haven't had to pay a single cent in phone charges yet. *smirk*
To address a U.S. law aimed at protecting idiots' privacy, we cannot permit people with an IQ under 70 to use the internet. Your profile presently shows you are an idiot (Remember that post you made saying "Me Too"? What the hell were you thinking?). Therefore, we will close your account within 48 hours. If you are an idiot, you may open an account only after you stop being an idiot (i.e. never). We regret any inconvenience
It's a photoelectric cell that generates electrical stimulation similar to the kind that a retina would on being struck by light. This is NOT a microchip. There is no processing or logic involved.
They are not arguing against the PEatingTAs right to use PETAs trademark to profit from or parody. The argument was simply over the use of PETA.org - which is the natural place I would go to if I was looking for PEthicalTAs website.
They are not saying anything about disallowing them from making a parody using the trademark or even allowing them to profit from it. It's just that to me it seems that if I was looking for PETA's website, peta.org would be the first place to look.
Imagine if Microsoft bought linux.com/linux.org and pointed visitors to those sites to a page which criticized Linux. Would you feel differently then?
Just because one company extended a standard in an attempt to screw the competition does not mean that we should make it illegal to extend standards period.
The ability of individuals and corporations to innovate (I used that word for ironic effect here) is very fundamental to developing new and exciting technology.
Find other ways to curb abuse of this ability but government regulation of technology is not the answer. Don't take away the right to develop products any way you please just because some people are able to abuse that right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Mischief is wrong and should be punished. That's the reason there are laws that prohibit certain behaviour, including fraud. I'm not arguing against that - please don't pretend I am.
I'm arguing against people who believe companies should be forced to open their protocols, artists should be forced to give away their products for free, etc. I'm arguing against people who believe the government should be able to dictate at what price you sell your goods. This is not laissez-faire capitalism in the same sense of the word that you use it.
And don't get me wrong. I'm very much a socialist. I grew up in a socialist country and strongly believe in a lot of its principles. It's just that when I see people ready to take from the rich "because no one deserves to have as much as they do" that I fear.
Btw, the same principles that make it illegal for companies to wreak "mischief" are what prevent the majority from saying to the minority "we are more than you are and since we say so you must open up your protocols".
(I don't have the karma to burn but I'm going to go ahead and voice an unpopular opinion anyway. I'm sick and tired of people on slashdot who fail to wake up and _think_ before they jump on the latest bandwagon touting the "cool" line)
You want to dictate how people do things. You had your chance in the former Soviet Union and the enter Eastern Bloc. You failed miserably. The reason communism failed miserably is that when the government decides to actively intervene in all aspects of society, it takes away the motivation of individuals to excel - why would I try to develop a kick-ass product and corner the market if the government is going to come and take that away?
In the absence of a motivation to excel, the motivation to produce and contribute to society, technology and advancement in general disappears.
This might seem like a great idea in a short-term myopic view, but history has taught us that in the long run this will only lead to ruin.
And please don't pretend there is a difference. You want protocols to use existing RFCs. So every time I want to add a new feature which the existing RFCs don't cover, I'm required to go through a lengthy process of getting what I'm doing "approved" by a bureaucratic process. The result? Stagnation. (Of course if I go ahead without waiting for the approval, you're gonna scream "embrace and extend").
I guess "Troll" would have been a better characterisation. The URL points to www.microsoft.com and the description of the link points to a non-existant URL.
.. and it's a pain in the ass when it does. Someone stole my identity, issued a bunch of credit cards in my name, opened a bank account, etc. It took me forever to fix it.
What pissed me off most was Citibank which claimed they had given me a Home Improvement loan. There was no home to show for it (I don't own one), and the address to which they sent the check was not mine. I have a Citibank credit card and they had my address, picture and signature on file at the time.
The law requires them to respond within 30 days. Citibank got around this by saying they would respond after I called their fraud department and then later claiming I had never called. It got cleared up eventually, but I couldn't open a new bank account for several months after I had moved to a new city.
Another thing that annoyed me was the fact that most agencies ask you to give them a copy of a police report you filed before they will take a disputed claim off your record. I had recently moved then and the fraud was committed while I lived in LA and the local police refused to let me file a complaint saying I had to file it in LA.
A friend of mine had a similar experience when applying for a student visa to the US.
One of the questions they ask you is whether or not you've ever applied for permanent resident status (Green Card) in the US. He answered "No". It turns out that when he was about 2, his father had applied for a Green Card and had included his name on the application.
The immigration official said "We're prone to believe you're predisposed to lying", while my friend stared at her gawkishly trying to figure out what she was saying.
What if it was a small company that wasn't even worth the amount of money I would have to spend on a lawsuit? It's the same as Metallica trying to prosecute all the individual kids who steal their MP3s. It's just not worth the effort.
It's also because some of those API calls were hacked in and weren't fully tested. It's one thing to release it to an internal customer who you get feedback from and where you have no liability. It's a whole other thing if this was released to the public, though.
MP3 files are in some senses "source code" -- they allow modification, copying, redistribution, and so forth -- and we're all seeing that copyright holders can and do vigorously sue those who violate their EULAs.
You make me laugh. What planet do you live on? The planet where I live on, MP3s are openly and freely traded/pirated and there's not a damn thing any of the copyright holders can do about it. And even if they try, they will have thousands I-am-a-libertarian-when-it-suits-my-purposes slashdotters rant about how evil they are for doing it.
If I was BigSoftwareCompany(tm) and I was releasing my software, I would not make it easy to view the source code. Even if we lived in a utopian dream world where everyone released the source to their software, I do not have the time to sift through the source of every product that's released out there to see what part of my code they've stolen, then engage a bunch of lawyers to prove in a court of law that that code was indeed stolen. What a sheer waste of time! You'd have to be a complete idiot to think this was even viable.
You want evidence? Consider the whole Kerberos spec deal. Do you still think someone wouldn't post the source code _without_ the license? Hello? Wake up, Dorothy. You never left Kansas.
Netscape had an effective monopoly over the browser market by virtue of being the dominant browser before IE. Netscape attempted to leverage this monopoly to render the desktop irrelevant by encouraging developers to write against its APIs, bundling mail software, news readers, etc. as part of the browser.
Now they don't like it if the Applications company might do the same. They didn't think a browser belonged as part of the OS (as long as it was a Microsoft OS - all other OS'es should ship browsers with the OS and that's a Good Thing[tm])
This case begins to sound more and more like a baby getting beaten at a game he was playing and wanting mommy to go beat up the big bad people who defeated him.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the RIAA an association, rather than a corporation? Or did you just make this all up?
I agree with /. Slandering someone is illegal, as is posting copywritten information without the consent of the copyright holders.
Funny then why Andover files a lawsuit against the person slandering and hires a lawyer to defend itself after it has posted copyrighted information (read the MS Kerberos spec)
(All this is assuming, of course, that the original post was not a Troll which made up facts - not something I'm sure of)
These opinions will not be those of Penn State until it pays my retainer.
Funny, your webpage is on Iowa State's website - I'm guessing you probably work/study both places?
Aren't US DVDs supposedly impossible to play on Japanese players?
It took the idiots 3.5 weeks to move my phone line when I moved. In all this time they left it connected at the old location, where, if someone had moved in, it could have been abused. Then they automatically terminated my long-distance agreement with MCI and my phone bills for the next several months had so many errors in them it's not even funny
The Washington Utilities and Transport Commision stepped in, though, and made them give me $450 in credit. It's been over 6 months since I moved now and I haven't had to pay a single cent in phone charges yet. *smirk*
To address a U.S. law aimed at protecting idiots' privacy, we cannot permit people with an IQ under 70 to use the internet. Your profile presently shows you are an idiot (Remember that post you made saying "Me Too"? What the hell were you thinking?). Therefore, we will close your account within 48 hours. If you are an idiot, you may open an account only after you stop being an idiot (i.e. never). We regret any inconvenience
That will take care of the entire AOL userbase.
It's a photoelectric cell that generates electrical stimulation similar to the kind that a retina would on being struck by light. This is NOT a microchip. There is no processing or logic involved.
I remember hearing sometime soon after the Pentium release that someone had trademarked the name Hexium hoping to sell it to Intel later.
They are not arguing against the PEatingTAs right to use PETAs trademark to profit from or parody. The argument was simply over the use of PETA.org - which is the natural place I would go to if I was looking for PEthicalTAs website.
They are not saying anything about disallowing them from making a parody using the trademark or even allowing them to profit from it. It's just that to me it seems that if I was looking for PETA's website, peta.org would be the first place to look.
Imagine if Microsoft bought linux.com/linux.org and pointed visitors to those sites to a page which criticized Linux. Would you feel differently then?
This CNN story says it's AT&T. I think the law was enacted in 1976, well after the Standard Oil case.
*shrug* not that it really matters anyway
Actually the two times before that it has been invoked are in the AT&T case, not the Standard Oil case.
Just because one company extended a standard in an attempt to screw the competition does not mean that we should make it illegal to extend standards period.
The ability of individuals and corporations to innovate (I used that word for ironic effect here) is very fundamental to developing new and exciting technology.
Find other ways to curb abuse of this ability but government regulation of technology is not the answer. Don't take away the right to develop products any way you please just because some people are able to abuse that right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Mischief is wrong and should be punished. That's the reason there are laws that prohibit certain behaviour, including fraud. I'm not arguing against that - please don't pretend I am.
I'm arguing against people who believe companies should be forced to open their protocols, artists should be forced to give away their products for free, etc. I'm arguing against people who believe the government should be able to dictate at what price you sell your goods. This is not laissez-faire capitalism in the same sense of the word that you use it.
And don't get me wrong. I'm very much a socialist. I grew up in a socialist country and strongly believe in a lot of its principles. It's just that when I see people ready to take from the rich "because no one deserves to have as much as they do" that I fear.
Btw, the same principles that make it illegal for companies to wreak "mischief" are what prevent the majority from saying to the minority "we are more than you are and since we say so you must open up your protocols".
(I don't have the karma to burn but I'm going to go ahead and voice an unpopular opinion anyway. I'm sick and tired of people on slashdot who fail to wake up and _think_ before they jump on the latest bandwagon touting the "cool" line)
You want to dictate how people do things. You had your chance in the former Soviet Union and the enter Eastern Bloc. You failed miserably. The reason communism failed miserably is that when the government decides to actively intervene in all aspects of society, it takes away the motivation of individuals to excel - why would I try to develop a kick-ass product and corner the market if the government is going to come and take that away?
In the absence of a motivation to excel, the motivation to produce and contribute to society, technology and advancement in general disappears.
This might seem like a great idea in a short-term myopic view, but history has taught us that in the long run this will only lead to ruin.
And please don't pretend there is a difference. You want protocols to use existing RFCs. So every time I want to add a new feature which the existing RFCs don't cover, I'm required to go through a lengthy process of getting what I'm doing "approved" by a bureaucratic process. The result? Stagnation. (Of course if I go ahead without waiting for the approval, you're gonna scream "embrace and extend").
I guess "Troll" would have been a better characterisation. The URL points to www.microsoft.com and the description of the link points to a non-existant URL.
.. and it's a pain in the ass when it does. Someone stole my identity, issued a bunch of credit cards in my name, opened a bank account, etc. It took me forever to fix it.
What pissed me off most was Citibank which claimed they had given me a Home Improvement loan. There was no home to show for it (I don't own one), and the address to which they sent the check was not mine. I have a Citibank credit card and they had my address, picture and signature on file at the time.
The law requires them to respond within 30 days. Citibank got around this by saying they would respond after I called their fraud department and then later claiming I had never called. It got cleared up eventually, but I couldn't open a new bank account for several months after I had moved to a new city.
Another thing that annoyed me was the fact that most agencies ask you to give them a copy of a police report you filed before they will take a disputed claim off your record. I had recently moved then and the fraud was committed while I lived in LA and the local police refused to let me file a complaint saying I had to file it in LA.
A friend of mine had a similar experience when applying for a student visa to the US.
One of the questions they ask you is whether or not you've ever applied for permanent resident status (Green Card) in the US. He answered "No". It turns out that when he was about 2, his father had applied for a Green Card and had included his name on the application.
The immigration official said "We're prone to believe you're predisposed to lying", while my friend stared at her gawkishly trying to figure out what she was saying.
(He did get his visa eventually)
A very concise and easy to understand explanation.
What if it was a small company that wasn't even worth the amount of money I would have to spend on a lawsuit? It's the same as Metallica trying to prosecute all the individual kids who steal their MP3s. It's just not worth the effort.
It's also because some of those API calls were hacked in and weren't fully tested. It's one thing to release it to an internal customer who you get feedback from and where you have no liability. It's a whole other thing if this was released to the public, though.
MP3 files are in some senses "source code" -- they allow modification, copying, redistribution, and so forth -- and we're all seeing that copyright holders can and do vigorously sue those who violate their EULAs.
You make me laugh. What planet do you live on? The planet where I live on, MP3s are openly and freely traded/pirated and there's not a damn thing any of the copyright holders can do about it. And even if they try, they will have thousands I-am-a-libertarian-when-it-suits-my-purposes slashdotters rant about how evil they are for doing it.
If I was BigSoftwareCompany(tm) and I was releasing my software, I would not make it easy to view the source code. Even if we lived in a utopian dream world where everyone released the source to their software, I do not have the time to sift through the source of every product that's released out there to see what part of my code they've stolen, then engage a bunch of lawyers to prove in a court of law that that code was indeed stolen. What a sheer waste of time! You'd have to be a complete idiot to think this was even viable.
You want evidence? Consider the whole Kerberos spec deal. Do you still think someone wouldn't post the source code _without_ the license? Hello? Wake up, Dorothy. You never left Kansas.
Netscape had an effective monopoly over the browser market by virtue of being the dominant browser before IE. Netscape attempted to leverage this monopoly to render the desktop irrelevant by encouraging developers to write against its APIs, bundling mail software, news readers, etc. as part of the browser.
Now they don't like it if the Applications company might do the same. They didn't think a browser belonged as part of the OS (as long as it was a Microsoft OS - all other OS'es should ship browsers with the OS and that's a Good Thing[tm])
This case begins to sound more and more like a baby getting beaten at a game he was playing and wanting mommy to go beat up the big bad people who defeated him.
.. that ordered the split. The DoJ has been calling for it for ages. It's the Judge who ruled ordering it. They're different, hard as it is to tell.