But "Killustrator" and "Illustrator" are different words. If someone owned the trademark "Rust", would that stop anyone using the words "Crust", "Trust", "Krust" or "Thrust" as product names? If not, then why is "Killustrator" not allowed?
In the context of electronic signatures (rather than encrypted data) it enables you to obtain the public key of the entity which signed a message for which you wish to check the signature. While this will not provide any correlation between the key holder and a "real world" identity, it does allow you check that a) the data has not been altered since it was signed, and b) that if 2 messages are signed with the same key that you have a reasonably level of confidence that they were signed by the same entity.
Only unfortunately the "content providers" and some ISPs want to change that. They want it so that you can only share information with centralised servers (which they, of course, control) and do not like (or in the case of some ISPs allow) you to run any servers yourself.
Besides, I don't think the public is ready for rentable software.
Do not forget that until the rise of the PC, most software was either rented or developed in-house. It was not purchased. Which also had other implications - such as obtaining bug fixes in a timely manner rather than having to wait for the next version to be released.
Because the RIAA represents the distribution side of the industry not the people who write and perform the music (though it may seem otherwise as the artists (under the "old" distribution system) have to "sign up" with the distribution companies in order to promulgate their art and make any money from it.)
Perhaps... but then again, if you intercept communications at the server. (like Napster wants to do) does that still count?
I think it does. To use a telephone analogy, it would be rather like saying that wiretap laws only apply to intercepting at the local loop and that they do not apply if the tap is at the exchange (CO in America?)
Which is almost the exact opposite of the the initial reason given. Initially the reason given for CDs being more expensive than vinyl or cassette was that they were "new" technology and did not (initially) have the benefit of "economy of scale". We were told that when CDs became more common that the price would drop. While this is true of the players, it has not happened for the CDs themselves.
So maybe the answer is to completely change the charging mechanism. Rather than pay for individual recordings, what about introducing a "music download" licence which allows you download (and listen to) music from the the Internet in the same way as a TV licence allows you to watch TV programmes. Then, with the licence, you would be able to download the music (at no additional charge) from the Record Company (or artist's own) web sites and the artists would receive payment in proportion to the number of downloads of their works. The same licence would also allow P2P sharing, so that you would still be able to obtain "old" music, and the the producers would not be able to control our listening by "deleting" titles.
If the score (printed music and lyrics) were treated as "source code" and the performance as "binary/executable", then maybe it might be more like the GPL.
Why should (hardware) vendors not release source drivers? The hardware vendor is in the business of selling hardware not (normally) drivers. The vendors produce drivers so that they can sell (more) hardware. So increasing the availability of drivers increases the potential hardware sales. Even if the hardware requires the driver to download firmware, this should not rule out a source level driver, as the downloadable firmware can be supplied either as a separate binary file which the driver reads, or as an initialised byte array in the source files.
And as of now (24 April), vger.kernel.org is still not using ECN. Unless something between it and here is removing the 'WE' flags, as I see incoming mail from vger arrive with only the SYN flag set.
Dateline 13 September 2002. Today the MicroSoft corporation changes it name to Omni Consumer Products (OCP). Chairman Bill Gates states "Trust us, we know is best for you".
Maybe everyone who is asked to do this should demand that the company provide them (free of charge) with a full audited copy of the company accounts for past N years together with the latest Dunn & Bradstreet report on the company. After all, "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
In which case does it not make more sense to perform the IPO when stock prices are low, as then there is more chance of them increasing than if the IPO is at a time of (already) high stock prices? Also it is less risk for the investors. Is there not more chance of a $1 share, purchased during a period of low share prices, increasing to $5 in a few years than a $50 share, purchased in period of high share prices, increasing to $250 in the same period? Also, if the price does drop you have not lost so much.
Where does the constitution state that? It says nothing about the direct action of government departments or officials, nor of goverment funded projects. What it does address is the subject matter of laws made by the leglislature. These laws govern the actions (or rather the legality thereof) of all citizens, corporations etc, not just of government or public officials and bodies.
Any politician whose motivation is to get re-elected does not deserve to hold office. Politians should be acting in the interest of the people, not in their own self-interest.
Has anyone ever published a CSS encoder? Then people could encode their documents/articles/emails etc with this and distribute DeCSS as the mechanism for accessing the information. This usage should not fall foul of DCMA as it is being distributed by the owner of of the copyright material (you) to enable access. MPAA did not patent CSS, so can they prevent anyone from using the algorithm to "protect" their own copyright material?
In which case could the "unclean" hands rule not be turned around, and say that by breaking the encryption (contra DCMA) that the RIAA have made their hands unclean?
Slashdot Mirror
Can their not truthfully claim that all of the packaging has been destroyed? There were zero boxes to start with, and all zero have been destroyed.
But 2000 pound coins would be allowed, as I believe that (like the pound note before it) the pound coin has no upper legal tender limit.
But "Killustrator" and "Illustrator" are different words. If someone owned the trademark "Rust", would that stop anyone using the words "Crust", "Trust", "Krust" or "Thrust" as product names? If not, then why is "Killustrator" not allowed?
In the context of electronic signatures (rather than encrypted data) it enables you to obtain the public key of the entity which signed a message for which you wish to check the signature. While this will not provide any correlation between the key holder and a "real world" identity, it does allow you check that a) the data has not been altered since it was signed, and b) that if 2 messages are signed with the same key that you have a reasonably level of confidence that they were signed by the same entity.
gcc 3.0 should compile kernels with no problems. Was linux kernel compilation not one of the release criteria for gcc 3.0?
Only unfortunately the "content providers" and some ISPs want to change that. They want it so that you can only share information with centralised servers (which they, of course, control) and do not like (or in the case of some ISPs allow) you to run any servers yourself.
If software continues to work, and does the job required, why does it need to be depreciated and, eventually, written off.
Because the RIAA represents the distribution side of the industry not the people who write and perform the music (though it may seem otherwise as the artists (under the "old" distribution system) have to "sign up" with the distribution companies in order to promulgate their art and make any money from it.)
I think it does. To use a telephone analogy, it would be rather like saying that wiretap laws only apply to intercepting at the local loop and that they do not apply if the tap is at the exchange (CO in America?)
Which is almost the exact opposite of the the initial reason given. Initially the reason given for CDs being more expensive than vinyl or cassette was that they were "new" technology and did not (initially) have the benefit of "economy of scale". We were told that when CDs became more common that the price would drop. While this is true of the players, it has not happened for the CDs themselves.
So maybe the answer is to completely change the charging mechanism. Rather than pay for individual recordings, what about introducing a "music download" licence which allows you download (and listen to) music from the the Internet in the same way as a TV licence allows you to watch TV programmes. Then, with the licence, you would be able to download the music (at no additional charge) from the Record Company (or artist's own) web sites and the artists would receive payment in proportion to the number of downloads of their works. The same licence would also allow P2P sharing, so that you would still be able to obtain "old" music, and the the producers would not be able to control our listening by "deleting" titles.
If the score (printed music and lyrics) were treated as "source code" and the performance as "binary/executable", then maybe it might be more like the GPL.
Why should (hardware) vendors not release source drivers? The hardware vendor is in the business of selling hardware not (normally) drivers. The vendors produce drivers so that they can sell (more) hardware. So increasing the availability of drivers increases the potential hardware sales. Even if the hardware requires the driver to download firmware, this should not rule out a source level driver, as the downloadable firmware can be supplied either as a separate binary file which the driver reads, or as an initialised byte array in the source files.
And as of now (24 April), vger.kernel.org is still not using ECN. Unless something between it and here is removing the 'WE' flags, as I see incoming mail from vger arrive with only the SYN flag set.
The official AIMS Linux client does not show adverts.
Dateline 13 September 2002. Today the MicroSoft corporation changes it name to Omni Consumer Products (OCP). Chairman Bill Gates states "Trust us, we know is best for you".
Maybe everyone who is asked to do this should demand that the company provide them (free of charge) with a full audited copy of the company accounts for past N years together with the latest Dunn & Bradstreet report on the company. After all, "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
Does it use TOC or OSCAR?
In which case does it not make more sense to perform the IPO when stock prices are low, as then there is more chance of them increasing than if the IPO is at a time of (already) high stock prices? Also it is less risk for the investors. Is there not more chance of a $1 share, purchased during a period of low share prices, increasing to $5 in a few years than a $50 share, purchased in period of high share prices, increasing to $250 in the same period? Also, if the price does drop you have not lost so much.
Where does the constitution state that? It says nothing about the direct action of government departments or officials, nor of goverment funded projects. What it does address is the subject matter of laws made by the leglislature. These laws govern the actions (or rather the legality thereof) of all citizens, corporations etc, not just of government or public officials and bodies.
It is the "freedom", that of the press which has been violated not that of speech.
Any politician whose motivation is to get re-elected does not deserve to hold office. Politians should be acting in the interest of the people, not in their own self-interest.
Has anyone ever published a CSS encoder? Then people could encode their documents/articles/emails etc with this and distribute DeCSS as the mechanism for accessing the information. This usage should not fall foul of DCMA as it is being distributed by the owner of of the copyright material (you) to enable access. MPAA did not patent CSS, so can they prevent anyone from using the algorithm to "protect" their own copyright material?
In which case could the "unclean" hands rule not be turned around, and say that by breaking the encryption (contra DCMA) that the RIAA have made their hands unclean?