either the industries scheme will be in place and they will be able to decide what data is ok for you to store on a HD
Surely that is backwards! It should be the files/content which dictate where they are allowed to be stored rather than the media/controller dictating what may be stored on itself. So that application may only allow copying/writing to a drive which has CRPM drive, but non-copyprotected content should be usable on any drive.
Did FidoNet not (and probably still does) run on a similar line. Each system exchanged data with others which were local to it. They in turn exchanged data with other systems which are local to them but not to you and so with the data being carried over large distances in many mutually local hops (with obvious breaks in this mutually local system caused by national borders, oceans etc.)
For a single host, the mail server can almost be a no-brainer. It has to only accept mail addressed to itself and permit no relaying at all. It should not be too difficult to provide such a mail server which needs no user configuration at all - reading the local hostname (which would be the only one for which mail would be accepted) from the OS.
For an always on connection, are ISP hosted mail and DNS servers really needed? Granted an ISP's mail server is convenient for when your system is down (or not connected) but SMTP was designed for, and works perfectly well with, direct host-to-host transfer.
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
When you purchase copyright a copyright work, be it a book, picture, DVD, CD, VHS or cassette tape, you are purchasing the right (or a licence) to enjoy the copyright work. I do not disagree with the copyright owners wishing to control the copying of the work, broadcasting and public showing, but I fail to see why they should also have (or claim) the right to dictate the environment in which the work may be enjoyed in private. If you purchase a book or painting, the copyright owner does not tell you where you are allowed to read the book or hang the painting. Once we purchase the DVD, it should be no business of the copyright owner what equipment we use to view the content. The US DCMA states that none of its provisions remove the "fair use" use rights given by other copyright laws but recent events make this claim rather suspect.
Maybe one solution to the problem of domain names vs trademarks etc. is to get rid of the domain name system as we know it. The telephone system does not have the same problem as it uses numbers. So why not go back to using IP addresses (for IP4 this is only 8 hex characters, so should not be any more difficult to remember than a phone number) to access sites on the web. Then also provide a white pages service, similar to a phone book, where you can look up a company or individual name and find their IP address. Companies and individuals could then use their own local "address book" to keep track of sites they commonly access and could make whatever local name association they choose.
Ooops. I forgot one incompatibility. It is not possible to build gcc 2.95.2 using glibc 2.2, without applying a patch, as there was an incompatible header file change. However the gcc 2.95.2 built using glibc 2.1 will still run perfectly well under glibc 2.2.
Upgrading from glibc 2.1 to 2.2 should not require upgrading anything else. The upgrade from glibc 2.0 to 2.1 required rebuilding a few things - such as ncurses and gcc - but not many.
Why is an application attempting to link against glibc-2.1.x? Why is it not linking against libc.so.6? If it did this then, as long as your glibc is not earlier than the one against which the application was built then versioning within the library should take care of everything for you.
Glibc 2.2 is suposed to be backward compatible with 2.1 (and 2.0). I am running 2.2 and have not had any problems with programs built against 2.1 (and an even running some built against 2.0.7). The library which seems to cause problems is not glibc but libstdc++.
If this indexing requires the shutdown of Napster, would it not also require shutting down CDDB (or whatever they are calling themselves now) and Imdb?
A common mistake here is assuming that because you know how the technology works, you also understand the legal implications. A classic, "I am an expert in this field, therefore I am an expert in those areas which overlap with yours." While for some strange reason, the converse is not held to true
In that respect the legal profession seem to be very two-faced. On one hand they say that "ignorance of the law is not a defence" (ie assume that everyone has knowledge of their specialist area), but on the other hand disallow (or require the use of expert witnesses) the assumption of even quite elementary (pre-college level) knowledge of science, math and technology.
In the lawsuit brought against 2600 regarding linking to the DeCSS program, the judge ruled that publishing the plain text of the links was protected speech, but publishing clickable hyperlinks was not
Imagine if you came across an e-mail discussing an H-Bomb attack on New York. What's the moral thing to do there? Do you alert the government, potentially save a million lives,
You would also have to be careful to examine the context. This could well be part of an play by email wargame. Just because something is discussed does not necessarily mean that the writer is planning or intending to perform the action being discussed.
And if someone asked me about PS2, I would tell them about the International Business Machines microchannel systems. The same ones after which the PS/2 mouse/connector is named.
What I mean is that at the moment I can sit down and play my clarinet (yes that is my instrument as well), and record it onto CD using my computer. I could then distribute this and other could (though they would probably not want to!) listen to this on their CD player. ie it allows anyone to make "content". If the "content providers" (ie hollywood and the record companies) get their way with copy protection, this will not be possible as the reproduction equipment will only play "content protected" media and only the "big players" will be able to create this.
The internet (or rather the Web) should not need advertising, as such, to get (potential) consumers to new places. Search engines should do this for you. Though having said that, I have found this to be one area where search engines are (in general) deficient. If you know what (either generic or by brand) you wish to purchase, the search engines do not help finding an online retailer to purchase from.
A law to make it illegal (if it is not already) to forge email addresses. This would not only apply to the "idiot" opting-in someone else but also to the senders of the bulk-email.
Require that the opting in be done from the email address concerned.
But does it? Does the DCMA not only make it illegal to circumvent protection of access to copyright material without the copyright owner's (note copyright owner of the protected material, not owner/author of the protection system) permission. If you own the copyright then surely all you have to do is give yourself permission to circumvent the protection mechanism and gain access.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want shelf space at major retailers, you have to pay -- especially for shelf end positions.
Should the retailer's shelf space not be paid for by the profits from selling the goods on those shelves?
either the industries scheme will be in place and they will be able to decide what data is ok for you to store on a HD
Surely that is backwards! It should be the files/content which dictate where they are allowed to be stored rather than the media/controller dictating what may be stored on itself. So that application may only allow copying/writing to a drive which has CRPM drive, but non-copyprotected content should be usable on any drive.
Did FidoNet not (and probably still does) run on a similar line. Each system exchanged data with others which were local to it. They in turn exchanged data with other systems which are local to them but not to you and so with the data being carried over large distances in many mutually local hops (with obvious breaks in this mutually local system caused by national borders, oceans etc.)
For a single host, the mail server can almost be a no-brainer. It has to only accept mail addressed to itself and permit no relaying at all. It should not be too difficult to provide such a mail server which needs no user configuration at all - reading the local hostname (which would be the only one for which mail would be accepted) from the OS.
For an always on connection, are ISP hosted mail and DNS servers really needed? Granted an ISP's mail server is convenient for when your system is down (or not connected) but SMTP was designed for, and works perfectly well with, direct host-to-host transfer.
Which is what the original ISPs used to do. The provision of additional content/value came later.
Charging by the Mbyte (I believe that the KPacket was the actual unit) is how data services (such as X.25 networks) used to be charged.
This should come as no surprise to ISPs as before its consumerisation the Internet was a p2p system, exchanging information between peers.
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
When you purchase copyright a copyright work, be it a book, picture, DVD, CD, VHS or cassette tape, you are purchasing the right (or a licence) to enjoy the copyright work. I do not disagree with the copyright owners wishing to control the copying of the work, broadcasting and public showing, but I fail to see why they should also have (or claim) the right to dictate the environment in which the work may be enjoyed in private. If you purchase a book or painting, the copyright owner does not tell you where you are allowed to read the book or hang the painting. Once we purchase the DVD, it should be no business of the copyright owner what equipment we use to view the content. The US DCMA states that none of its provisions remove the "fair use" use rights given by other copyright laws but recent events make this claim rather suspect.
Maybe one solution to the problem of domain names vs trademarks etc. is to get rid of the domain name system as we know it. The telephone system does not have the same problem as it uses numbers. So why not go back to using IP addresses (for IP4 this is only 8 hex characters, so should not be any more difficult to remember than a phone number) to access sites on the web. Then also provide a white pages service, similar to a phone book, where you can look up a company or individual name and find their IP address. Companies and individuals could then use their own local "address book" to keep track of sites they commonly access and could make whatever local name association they choose.
Ooops. I forgot one incompatibility. It is not possible to build gcc 2.95.2 using glibc 2.2, without applying a patch, as there was an incompatible header file change. However the gcc 2.95.2 built using glibc 2.1 will still run perfectly well under glibc 2.2.
Upgrading from glibc 2.1 to 2.2 should not require upgrading anything else. The upgrade from glibc 2.0 to 2.1 required rebuilding a few things - such as ncurses and gcc - but not many.
Why is an application attempting to link against glibc-2.1.x? Why is it not linking against libc.so.6? If it did this then, as long as your glibc is not earlier than the one against which the application was built then versioning within the library should take care of everything for you.
Glibc 2.2 is suposed to be backward compatible with 2.1 (and 2.0). I am running 2.2 and have not had any problems with programs built against 2.1 (and an even running some built against 2.0.7). The library which seems to cause problems is not glibc but libstdc++.
If this indexing requires the shutdown of Napster, would it not also require shutting down CDDB (or whatever they are calling themselves now) and Imdb?
A common mistake here is assuming that because you know how the technology works, you also understand the legal implications. A classic, "I am an expert in this field, therefore I am an expert in those areas which overlap with yours." While for some strange reason, the converse is not held to true
In that respect the legal profession seem to be very two-faced. On one hand they say that "ignorance of the law is not a defence" (ie assume that everyone has knowledge of their specialist area), but on the other hand disallow (or require the use of expert witnesses) the assumption of even quite elementary (pre-college level) knowledge of science, math and technology.
In the lawsuit brought against 2600 regarding linking to the DeCSS program, the judge ruled that publishing the plain text of the links was protected speech, but publishing clickable hyperlinks was not
How did he justify that ruling?
Imagine if you came across an e-mail discussing an H-Bomb attack on New York. What's the moral thing to do there? Do you alert the government, potentially save a million lives,
You would also have to be careful to examine the context. This could well be part of an play by email wargame. Just because something is discussed does not necessarily mean that the writer is planning or intending to perform the action being discussed.
It is a public forum, not because the public own or govern it, but because the public have access to and can use it.
And if someone asked me about PS2, I would tell them about the International Business Machines microchannel systems. The same ones after which the PS/2 mouse/connector is named.
What I mean is that at the moment I can sit down and play my clarinet (yes that is my instrument as well), and record it onto CD using my computer. I could then distribute this and other could (though they would probably not want to!) listen to this on their CD player. ie it allows anyone to make "content". If the "content providers" (ie hollywood and the record companies) get their way with copy protection, this will not be possible as the reproduction equipment will only play "content protected" media and only the "big players" will be able to create this.
Should the content providers be allowed to form a cartel whereby only members of the cartel are allowed/able to produce content?
The internet (or rather the Web) should not need advertising, as such, to get (potential) consumers to new places. Search engines should do this for you. Though having said that, I have found this to be one area where search engines are (in general) deficient. If you know what (either generic or by brand) you wish to purchase, the search engines do not help finding an online retailer to purchase from.
But does it? Does the DCMA not only make it illegal to circumvent protection of access to copyright material without the copyright owner's (note copyright owner of the protected material, not owner/author of the protection system) permission. If you own the copyright then surely all you have to do is give yourself permission to circumvent the protection mechanism and gain access.