There should be no need for ISPs to "have decent mac support". An ISP is providing a TCP/IP connection to the "rest of the world". Therefore any ISP should be usable with any client platform. It should be just as silly for an ISP to only "support" WinTel PCs as it would be for a cable TV company to only support (for example) Sony TVs.
Iptables does not just limit the number of syn packets from a single source. You can rate limit SYN packets from any/all sources. The howto even has an example
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --syn -m limit --limit 1/s -j ACCEPT
That is nothing to do with copying. No additional copy has been created, so copyright has (or should not have been) infringed. This is an example of fraud not copyright infringement. If the publishers either did not use a "sale or return" system or required that the whole book be returned, then this fraud could not be perpetrated.
I think that the problem we have now is that the copyright owner sometimes gets too many rights. The right to control copying is fair enough. But should the copyright owner have any say over what is done with the legally produced copy? If a copy of a work (book, software, music CD, celuloid movie,DVD etc) has been created with the permission of (and probably fees paid to) the copyright owner, then the only activity which should concern the copyright holder is creating another copy. How and where you use, change, or dispose of the legally created copy should not be any business of the copyright holder.
Maybe because IRC is only realtime. It does not enable leaving messages when the recipient is offline. But email is ideal for when the correspondents are not online at the same time, so IM is not needed in that situation either.
Maybe an interesting question might be, "which language has
the greatest number of non-native speakers?" While
Mandarin (probably) has the largest number of native
speakers, I suspect that it is probably quite a way
down the list of second/third etc languages.
I don't think that anyone is saying that you should be entitled to a free ride. I may have the right to travel but this does no good if all of the travel companies refuse to sell me a ticket (at any reasonable price). Similarly the freedom of the press is of no use if no paper supplier is willing to sell paper to the printer. Web publishing should, in my opinion be the same as printing with the role of the ISP being analogous to the paper and ink supplier rather than the publisher (who is the page author or owner.) ISPs should not be concerned with the content in same way as paper and ink suppliers do not normally concern themselves with the content of the books/periodicals produced using materials they supply. ISPs should only concern themselves with (and charge the customers for) the resources (bandwidth, storage, maintenance) used.
Why should the constitution only apply to the Government?
What about the clause which guarantees "freedom of the press"? At least according to the spirit, if not the letter (as technology has changed), does this not apply to entities such as slashdot, yahoo and even private citizens personal webpages? History is not one of my strong subjects, but I believe that at the time constitution was framed, the "press" was not formed of large corporates and conglomerates but mainly small local print shops. So should the individual not have the same rights to publish on the web as (s)he had in days gone by to establishing a printing press?
So how come if I buy a DVD here in the UK it will often come with an English and German soundtrack (and sometime Italian or Spanish) but rarely a French one? If I buy the same title from France it comes with both French and English soundtracks.
Nobody has yet managed to explain, to my satisfaction, what this (both DVD zoning and Sat. TV.) has to with copyright anyway. In both cases the producer/copyright owner is paid for the 'copy' (DVD or TV Viewing) so why is it anything to do with copyright where that (paid for) copy is enjoyed? Part of the DVD retail price and the Satellite TV subscription fee goes to the copyright owner. So why should the copyright owner be allowed to decree that the DVD can only be played and the Sat. TV broadcast only watched in certain countries? If I buy a book at the airport in one country, when I arrive at my destination I am not told that I am no longer allowed to read the copy I brought with me but have to buy a copy locally and read that. So why should DVDs and Sat TV broadcasts be any different?
Do film makers not make money from DVD sales? So why do you need to go to the theatre to support them? Some people like the experience of visiting a theatre, others like to watch movies alone or with family and friends at home. So why not release the movie simultaneously in all formats?
Also it does not help that there are often multiple R2 versions of the same title. For example, the one on sale in the UK has English and German soundtracks and multiple sub-title tracks. In France it has French and (sometimes, especially if the original language) English audio. We already have different DVD regions, so why do we also need multiple variations within the region?
Free speach implies the right for me to have to right not to listen. It does not give anyone else the right to censor/filter the speach and prevent me from listening.
But surely it would take much much too much CPU power for a backbone router to consult the RBL. Or are the static routeing tables updated periodically to incorporate the RBL data?
Not just the Internet, but the Olympics was also a wasted oportunity for Digital TV. Digital TV, satellite or cable, claims that one of its advantages is that it offers many channels. So why did the broadcasters not take advantage of this and allocate a channel to continuously cover a particular event - both heats and finals. That way viewers who want to follow a particular (maybe minority interest) event can watch all of it and viewers could choose which events to follow rather than only being shown (on a small number of channels) what the editors wish the vieweres to see.
Why does the TLD have to be biz? Why not business or inc (for incorporated entities)? Is there any reason why the 'global' TLDs have to be 3 characters?
I quite like one of lynx's options for cookies. That is to accept cookies during the session but then to discard them. This allows cookies to be used for one of their useful purposes - keeping state information between pages on a site (eg a shopping cart) but prevents tracking of viewing habits.
It would be nice if the more widely used browsers offered the same option, preferably with the option of keeping some cookies (eg Slashdot login info) between sessions.
Which how taxes used to be collected in medieval times. You paid a proportion of the crops you harvested, the animals born etc to the Lord of the Manor.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but if a site uses an non iso-8859-xx character set for the domain name, how do these get entered into the 'url entry field'? Having a browser display the correct glyphs is one thing, but being able to create the correct characters from a 'Roman' keyboard is another. I know that it is possible to input Chinese/Japanese etc characters into emacs (though I have never tried) but this uses its own multi-byte character encoding which I do not think would be usable in Netscape, Mozilla or IE (on any Roman alphabet platform.)
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is between "This (electronic) book cannot be read aloud" and "You may not read this book aloud".
The former indicates the capabilities of the software, the latter indicates your rights.
There should be no need for ISPs to "have decent mac support". An ISP is providing a TCP/IP connection to the "rest of the world". Therefore any ISP should be usable with any client platform. It should be just as silly for an ISP to only "support" WinTel PCs as it would be for a cable TV company to only support (for example) Sony TVs.
Iptables does not just limit the number of syn packets from a single source. You can rate limit SYN packets from any/all sources. The howto even has an example
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --syn -m limit --limit 1/s -j ACCEPT
That is nothing to do with copying. No additional copy has been created, so copyright has (or should not have been) infringed. This is an example of fraud not copyright infringement. If the publishers either did not use a "sale or return" system or required that the whole book be returned, then this fraud could not be perpetrated.
I think that the problem we have now is that the copyright owner sometimes gets too many rights. The right to control copying is fair enough. But should the copyright owner have any say over what is done with the legally produced copy? If a copy of a work (book, software, music CD, celuloid movie,DVD etc) has been created with the permission of (and probably fees paid to) the copyright owner, then the only activity which should concern the copyright holder is creating another copy. How and where you use, change, or dispose of the legally created copy should not be any business of the copyright holder.
Maybe because IRC is only realtime. It does not enable leaving messages when the recipient is offline. But email is ideal for when the correspondents are not online at the same time, so IM is not needed in that situation either.
Maybe an interesting question might be, "which language has the greatest number of non-native speakers?" While Mandarin (probably) has the largest number of native speakers, I suspect that it is probably quite a way down the list of second/third etc languages.
Maybe the exams required before obtaining an Amateur Radio licence would be a better example than tests to obtain a driving licence.
I don't think that anyone is saying that you should be entitled to a free ride. I may have the right to travel but this does no good if all of the travel companies refuse to sell me a ticket (at any reasonable price). Similarly the freedom of the press is of no use if no paper supplier is willing to sell paper to the printer. Web publishing should, in my opinion be the same as printing with the role of the ISP being analogous to the paper and ink supplier rather than the publisher (who is the page author or owner.) ISPs should not be concerned with the content in same way as paper and ink suppliers do not normally concern themselves with the content of the books/periodicals produced using materials they supply. ISPs should only concern themselves with (and charge the customers for) the resources (bandwidth, storage, maintenance) used.
Why should the constitution only apply to the Government?
What about the clause which guarantees "freedom of the press"? At least according to the spirit, if not the letter (as technology has changed), does this not apply to entities such as slashdot, yahoo and even private citizens personal webpages? History is not one of my strong subjects, but I believe that at the time constitution was framed, the "press" was not formed of large corporates and conglomerates but mainly small local print shops. So should the individual not have the same rights to publish on the web as (s)he had in days gone by to establishing a printing press?
And all of the other character based games, the rouguelikes etc.
But EU citizens are not subject to the DCMA
So how come if I buy a DVD here in the UK it will often come with an English and German soundtrack (and sometime Italian or Spanish) but rarely a French one? If I buy the same title from France it comes with both French and English soundtracks.
Nobody has yet managed to explain, to my satisfaction, what this (both DVD zoning and Sat. TV.) has to with copyright anyway. In both cases the producer/copyright owner is paid for the 'copy' (DVD or TV Viewing) so why is it anything to do with copyright where that (paid for) copy is enjoyed? Part of the DVD retail price and the Satellite TV subscription fee goes to the copyright owner. So why should the copyright owner be allowed to decree that the DVD can only be played and the Sat. TV broadcast only watched in certain countries? If I buy a book at the airport in one country, when I arrive at my destination I am not told that I am no longer allowed to read the copy I brought with me but have to buy a copy locally and read that. So why should DVDs and Sat TV broadcasts be any different?
Do film makers not make money from DVD sales? So why do you need to go to the theatre to support them? Some people like the experience of visiting a theatre, others like to watch movies alone or with family and friends at home. So why not release the movie simultaneously in all formats?
Also it does not help that there are often multiple R2 versions of the same title. For example, the one on sale in the UK has English and German soundtracks and multiple sub-title tracks. In France it has French and (sometimes, especially if the original language) English audio. We already have different DVD regions, so why do we also need multiple variations within the region?
Free speach implies the right for me to have to right not to listen. It does not give anyone else the right to censor/filter the speach and prevent me from listening.
Should it not be up to the customer, not their ISP, what blocking to use?
But surely it would take much much too much CPU power for a backbone router to consult the RBL. Or are the static routeing tables updated periodically to incorporate the RBL data?
So should full disclosure, as in GPL and other Open Source, not be counted as equivalent to a patent?
Not just the Internet, but the Olympics was also a wasted oportunity for Digital TV. Digital TV, satellite or cable, claims that one of its advantages is that it offers many channels. So why did the broadcasters not take advantage of this and allocate a channel to continuously cover a particular event - both heats and finals. That way viewers who want to follow a particular (maybe minority interest) event can watch all of it and viewers could choose which events to follow rather than only being shown (on a small number of channels) what the editors wish the vieweres to see.
Why does the TLD have to be biz? Why not business or inc (for incorporated entities)? Is there any reason why the 'global' TLDs have to be 3 characters?
I quite like one of lynx's options for cookies. That is to accept cookies during the session but then to discard them. This allows cookies to be used for one of their useful purposes - keeping state information between pages on a site (eg a shopping cart) but prevents tracking of viewing habits.
It would be nice if the more widely used browsers offered the same option, preferably with the option of keeping some cookies (eg Slashdot login info) between sessions.
Which how taxes used to be collected in medieval times. You paid a proportion of the crops you harvested, the animals born etc to the Lord of the Manor.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but if a site uses an non iso-8859-xx character set for the domain name, how do these get entered into the 'url entry field'? Having a browser display the correct glyphs is one thing, but being able to create the correct characters from a 'Roman' keyboard is another. I know that it is possible to input Chinese/Japanese etc characters into emacs (though I have never tried) but this uses its own multi-byte character encoding which I do not think would be usable in Netscape, Mozilla or IE (on any Roman alphabet platform.)