A key part of DoubleClick's patent is not present in the porn mogul's business plan: DoubleClick's use of cookies to identify a user across all of DoubleClick's affiliate web sites. The use of
cookies allows DoubleClick to ensure that adds are not repeated, and helps them target their adds more effectively. It is much more interesting to advertisers to know that a person has visited www.macnn.com, www.news.com www.macintoch.com, and www.slashdot.com, then to
simply know that the user is viewing an add from www.slashdot.com.
While some might say DoubleClick's use of cookies is the most insidious part of their patent, I believe it is a significant enough improvement over the porn king's business plan to make it's
patent still stand up. At any rate is is far to soon to proclaim that DoubleClick's patent is "busted".
The part in the Slashdot posting about December 26th is wrong. The parts aren't aboard the M1-4. The new parts will be sent up either aboard Atlantis in January or in a Russian rocket in Febrary.
Everything has already been offloaded from the M1-4. I believe the redocking of the Progress M1-4 vehicle is only to test the patch that Russia sent up to fix the errors during the last docking, and possibly to use it to jettison waste that has built up in the station. The US is hesitant to allow another docking because it was during a similiar manual docking that the Mir was almost destroyed.
The article says it was sold for 500 Million dollars (Australian) which converts to aproximently 259,550,000 American dollars. So, the Slashdot article should have said for "quarter of a billion dollars". Still a lot of money.
Perl would not work. Client side scripting is required to break out of the frame. There is no such thing as client side perl scripting, so you could not rewrite your JavaScript code in perl.
Re:Electrics, eat your hearts out!
on
Air-Powered Cars
·
· Score: 2
The compressor is on board. You just have to plug it in to recharge the air canisters.
Re:Supreme Court Precedent
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
You are misstating the impact of this decision. The court is not banning anonymous speech. The decision merely reinforces previous case law that has determined that defamation of character (slander/libel) is an exception to free speech.
Slandourous accusations have never been protected by the First Amendment. If I were to level untrue accusations against you, your family or the company you work for should that speech be protected based solely on the fact that I posted the accusations anonymously? The law should not change depending on whether speech is anonymous or not. Either way slanderous speech is illegal and the victims of the speech should have the opportunity to confront those making the untrue speech.
I do agree that it is a little scary that a court can grant a subpoena to ferret out the identity of an anonymous poster without any proof that the poster's speech is indeed defamation. However, I would imagine that often speech could not be proved slanderous unless the identity of the speaker is known. A judge should have some discretion in determining if the accuser's charge is substantial enough to warrant taking away the anonymity of the poster.
You and Ms. Kidd are totally and completely wrong. Here's a quote from an article at Policy.com: Critics also argue that because the Constitution allows electors to use their discretion, there is a possibility of a "faithless" elector not casting his vote for the people's choice but for his own preference. However, this has only happened seven times and never had a real effect on the outcome of an election. Electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate.
This clearly shows that if a third party candidate ever received a plurality of the votes in particular state, the electors are bound to support the candidate. There is simply no evidence of a third party candidate receiving a plurality of the votes, but not receiving the electors from a state. Until you can show me this, then there is no evidence that the electoral college is doing anything to prevent third party candidates from winning the presidency.
Also, its a shame that your only source is Ms Kidd. She clearly doesn't understand the electoral college process since she can't understand why H. Ross Perot didn't receive any electoral college votes:
How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes? Mr. Bush took 168 electoral votes with allegedly twice as many popular votes but Perot gets 0 for about half the number of votes Bush, Sr. allegedly received. The why is simple: There are no third party electoral college delegates that I can find in the Electoral College.
She tries to blame the fact that Perot received 0 electoral votes because there are no "third-party" electoral college delegates in the "Electoral College". If she understood the way the Electoral College works, she would know that the reason why he received no electoral college votes was because he didn't receive a plurality in any state, not because of a conspiracy.
I'm sorry, but the person who wrote the piece at the link you referred me to does not know what he is talking about.
He states, "How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes?"
He blames Mr. Perot's poor showing on a conspiracy against third parties. The real reason he received 0 electoral votes is because he didn't receive a plurality in any of the states in our country. Despite the author's belief that there is a conspiracy against third party candidates, if Perot had been popular enough to receive a plurality of the vote from a particular state, he would have received the electoral votes of that state.
Let's just pretend that Minnesota did have an electoral college system. Perhaps each county could have a certain amount of electoral votes won in a winner take all fashion similar to how each state has a certain amount of votes won in a winner take all.
How would that have changed the Minnesota election? What is it about the electoral college voting system that fundamentally prevents a popular third party candidate from wining an election?
How does the electoral college system prevent anyone from winning? Can you name an election in which the candidate that received a plurality of the votes did not win the election?
While the electoral college system causes third party candidates to win zero electoral college votes, it doesn't cause them to lose the election. Nothing about the electoral college system limits the ability of a third party candidate to challenge the two party system. Its the candidate's inability to garner more then 10%-15% of the vote. I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence to justify your belief that things would be different if the presidential election was decided by a strict plurality. There are numerous barriers for third party candidates, but the electoral college system is not one of them.
Remember, in the U.S., the popular vote is irrelevant. The electoral college is all that matters. So, even though Clinton got only 43%, of the popular vote, he recieved the votes from a majority of the country's electoral college.
A canidtate does have to get a majority of the electoral college votes to be elected. If not, the House gets to determine the winner. So, a run-off would be required if 1/3 of the states in the US voted for one canidate, 1/3 for another, and the rest voted for another canidate.
The United States Senator President in the presence of the Senate and House opens the certificates and counts the votes on January 6 at 1:00 p.m. The candidates receiving an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes are declared President and Vice-President of the United States.
If no candidate for President receives a majority, the three highest vote recipients are voted on by the House. Each state has one vote and a majority is needed for election.
If no candidate for Vice-President receives a majority, the Senate votes on the two highest vote recipients.
If the President-elect dies before January 20, the Vice-President takes office.
If additional information is required, please contact our office at (617) 727-2828.
You're wrong. The constitution mandates that in all states, the electoral college is elected in a winner takes all approach. Candidates carry states, not districts. As long as 51% voter vote for Gore or Bush in a particular state, the entire electoral college for that candidate is elected.
Also, once the Windows or Mac user has figured out how to change the display resultion. He or she will be able to configure most other aspecs of the computer using the same metaphores and procedures.
The article mentioned that there exists firewalls that do not prevent this sort of thing, but it didn't mention whether there are firewalls that do prevent this sort of thing.
It seems that any network that woud require you to utilize a covert channel like TCP headers will have a firewall. If it doesn't have a firewall then using any normal protocol will be just as "covert" as using TCP headers since there won't be anything that can monitor the data coming in or out of network.
So if we assume that a firewall is in place, how much of the article still applies? I think any firewall that is worth anything will rewrite all TCP packets that pass through it. Also, a decent firewall should ensure that all return address's are in fact valid, so the spoof method would not work.
Basically, it seems like this method will only work on networks that contain poorly written firewalls or on networks that don't have a firewall. Am I correct with these statements?
Good point, but when does a bot get a chance to read or agree to Napster's TOS?
There is nothing in their protocol that sends the bot Napster's TOS, nor is their any request in the protocol that asks whether or not the user actually agrees to the TOS. Without these things in their protocol, NetPD could argue that they never saw nor agreed to Napster's TOS.
I agree, it sucked that you were moderated down when you were only trying to help, but perhaps a score of two was too high for a post simply warning people not to go to a site. If your post didn't automatically have the +1 Bonus added, it probably wouldn't have been moderated up to a score of two on its own merits.
A moderator probably saw that your post had a score of two, and thought that it was too high for any post post in this off-topic thread. This is reasonablie since no posts in this thread should probably be scored any higher than a one, and often saying, "Don't look," has the effect of actually causing more people to look.
Thus in the future, if you are going post something obviously off-topic (like this post for example), it might behoove you to click the "No Score +1 Bonus" since that probably is the score that it deserves.
Good point, but when does a bot get a chance to read or agree to Napster's TOS?
There is nothing in their protocol that sends the bot Napster's TOS, nor is their any request in the protocol that asks whether or not the user actually agrees to the TOS. Without these things in their protocol, NetPD could argue that they never saw nor agreed to Napster's TOS.
Nope, it doesn't convince me. The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis. It's up to the individual artist to agree to those provisions. I don't see anything wrong with that. No one could force them to sign such a contract. Here's a quote:
Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.
Again, this doesn't mean anything. PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them. Also, $5,000 dollars is chump change to a representative, and would not cause someone to embrace a policy that they don't believe in. However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
There is a huge difference between a database of phone numbers and a piece of music. A database of public information doesn't have the same protections as a copyrighted work.
Also, I don't think you are giving all the facts of the case because there have been cases where a company has gotten in trouble for wholesale copying of a competitor's database. If you want more information, there have been several articles on Slashdot about this issue.
The bottom line is that a courts ruling's on a database protection case will not have any bearing on mp3.com's case.
You are probably right. But could you give an example where statements 1-4 don't imply #5: 1) A person is distributing someone else's copyrighted work 2) They are distributing the work in a way that fair use doesn't apply 3) The creator of the work doesn't want their work distributed in the way the person is distributing it 4) The person continues to distribute the work 5) The person is considered to be breaking the law
If statements 1-4 necessarily imply #5 , then it seems to me the copyright holders have control over how their work is being distributed.
I would consider a hypothetical country to have control over a person's religion if a citizen was punished for practicing another religion. Would you consider this country to have control over religion?
The distribution of copyrighted work is analogous to my hypothetical country's control over religion. The people of the United States are punished if they distribute a person's copyrighted work against the wishes of the copyright holder (fair use issues aside). So, I would argue that the copyright holders do have control over the way in which their work is distributed
Perhaps your definition of control is different then mine, but I think the threat of getting sued for punitive damages is a very effective means of controlling distribution, just as the fear of being punished in a country for practicing the wrong religion is an effective means of controlling the religion of its people.
Slashdot Mirror
A key part of DoubleClick's patent is not present in the porn mogul's business plan: DoubleClick's use of cookies to identify a user across all of DoubleClick's affiliate web sites. The use of cookies allows DoubleClick to ensure that adds are not repeated, and helps them target their adds more effectively. It is much more interesting to advertisers to know that a person has visited www.macnn.com, www.news.com www.macintoch.com, and www.slashdot.com, then to simply know that the user is viewing an add from www.slashdot.com.
While some might say DoubleClick's use of cookies is the most insidious part of their patent, I believe it is a significant enough improvement over the porn king's business plan to make it's patent still stand up. At any rate is is far to soon to proclaim that DoubleClick's patent is "busted".
The part in the Slashdot posting about December 26th is wrong. The parts aren't aboard the M1-4. The new parts will be sent up either aboard Atlantis in January or in a Russian rocket in Febrary.
Everything has already been offloaded from the M1-4. I believe the redocking of the Progress M1-4 vehicle is only to test the patch that Russia sent up to fix the errors during the last docking, and possibly to use it to jettison waste that has built up in the station. The US is hesitant to allow another docking because it was during a similiar manual docking that the Mir was almost destroyed.
The article says it was sold for 500 Million dollars (Australian) which converts to aproximently 259,550,000 American dollars. So, the Slashdot article should have said for "quarter of a billion dollars". Still a lot of money.
Perl would not work. Client side scripting is required to break out of the frame. There is no such thing as client side perl scripting, so you could not rewrite your JavaScript code in perl.
The compressor is on board. You just have to plug it in to recharge the air canisters.
You are misstating the impact of this decision. The court is not banning anonymous speech. The decision merely reinforces previous case law that has determined that defamation of character (slander/libel) is an exception to free speech.
Slandourous accusations have never been protected by the First Amendment. If I were to level untrue accusations against you, your family or the company you work for should that speech be protected based solely on the fact that I posted the accusations anonymously? The law should not change depending on whether speech is anonymous or not. Either way slanderous speech is illegal and the victims of the speech should have the opportunity to confront those making the untrue speech.
I do agree that it is a little scary that a court can grant a subpoena to ferret out the identity of an anonymous poster without any proof that the poster's speech is indeed defamation. However, I would imagine that often speech could not be proved slanderous unless the identity of the speaker is known. A judge should have some discretion in determining if the accuser's charge is substantial enough to warrant taking away the anonymity of the poster.
You and Ms. Kidd are totally and completely wrong. Here's a quote from an article at Policy.com:
Critics also argue that because the Constitution allows electors to use their discretion, there is a possibility of a "faithless" elector not casting his vote for the people's choice but for his own preference. However, this has only happened seven times and never had a real effect on the outcome of an election. Electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate.
This clearly shows that if a third party candidate ever received a plurality of the votes in particular state, the electors are bound to support the candidate. There is simply no evidence of a third party candidate receiving a plurality of the votes, but not receiving the electors from a state. Until you can show me this, then there is no evidence that the electoral college is doing anything to prevent third party candidates from winning the presidency.
Also, its a shame that your only source is Ms Kidd. She clearly doesn't understand the electoral college process since she can't understand why H. Ross Perot didn't receive any electoral college votes:
How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes? Mr. Bush took 168 electoral votes with allegedly twice as many popular votes but Perot gets 0 for about half the number of votes Bush, Sr. allegedly received. The why is simple: There are no third party electoral college delegates that I can find in the Electoral College.
She tries to blame the fact that Perot received 0 electoral votes because there are no "third-party" electoral college delegates in the "Electoral College". If she understood the way the Electoral College works, she would know that the reason why he received no electoral college votes was because he didn't receive a plurality in any state, not because of a conspiracy.
I stand corrected regarding my statement, "How does the electoral college system prevent anyone from winning?"
However, the Electoral System still does not prevent a third party candidate from winning, so I still stand by my second paragraph.
I'm sorry, but the person who wrote the piece at the link you referred me to does not know what he is talking about.
He states, "How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes?"
He blames Mr. Perot's poor showing on a conspiracy against third parties. The real reason he received 0 electoral votes is because he didn't receive a plurality in any of the states in our country. Despite the author's belief that there is a conspiracy against third party candidates, if Perot had been popular enough to receive a plurality of the vote from a particular state, he would have received the electoral votes of that state.
Let's just pretend that Minnesota did have an electoral college system. Perhaps each county could have a certain amount of electoral votes won in a winner take all fashion similar to how each state has a certain amount of votes won in a winner take all.
How would that have changed the Minnesota election? What is it about the electoral college voting system that fundamentally prevents a popular third party candidate from wining an election?
How does the electoral college system prevent anyone from winning? Can you name an election in which the candidate that received a plurality of the votes did not win the election?
While the electoral college system causes third party candidates to win zero electoral college votes, it doesn't cause them to lose the election. Nothing about the electoral college system limits the ability of a third party candidate to challenge the two party system. Its the candidate's inability to garner more then 10%-15% of the vote. I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence to justify your belief that things would be different if the presidential election was decided by a strict plurality. There are numerous barriers for third party candidates, but the electoral college system is not one of them.
AppleWorks 6 is Carbonized. It was one of the first carbonized applications. I guess it was Apple's test case while developing CarbonLib.
You just can't link to shared libraries that you don't control.
Remember, in the U.S., the popular vote is irrelevant. The electoral college is all that matters. So, even though Clinton got only 43%, of the popular vote, he recieved the votes from a majority of the country's electoral college.
A canidtate does have to get a majority of the electoral college votes to be elected. If not, the House gets to determine the winner. So, a run-off would be required if 1/3 of the states in the US voted for one canidate, 1/3 for another, and the rest voted for another canidate.
From http://www.state.ma.us:80/s ec/ ele/elecoll/colljan6.htm
The United States Senator President in the presence of the Senate and House opens the certificates and counts the votes on January 6 at 1:00 p.m. The candidates receiving an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes are declared President and Vice-President of the United States. If no candidate for President receives a majority, the three highest vote recipients are voted on by the House. Each state has one vote and a majority is needed for election. If no candidate for Vice-President receives a majority, the Senate votes on the two highest vote recipients. If the President-elect dies before January 20, the Vice-President takes office. If additional information is required, please contact our office at (617) 727-2828.
You're wrong. The constitution mandates that in all states, the electoral college is elected in a winner takes all approach. Candidates carry states, not districts. As long as 51% voter vote for Gore or Bush in a particular state, the entire electoral college for that candidate is elected.
Also, once the Windows or Mac user has figured out how to change the display resultion. He or she will be able to configure most other aspecs of the computer using the same metaphores and procedures.
The article mentioned that there exists firewalls that do not prevent this sort of thing, but it didn't mention whether there are firewalls that do prevent this sort of thing.
It seems that any network that woud require you to utilize a covert channel like TCP headers will have a firewall. If it doesn't have a firewall then using any normal protocol will be just as "covert" as using TCP headers since there won't be anything that can monitor the data coming in or out of network.
So if we assume that a firewall is in place, how much of the article still applies? I think any firewall that is worth anything will rewrite all TCP packets that pass through it. Also, a decent firewall should ensure that all return address's are in fact valid, so the spoof method would not work.
Basically, it seems like this method will only work on networks that contain poorly written firewalls or on networks that don't have a firewall. Am I correct with these statements?
Good point, but when does a bot get a chance to read or agree to Napster's TOS?
There is nothing in their protocol that sends the bot Napster's TOS, nor is their any request in the protocol that asks whether or not the user actually agrees to the TOS. Without these things in their protocol, NetPD could argue that they never saw nor agreed to Napster's TOS.
I agree, it sucked that you were moderated down when you were only trying to help, but perhaps a score of two was too high for a post simply warning people not to go to a site. If your post didn't automatically have the +1 Bonus added, it probably wouldn't have been moderated up to a score of two on its own merits.
A moderator probably saw that your post had a score of two, and thought that it was too high for any post post in this off-topic thread. This is reasonablie since no posts in this thread should probably be scored any higher than a one, and often saying, "Don't look," has the effect of actually causing more people to look.
Thus in the future, if you are going post something obviously off-topic (like this post for example), it might behoove you to click the "No Score +1 Bonus" since that probably is the score that it deserves.
Good point, but when does a bot get a chance to read or agree to Napster's TOS?
There is nothing in their protocol that sends the bot Napster's TOS, nor is their any request in the protocol that asks whether or not the user actually agrees to the TOS. Without these things in their protocol, NetPD could argue that they never saw nor agreed to Napster's TOS.
Not to the RIAA.
Nope, it doesn't convince me. The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis. It's up to the individual artist to agree to those provisions. I don't see anything wrong with that. No one could force them to sign such a contract. Here's a quote:
Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.
or try this one, if that didn't convince you.
Again, this doesn't mean anything. PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them. Also, $5,000 dollars is chump change to a representative, and would not cause someone to embrace a policy that they don't believe in. However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
There is a huge difference between a database of phone numbers and a piece of music. A database of public information doesn't have the same protections as a copyrighted work.
Also, I don't think you are giving all the facts of the case because there have been cases where a company has gotten in trouble for wholesale copying of a competitor's database. If you want more information, there have been several articles on Slashdot about this issue.
The bottom line is that a courts ruling's on a database protection case will not have any bearing on mp3.com's case.
Wow! What a great response. I think you addressed the issue perfectly.
:)
You are probably right. But could you give an example where statements 1-4 don't imply #5:
1) A person is distributing someone else's copyrighted work
2) They are distributing the work in a way that fair use doesn't apply
3) The creator of the work doesn't want their work distributed in the way the person is distributing it
4) The person continues to distribute the work
5) The person is considered to be breaking the law
If statements 1-4 necessarily imply #5 , then it seems to me the copyright holders have control over how their work is being distributed.
I would consider a hypothetical country to have control over a person's religion if a citizen was punished for practicing another religion. Would you consider this country to have control over religion?
The distribution of copyrighted work is analogous to my hypothetical country's control over religion. The people of the United States are punished if they distribute a person's copyrighted work against the wishes of the copyright holder (fair use issues aside). So, I would argue that the copyright holders do have control over the way in which their work is distributed
Perhaps your definition of control is different then mine, but I think the threat of getting sued for punitive damages is a very effective means of controlling distribution, just as the fear of being punished in a country for practicing the wrong religion is an effective means of controlling the religion of its people.