I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg,.etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal.
If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue them for defamation of character because they would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile.
Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold.
I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg,.etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal. If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue you for defamation of character because you would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile. Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that you wish to uphold.
I have many problems with your rebuttal, and took the time to write a rebuttal to your rebuttal:). I have used Napster and find it a tantalizingly easy way to find and get music. However, unlike you, I have no illusions using Napster to distribute music is legal or right. Anyway, I don't feel like composing a version of my response in Slashdot's HTML code, so I'm just going to provide a link to it.
I think you've just coded youself an infinite loop. Anyway, my first program ever was copied from a book using Apple IIe BASIC:). I remember being so suprised upon seeing the output.
If Microsoft's Word 95 and Word 97 document formats were XML based, there is no guarantee that you could seamlessly down convert a Word 97 document to a Word 95 document. What if your Word 97 document uses a few features that are specific or changed in Word 97? The XML converter would have to approximate the Word 95 equivalent and would probably botch the job, the same way the existing 97->95 converter did. The bottom line is that the file format changed between Word 95 and Word 97, and it doesn't matter how the format is stored, things will go wrong when you attempt to down covert.
In addition, XML only effects how the file is stored on its disk. Internally, Microsoft Word will represent your document the same regardless of whether its stored as XML or in a binary format. If it wants to create a binary version of your document, Word will simply write your document's raw internal data structures to the disk; if it wants to create an XML version of the document, it will first convert its internal binary version to XML and write it to disk. The only case where an XML based file format is better is for third parties who don't know the internal structure of Word's file formats, but still want to read its files. For Microsoft, it has intimate knowledge of its file formats, so storing it as XML gives no advantage to Microsoft applications
However, you don't need a broadband connection to the internet to gain access to all of your friends CD's. The amount of data transfered to mymp3.com to verify each CD is extremely small, so any connection would work.
Just because he is ACCUSED of committing copyright infringement of a Lucas sound effect does not mean that he should ignore people stealing and distributing his copyrighted music. Though its ironic that both suits were filed on the same day, one suit does not invalidate the other.
Hypothetical example: If the Free Software Foundation was being sued by someone for copyright infringement (perhaps they accidentally included code that they shouldn't have in a distribution), would it be hypocritical for them to sue a company like Microsoft it they believed that Microsoft was using copyrighted free software code in a closed source product?
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be foolproof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
What is most disturbing about the article was the cavelier attitude shown by CyberPatrol's spokeswoman. Instead of vigorously asserting that this was an oversight that would be corrected, she stated, "We have a regular process of reviewing sites that are submitted, and if they meet our criteria they are added. If some sites are included, it's probably because someone submitted them." Parents utilizing this service need be warned that the decisions regarding the appropriateness of a website are not based on whether a site contains "indecent" or illicit material, but are based on the particular political philosophy of the makers of the software and the people who submit links to add to their database. Censure ware turns the world wide web from a place that allows free discussion of both sides of an issue to a place where only the views that coincide with a select group of editors are presented.
This response to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.
Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.
By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.
Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?
This move by Lucas is motivated purely by greed. He tells everyone that a DVD will not be released for 4-5 years and that we should all go out and buy the VHS copy bsecause he needed time to create the perfect DVD. Now, after all of his fans have bought the VHS version of his movie, he is now saying that a DVD will made. This is completely outrageous, and no one should buy this version.
Many people believed Lucas, and bought the VHS version under the false impression that a DVD version was not forthcoming. What Lucas should be required to do is offer all the poor saps who bought the VHS version an option to upgrade their copy to the superior DVD format.
I imagine that in 4-5 years Lucas is going to come out with a special edition DVD/VHS box set with all Star Wars movies. This means that if you listen to the marketing machine at Lucas films, and bought all of the versions of his Star Wars movies you'll have
3 copies of each of Episode's 4-6 (the regular edition, the special edition, and the DVD/VHS Episodes 1-6 special edition).
3 copies of the Phantom Menace (the VHS version, the DVD version, and the DVD/VHS Episodes 1-6 special edition)
2 copies of Episode's 2 and 3 (the regular DVD/VHS version, and the DVD/VHS Episodes 1-6 special edition).
If I did my addition and multiplication right, it means you'll have bought 16 copies of the various Star Wars movies for a total price of of at least $400. Pretty amazing.
Thanks for the reply! Even though no court has ruled on the dynamic linking and IPC issue, what do the powers that be in the free software community feel about these things?
What if I take MaPlay's source code, and package it into a QuickTime component or an ActiveX control that might be called by proprietary closed source programs? If it is packaged as a QuickTime component, programs using QuickTime will think they can use the component like any other component installed in the system, so they will not be violating the GPL.
Does this mean that packaging GPL code intosomething like a QuickTime or Active X component is not allowed since the GPL could be unknowingly violated by programs using QuickTime? Where does the GPL say that this is the case? Does anyone else find it silly that if you package GPL code into a separate program, and then communicate with it from a proprietary program through some sort of IPC, it is okay, but if you package it as a library, and call it from a proprietary program, you are violating the GPL?
What if I "borrow" the executive's hard drive for a little while, and then use my custom version of Linux that doesn't repect Administrative Privileges to install my alternative file system, and then return the hard drive to its computer?
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be foolproof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be full proof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be full proof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
Not only do you have to worry about your car crashing into another car, you now have to worry about the engine itself crashing. I realize that this may lower emissions somewhat, but the crankshaft works so well. Why complicate matters further my incorporating additional electronic circuitry into this fundamental part of the engine. Our cars already contain a huge amount of electronic circuitry, but it is all outside the actual engine. Why start putting electronics inside our engines when the mechanical process in use now works so well.
As you'll see this is nothing more than a bug in an older version of Microsoft's software. The artilce states, While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
Future games could contain a mandatory check to see if they are running on a version of the OS that can play DVD's from all regions. This way, after a while, you will be forced to swap startup CD/DVD's in order to play the latest games. Anyway, I am sure they will come up with some sort incentive program.
By releasing it under the Mozilla license, SUN is free to take any changes and bug fixes and place them in closed source products. The GPL doesn't allow this
Obviously, this will not mean the end to magazines like PC gamers and their ilk. The legislative branch of the US government enacts laws, and it's the court's responsibility to step in and determine the constitutionality of any laws that they enact. So please don't be afraid that if this law passes, US citizens' constitutional rights will be taken away, because they can't.
Moreover, he said, some of the perceived problems with the legislation are unenforceable. Critics, for example, have said the law would allow companies to suppress critical reviews of their projects. Judges would consider such conditions "unconscionable," which in the language of contract law means they would never stand up in court.
Also, please open your eyes about the other previsions of the law. If click licenses actually had teeth and companies could ensure that you could not use their software if you returned it, stores would not be afraid to accept returns.
Lastly, this law will end up being a good thing for free software. Instead of buying software from XYZ company who includes a very restrictive license, I'll use and improve free (as in increased freedom) software instead.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg, .etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal.
If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue them for defamation of character because they would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile.
Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold.
No, when you actually request the file, you make a direct connection to the machine that has the file on it. It's just like Napster in this regard.
I believe the is truly a bad thing. Assuming if someone searchs for "schoolgirl.jpg", "little girls.jpg", "younggirlxxx.jpg", young-tits.jpg, .etc are necessarily looking for pedophilia is wrong and quite possibly illegal. If I saw my IP address on their Wall of Shame after searching for a innocuous term like the ones above clearly labeling me as someone who is looking for child pornography, I would sue you for defamation of character because you would have no proof that I actually desired child pornography, yet still went ahead and labeled my search as shameful and me a pedophile. Also, they really should not consider themselves holier then thou when they clearly advocate Internet users to break the law by distributing copyrighted music. Remember, outside of the Fair Use portion of our copyright law, an author of a copyrighted work has the sole desecration of how their work is distributed. They can't pick and choose the laws that you wish to uphold.
I have many problems with your rebuttal, and took the time to write a rebuttal to your rebuttal :). I have used Napster and find it a tantalizingly easy way to find and get music. However, unlike you, I have no illusions using Napster to distribute music is legal or right. Anyway, I don't feel like composing a version of my response in Slashdot's HTML code, so I'm just going to provide a link to it.
My Response to your Rebuttal
I too cheerfully await a response from you.
I think you've just coded youself an infinite loop. Anyway, my first program ever was copied from a book using Apple IIe BASIC :). I remember being so suprised upon seeing the output.
-EJ
If Microsoft's Word 95 and Word 97 document formats were XML based, there is no guarantee that you could seamlessly down convert a Word 97 document to a Word 95 document. What if your Word 97 document uses a few features that are specific or changed in Word 97? The XML converter would have to approximate the Word 95 equivalent and would probably botch the job, the same way the existing 97->95 converter did. The bottom line is that the file format changed between Word 95 and Word 97, and it doesn't matter how the format is stored, things will go wrong when you attempt to down covert.
In addition, XML only effects how the file is stored on its disk. Internally, Microsoft Word will represent your document the same regardless of whether its stored as XML or in a binary format. If it wants to create a binary version of your document, Word will simply write your document's raw internal data structures to the disk; if it wants to create an XML version of the document, it will first convert its internal binary version to XML and write it to disk. The only case where an XML based file format is better is for third parties who don't know the internal structure of Word's file formats, but still want to read its files. For Microsoft, it has intimate knowledge of its file formats, so storing it as XML gives no advantage to Microsoft applications
Great Points!
However, you don't need a broadband connection to the internet to gain access to all of your friends CD's. The amount of data transfered to mymp3.com to verify each CD is extremely small, so any connection would work.
And your point is?
Just because he is ACCUSED of committing copyright infringement of a Lucas sound effect does not mean that he should ignore people stealing and distributing his copyrighted music. Though its ironic that both suits were filed on the same day, one suit does not invalidate the other.
Hypothetical example: If the Free Software Foundation was being sued by someone for copyright infringement (perhaps they accidentally included code that they shouldn't have in a distribution), would it be hypocritical for them to sue a company like Microsoft it they believed that Microsoft was using copyrighted free software code in a closed source product?
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be foolproof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
What is most disturbing about the article was the cavelier attitude shown by CyberPatrol's spokeswoman. Instead of vigorously asserting that this was an oversight that would be corrected, she stated, "We have a regular process of reviewing sites that are submitted, and if they meet our criteria they are added. If some sites are included, it's probably because someone submitted them." Parents utilizing this service need be warned that the decisions regarding the appropriateness of a website are not based on whether a site contains "indecent" or illicit material, but are based on the particular political philosophy of the makers of the software and the people who submit links to add to their database. Censure ware turns the world wide web from a place that allows free discussion of both sides of an issue to a place where only the views that coincide with a select group of editors are presented.
This response to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.
Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.
By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.
Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?
Many people believed Lucas, and bought the VHS version under the false impression that a DVD version was not forthcoming. What Lucas should be required to do is offer all the poor saps who bought the VHS version an option to upgrade their copy to the superior DVD format.
I imagine that in 4-5 years Lucas is going to come out with a special edition DVD/VHS box set with all Star Wars movies. This means that if you listen to the marketing machine at Lucas films, and bought all of the versions of his Star Wars movies you'll have
If I did my addition and multiplication right, it means you'll have bought 16 copies of the various Star Wars movies for a total price of of at least $400. Pretty amazing.
Thanks for the reply! Even though no court has ruled on the dynamic linking and IPC issue, what do the powers that be in the free software community feel about these things?
What if I take MaPlay's source code, and package it into a QuickTime component or an ActiveX control that might be called by proprietary closed source programs? If it is packaged as a QuickTime component, programs using QuickTime will think they can use the component like any other component installed in the system, so they will not be violating the GPL.
Does this mean that packaging GPL code intosomething like a QuickTime or Active X component is not allowed since the GPL could be unknowingly violated by programs using QuickTime? Where does the GPL say that this is the case? Does anyone else find it silly that if you package GPL code into a separate program, and then communicate with it from a proprietary program through some sort of IPC, it is okay, but if you package it as a library, and call it from a proprietary program, you are violating the GPL?
What if I "borrow" the executive's hard drive for a little while, and then use my custom version of Linux that doesn't repect Administrative Privileges to install my alternative file system, and then return the hard drive to its computer?
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be foolproof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be full proof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
No, you're wrong. "Netscape programmers are weenies!" is simply used to encrypt certain data travelling back and forth between two Microsoft components. Clearly, Microsoft did not intend for this security method to be full proof; they simply wanted to keep the casual observer from seeing certain data. Here's what Russ cooper said:
While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
Not only do you have to worry about your car crashing into another car, you now have to worry about the engine itself crashing. I realize that this may lower emissions somewhat, but the crankshaft works so well. Why complicate matters further my incorporating additional electronic circuitry into this fundamental part of the engine. Our cars already contain a huge amount of electronic circuitry, but it is all outside the actual engine. Why start putting electronics inside our engines when the mechanical process in use now works so well.
Please read this ZDNet story: /000414/15/doubt-cast-on
http://news.excite.com/news/zd
As you'll see this is nothing more than a bug in an older version of Microsoft's software. The artilce states, While reports focused on a phrase -- "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" or the backwards spelling of "Netscape engineers are weenies!" -- which was present in the DLL, that's a red herring, said Cooper, adding that the phrase is not a password, but a cypher key used to scramble the address of Web pages requested by users..
Future games could contain a mandatory check to see if they are running on a version of the OS that can play DVD's from all regions. This way, after a while, you will be forced to swap startup CD/DVD's in order to play the latest games. Anyway, I am sure they will come up with some sort incentive program.
Quick question: What is APM? Thanks!
By releasing it under the Mozilla license, SUN is free to take any changes and bug fixes and place them in closed source products. The GPL doesn't allow this
Please moderate the above post up. Very funny!
Obviously, this will not mean the end to magazines like PC gamers and their ilk. The legislative branch of the US government enacts laws, and it's the court's responsibility to step in and determine the constitutionality of any laws that they enact. So please don't be afraid that if this law passes, US citizens' constitutional rights will be taken away, because they can't.
Moreover, he said, some of the perceived problems with the legislation are unenforceable. Critics, for example, have said the law would allow companies to suppress critical reviews of their projects.
Judges would consider such conditions "unconscionable," which in the language of contract law means they would never stand up in court.
Also, please open your eyes about the other previsions of the law. If click licenses actually had teeth and companies could ensure that you could not use their software if you returned it, stores would not be afraid to accept returns.
Lastly, this law will end up being a good thing for free software. Instead of buying software from XYZ company who includes a very restrictive license, I'll use and improve free (as in increased freedom) software instead.