www.archive.org (and variously named predecessors) is "prior art" when it comes to storing huge amounts of electronic data.
Isn't the phrase "prior art" only used in patent law?
So, if archive.org is indeed prior art, this only means that no one should be able to patent the business method of archiving the Internet.
(Maybe except archive.org, but they have probably been practicing that business method for so long that the patenting window of opportunity has expired.)
I'm not sure why you bring this up in a discussion of copyright.
but moving video over from the sunk cost that is the cable network we already have in place is going to be too costly and to me seems dangerous to the Internet as we know it.
I'm in. Where can I upload my wedding video to the cable tubes?
Moving video data over the Internet buys us Public Access: anyone with a video on their computer can "speak" to the entire world and have a chance at getting heard.
A lot of Public Access stuff is crap; another big lot of it is of limited interest. But(!), catering to niche interests is A Good Thing; I'm not in South Korea (so I don't get their TV stations broadcast to me), yet I get to watch Starcraft matches ---> me happy:)
If you don't watch Starcraft, consider your [pv]odcasts; would any of them have been shown on the Plain Old Television(/Radio) System? Yet they exist on the Internet. The hosts like producing, the bandwidth sponsors (and/or donating listeners) like to pay for it, and the listeners like listening to it: it's a benefit. Would you rather we forgo that benefit?
(I assume (1) not; or (2) for a good reason. Let's hear it...)
I'm always amazed when large shops have no power savings features enabled. A lot of it has to do with the inability to manage power saving features from within Group Policy.
If it's only 5%, set the cap just below where they are and only punish the *actual* problem children...or better yet, don't 'cap' but rate limit.
Why? Why must the heaviest users per se be punished for using what they bought?
You'll always have some asymmetry in the use of bandwidth. Why not just charge people what the Internet actually costs*, and let them use it as much as they care to pay for?
(* plus a reasonable profit)
Oh right, I know the answer: the company exists not to fulfill societal needs and wants, but to move money from customers to shareholders.
Someone should set up a non-profit ISP; in general, non-profit companies rule: you pay less taxes and you don't have to shave off money for shareholder(/owner) profits, so you can offer more competitive prices for equal services (or better services for equal prices).
It's also the kind of company one should want to work for: where you contribution is evaluated not in terms of how much money you can give to the suits, but how useful a service you can provide for society.
things like copyright infringement become criminal in all cases (if the **AA has their way)
Would the RIAA really want that?
I mean, then you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the alleged acts of copyright infringement took place and were performed by the accused person.
Also, it'll be the police's job to do the investigation, and almost no matter how much funding they get, they'll have more important cases to investigate: murders, drugs, terrorism.
'You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.'
Does this mean the DMCA extends to all users of iTunes? Or does it only mean that you can't use iTunes to circumvent technology that prevents or controls access and copying?
Does this make it illegal to rip CDs? Before the intarnets and CD burners, having the music only available on a physical object that you couldn't copy was effectively a copy prevention technology.
The latter is probably a far-fetched interpretation; but look at RIAA lawyers---far fetched seems to fit well inside their modus operandi. On the other hand, if you're outside the US, do you have anyone that are quite as aggressive whom you need to fear?
Does this inclusion of US law also include US case law? Does this make it illegal to use iTunes to produce and sell coffee that's unduly hot (unless it says so on the cup)?
Anyone knows some cases dealing with similar wordings which "exports law"?
Now, should they be rolling a saving throw vs. Job Loss?
Of course, if the onus was on the/. editors, note that they were a Cape of Uncriticizability and have damage reduction 1/- against Job Loss. They have to lose their job twice---before DR---to actually get fired; flamed, on the other hand...;-)
(mods with broken irony detectors: the invitation to flame the eds is what I like to call a joke:p)
And don't forget to turn off the scheduled event to turn the service back on. And don't forget to do it all over again every time you install/update anything by Google.
No problem, put it in a shell script, and run it from cron every minute.
Finding the windows equivalent of that is left as an exercise for the reader;-)
The above allows three connections in a 5 minute period to port 22. After that it rejects any further connection attempts until the 5 minute timer is up.
Exactly what does this mean? Is it
handlepkt(pkt) { if num_rows(SELECT * FROM failed_connection_attempts as row WHERE pkt.srcip == row.srcip && first_packet_time > now minus 5 minutes) >= 3 then drop connection else continue handling pkt }
I'd say Apple's approach has to be viewed more as a security feature than an anti-competitive fair trade violation.
Why? Particularly, why more?
As far as I can tell, Apple's concern for your security are solely your interpretation.
It might be a usability decision made by Apple. It is undeniably simpler and easier to understand when you can't have applications running in the background.
Given Apple's history, I would think that "We want to provide fewer but more usable features" is the simplest explanation for this particular design choice.
ISTR Apple's offering being the first to die in pwn2own. It's a stretch to take this as evidence that Apple doesn't value security, or doesn't value it as much as usability, but:
Probably is too much a power user the one able to install the package "apt-spy" which will build a sources.list for you based on bandwith probes, isn't it?
Hey, thanks for mentioning the apt-spy trick---this praticular power user didn't know about it.
And if it works so great, why don't I get it and its associated shorter download times by deafult? Then I don't have to spend time on that...
Also, If I bask in thy leetness will you consider the usability benefits of not asking the user too many questions, especially when they can be answered at the cost of a little bandwidth and CPU time?
I don't know of any case law. I don't think the law written in the books take bittorrent into account.
So, my (uneducated: IANAL) guess is that it'll come down to the arguments presented in some case by the two opposing lawyers.
One could argue that the user is guilty of distribtion for each sent chunk; or for each IP address that one or more chunks are sent to; or for each unique (IP address, user-agent string), or (IP, TCP port), or per floor(chunks sent / chunk count of full file), or...
I am no way saying that American democracy is perfect, but the most reason why two parties are the only actual choices is because of voters being stupid and not trying to vote for third parties, I mean, for real, voting for them.
Let's say my friend's a right-winger. There are two right-wing parties. There's one left-wing party. The country is 45% left, 35% mid-right, 20% far-right. He votes for the far-right guy. The left-wing guy wins, and he gets policies that bug the shit out of him.
What's a rational person going to do? Keep voting far right? Or vote mid-right and get policies that are closer to what they want? If you can get an awful thing and a sub-perfect thing, do you choose the awful thing? Seriously?
The American system converges towards a two-party system. It's not voter stupidity to ask for the thing one can get which most closely approximates what one really wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Dalai Linux!
It really whips the Llama's ass!
www.archive.org (and variously named predecessors) is "prior art" when it comes to storing huge amounts of electronic data.
Isn't the phrase "prior art" only used in patent law?
So, if archive.org is indeed prior art, this only means that no one should be able to patent the business method of archiving the Internet.
(Maybe except archive.org, but they have probably been practicing that business method for so long that the patenting window of opportunity has expired.)
I'm not sure why you bring this up in a discussion of copyright.
but moving video over from the sunk cost that is the cable network we already have in place is going to be too costly and to me seems dangerous to the Internet as we know it.
I'm in. Where can I upload my wedding video to the cable tubes?
Moving video data over the Internet buys us Public Access: anyone with a video on their computer can "speak" to the entire world and have a chance at getting heard.
A lot of Public Access stuff is crap; another big lot of it is of limited interest. But(!), catering to niche interests is A Good Thing; I'm not in South Korea (so I don't get their TV stations broadcast to me), yet I get to watch Starcraft matches ---> me happy :)
If you don't watch Starcraft, consider your [pv]odcasts; would any of them have been shown on the Plain Old Television(/Radio) System? Yet they exist on the Internet. The hosts like producing, the bandwidth sponsors (and/or donating listeners) like to pay for it, and the listeners like listening to it: it's a benefit. Would you rather we forgo that benefit?
(I assume (1) not; or (2) for a good reason. Let's hear it...)
openbox --replace &
:p
Even the centrist right-wing is like "wtf" here in the USA.
Is that the Democrats? ;-)
You need a Socialist People's Party. [We have one in Denmark, and "it works", put briefly]
I'm always amazed when large shops have no power savings features enabled. A lot of it has to do with the inability to manage power saving features from within Group Policy.
So what? Can't you just write a shell script? ...
;-)
If it's only 5%, set the cap just below where they are and only punish the *actual* problem children...or better yet, don't 'cap' but rate limit.
Why? Why must the heaviest users per se be punished for using what they bought?
You'll always have some asymmetry in the use of bandwidth. Why not just charge people what the Internet actually costs*, and let them use it as much as they care to pay for?
(* plus a reasonable profit)
Oh right, I know the answer: the company exists not to fulfill societal needs and wants, but to move money from customers to shareholders.
Someone should set up a non-profit ISP; in general, non-profit companies rule: you pay less taxes and you don't have to shave off money for shareholder(/owner) profits, so you can offer more competitive prices for equal services (or better services for equal prices).
It's also the kind of company one should want to work for: where you contribution is evaluated not in terms of how much money you can give to the suits, but how useful a service you can provide for society.
</young-and-naive>
Truly, there is never a time to quote Leia. Not even on Slashdot. Truly.
So this is how Star Wars quoting dies: with thundering applause.
"Clean" has it's place, but primarily when it has to do with food and equipment!
Keyboards are not meant to be eaten!
Per subject: it's guys like Jack Thompson who give lawyers a bad name.
He has lost his mission, he has lost his friends, and what does he do---piss away the last he had.
Truly this is the time to quote Leia: the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.
Soon, all Jack will have left is an empty clenched fist, which he will be free to wave at anyone passing by his soap box.
May it be put on a deserted island.
Now, let's all play a game with tits and guns! :D
things like copyright infringement become criminal in all cases (if the **AA has their way)
Would the RIAA really want that?
I mean, then you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the alleged acts of copyright infringement took place and were performed by the accused person.
Also, it'll be the police's job to do the investigation, and almost no matter how much funding they get, they'll have more important cases to investigate: murders, drugs, terrorism.
(IANAL)
Wouldn't you love for there to be some sort of repercussions for bad programming?
Oh but there is: you get your name made (in)famous on thedailywtf.com
'You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.'
Does this mean the DMCA extends to all users of iTunes? Or does it only mean that you can't use iTunes to circumvent technology that prevents or controls access and copying?
Does this make it illegal to rip CDs? Before the intarnets and CD burners, having the music only available on a physical object that you couldn't copy was effectively a copy prevention technology.
The latter is probably a far-fetched interpretation; but look at RIAA lawyers---far fetched seems to fit well inside their modus operandi. On the other hand, if you're outside the US, do you have anyone that are quite as aggressive whom you need to fear?
Does this inclusion of US law also include US case law? Does this make it illegal to use iTunes to produce and sell coffee that's unduly hot (unless it says so on the cup)?
Anyone knows some cases dealing with similar wordings which "exports law"?
Someone, somewhere had a fact-checking fail.
Now, should they be rolling a saving throw vs. Job Loss?
Of course, if the onus was on the /. editors, note that they were a Cape of Uncriticizability and have damage reduction 1/- against Job Loss. They have to lose their job twice---before DR---to actually get fired; flamed, on the other hand... ;-)
(mods with broken irony detectors: the invitation to flame the eds is what I like to call a joke :p)
In the department of "clobbering microsoft" the one organisation that's really doing some damage is microsoft.
It's really just a trick.
First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight themselves, then they win!
Quite clever of them, really.
which by this point will have morphed into an entire Linux distribution which, unfortunately, lacks decent software update capabilities.
Yeah, but does it run emacs?
And don't forget to turn off the scheduled event to turn the service back on. And don't forget to do it all over again every time you install/update anything by Google.
No problem, put it in a shell script, and run it from cron every minute.
Finding the windows equivalent of that is left as an exercise for the reader ;-)
The above allows three connections in a 5 minute period to port 22. After that it rejects any further connection attempts until the 5 minute timer is up.
Exactly what does this mean? Is it
handlepkt(pkt) { if num_rows(SELECT * FROM failed_connection_attempts as row WHERE pkt.srcip == row.srcip && first_packet_time > now minus 5 minutes) >= 3 then drop connection else continue handling pkt }
?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to code with a beautiful naked woman throwing herself at you?
No.
You say no and are (currently) at +5 Funny. Another poster says yes and is at +3 Funny.
The difference in moderation is... telling.
I'd say Apple's approach has to be viewed more as a security feature than an anti-competitive fair trade violation.
Why? Particularly, why more?
As far as I can tell, Apple's concern for your security are solely your interpretation.
It might be a usability decision made by Apple. It is undeniably simpler and easier to understand when you can't have applications running in the background.
Given Apple's history, I would think that "We want to provide fewer but more usable features" is the simplest explanation for this particular design choice.
ISTR Apple's offering being the first to die in pwn2own. It's a stretch to take this as evidence that Apple doesn't value security, or doesn't value it as much as usability, but:
I think it's mostly a usability decision.
Probably is too much a power user the one able to install the package "apt-spy" which will build a sources.list for you based on bandwith probes, isn't it?
Hey, thanks for mentioning the apt-spy trick---this praticular power user didn't know about it.
And if it works so great, why don't I get it and its associated shorter download times by deafult? Then I don't have to spend time on that...
Also, If I bask in thy leetness will you consider the usability benefits of not asking the user too many questions, especially when they can be answered at the cost of a little bandwidth and CPU time?
I don't know of any case law. I don't think the law written in the books take bittorrent into account.
So, my (uneducated: IANAL) guess is that it'll come down to the arguments presented in some case by the two opposing lawyers.
One could argue that the user is guilty of distribtion for each sent chunk; or for each IP address that one or more chunks are sent to; or for each unique (IP address, user-agent string), or (IP, TCP port), or per floor(chunks sent / chunk count of full file), or...
Check what the courts say on this.
Yeah, they should be wearing a condom!
I am no way saying that American democracy is perfect, but the most reason why two parties are the only actual choices is because of voters being stupid and not trying to vote for third parties, I mean, for real, voting for them.
Let's say my friend's a right-winger. There are two right-wing parties. There's one left-wing party. The country is 45% left, 35% mid-right, 20% far-right. He votes for the far-right guy. The left-wing guy wins, and he gets policies that bug the shit out of him.
What's a rational person going to do? Keep voting far right? Or vote mid-right and get policies that are closer to what they want? If you can get an awful thing and a sub-perfect thing, do you choose the awful thing? Seriously?
The American system converges towards a two-party system. It's not voter stupidity to ask for the thing one can get which most closely approximates what one really wants.
The princess's got a hot pair of... parenthesis.